Hacker News Reader

Comment by samstave | Hacker News Reader

I did the math previously on the numbers that SF put out on the homless support they pay out per homeless person; $25k per year / homeless...

yet the services are abysmal!

One of the things I've long thought would be three areas to address homelessness;

1. create "hygiene trucks" - they are semi trailers that are mobile that would provide showers, bathrooms, 'scrubs' style basic clothing.

2. container based micro housing, divide the containers into ~3 rooms.

3. "standard pantry" -- give them a basic standard pantry which has the ingredients or basic meals (a step up from MREs)

4. basic min-wage jobs with initiatives like this with Amazon where the co gets a tax break - but must provide basic skills like cleaning, organizing etc.

Then -- FOCUS ON MENTAL HEALTH

Mental health degenerates REALLY fast for those that dont have the above basics.

NO PETS.

View on HN

1. create "hygiene trucks" - they are semi trailers that are mobile that would provide showers, bathrooms, 'scrubs' style basic clothing.

There is a startup in SF doing exactly this. I've seen their trucks around the Tenderloin. http://lavamae.org/

[replying to dpark's child comment here] How is this better than a permanent facility? It's got to be way more expensive to build this into a truck.

One reason is that the public bathrooms around the Tenderloin/Civic Center are just constantly fucked up with needles stuck in the drains and other issues, requiring constant maintenance. Most of the time I walk by one it's closed or actively being worked on. With the truck they can probably manage and control it a lot better.

You could get most of that benefit from just having a guard posted inside a permanent/stationary public bathroom. Heck, that guard could be homeless themselves, paid a bit, and people would jump to take the job. (Vancouver's public bathrooms near the homeless area on Hastings & Main have exactly this setup.)

This exists in SF, it's called called "Pit Stop SF": http://sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1805 and costs over $1mm a year according to the Chron: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/City-...

> 1. create "hygiene trucks" - they are semi trailers that are mobile that would provide showers, bathrooms, 'scrubs' style basic clothing.

How is this better than a permanent facility? It's got to be way more expensive to build this into a truck.

> 2. container based micro housing, divide the containers into ~3 rooms.

Containers are not an affordable way to build housing. Shipping containers converted into housing is a fetish for rich people with architects.

> FOCUS ON MENTAL HEALTH

Yep. Mental health problems are highly correlated with homelessness. Everything from depression to schizophrenia to substance abuse. Often multiple issues combined.

> NO PETS.

This eliminates a huge number of homeless. Many homeless desperately cling to their pets because they have no one else.

You might get beyond not in my backyard with a truck.

Maybe, but if you can build container housing in someone's backyard, I'm pretty sure you can get a washroom in there, too.

I think the previous poster was referring to NIMBYs[1] (people who oppose something because of its proximity to them, even if it's a necessity).

A fair amount of people wouldn't want a homeless shelter or washroom next to their house, but a mobile truck could have the same benefit while placating the NIMBYs.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

I understand that. Item 2 on the list was container-based micro housing units, though, which are going to have to be built/installed somewhere. If you can get the permits and land to install micro housing units, you can most certainly get permits to install shower and was facilities. In fact you are required to do so. You cannot housing housing without plumbing.

It's super expensive -- IIRC, Lava Mae was quoting $1 million to convert one bus into a bathroom and run it for a year. That said, getting approvals in SF to build a permanent facility is non-trivial and expensive in its own right, and it would only serve homeless in the immediate area (one of the features of Lava Mae's approach is that they put the truck in different parts of the city on different days of the week).

No pets = no homeless in your program.

People like respect and affection much more than they like food and heat.

Why no pets?

Agreed...

I'd go further, especially in the case of a company scaling in the billions:...provide basic housing near order processing centers, or any other place where unskilled labor is needed, or semi-skilled labor can be offered training...with whatever amenities are necessary for employees to be productive--transportation and a reliable phone are huge deals for a homeless person...

It's not enough to say "I'll hire the homeless, give them a chance" just to make the news...it's much better to say "I'm committed to doing whatever it really takes to put someone back on their feet, provided they are willing to work "

> It's not enough to say "I'll hire the homeless, give them a chance" just to make the news...it's much better to say "I'm committed to doing whatever it really takes to put someone back on their feet, provided they are willing to work "

If that's the price of admission, Amazon will probably decide it's not worth the trouble and abandon the project, and the homeless people you're concerned about will have even fewer opportunities.

That is the true price of admission...a company, scaling in the billions, can opt out if they think their initial efforts were not productive...

If you are in a position to help others and you do not that says something very profound about you...effective benevolence is hard work...always has been...

That's nice, but it's not going to convince Amazon to turn itself into a full-bore social services agency. It's job offers or nothing; which do you pick?

You mean like the dorms foxconn provides?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com