[yusina]

I'm not sure where all your mentions of the Bay Area come from. I'm writing from a European perspective, and in all major European cities you find homelessness prevalent. And it's not pretty.

A millionaire in the Swiss forest is not homeless. Choosing to live in a tent is not homelessness. To me, the term "homeless" implies a lack of alternatives. As soon as it's a choice, to see romantic sunrises or fall asleep to ocean waves or whatever, that is, if calles "homeless", to me, a misuse of the term. It's a nice life, I've done it too and loved it, but I'd not start to call it "homelessness" and place myself into the same category as the poor souls sleeping under a bridge.

Of course it's a spectrum. Some folks have been forced out of their home and are living out of a car while finding a new place. That's homelessness. For some of those, it's temporary. For others, it's a spiral into misery, next is to lose the job, having a mental health issue, soon the car breaks down, and eventually they are sleeping under a bridge. Insubstantial of whether it's in SF, Berlin, Sao Paulo or Tokyo. Similarities to a concious choice are only superficial. Once it's a choice, it's outside the spectrum and is doing the fight against homelessness a disservice.

[diggan]

> To me, the term "homeless" implies a lack of alternatives

Why does it imply that? Many homeless have alternatives, but they aren't either applicable, or the person don't simply want that. Just as one example, a homeless person with a dog could probably get rid of their dog so they can stay at the homeless-shelter, but instead chose their close bond with their dog over that. Does that suddenly mean the person isn't homeless?

Another (personal example) is when I first arrived to Barcelona and barely could afford food. I spent two nights sleeping outside in the city instead of paying hostel fees, so technically I had the choice of spending a bit of money so I had roof for the night. Lets say that situation was longer instead of just two nights, would I not count as homeless then because I could have spent my money differently?

[metalforever]

The homeless shelter situations in the bay area have waitlists. Some of the encampments also have waitlists (!). A lot of the homeless actually work in the bay area, some of them far away. Being in line in time to get a spot on a shelter is a task by itself and can be mutually exclusive with working. There is so much at play here you do not understand well. If we assume you are well meaning, you need to know that some politicians are not telling the truth about the true state of things.

[diggan]

> There is so much at play here you do not understand well

Yeah, I mean I don't live in the bay area, nor have I ever visited the place. My experience is mainly about homelessness in Spain I guess.

So whatever you think I've got from American politics, I can ensure you I haven't and it's entirely based on on-the-ground experience where I live.

Besides saying "You don't know the truth", is there any specific you can respond to from my comment you feel is incorrect or you disagree with?

[marci]

- people living out of their car (homelessness)

- Vanlife (not homelessness)

- living in a tent out of necessity (homelessness)

- living in a tent for an experiment/fun/holidays (not homelessness)

[ryeats]

Im still having trouble understanding why this destinction matters here. Your saying there is a difference between making choices that resulted in homeless being the only option and choosing homelessness because its the best available option?

[marci]

If at any point you can find a place of your choosing to rent within a few days without any hassle, you're not homeless. You're not in the category of person that could need help.

> Your saying there is a difference between making choices that resulted in homeless being the only option and choosing homelessness because its the best available option?

Absolutely. For example, if a city wants to build systems to help them, one group would need counseling, temporary housing, while the other would rather haver access to public showers, a dispensary, and another group none of that.

Let say you're in a place that attracts a lot of backpacker/vanlife, whatever you build there you would make people pay for it. There would not be any food bank close to that place.

[collingreen]

No, I think they are trying to say it would be helpful in the larger discussion of homelessness to have more nuance than just "not in a house" because, like both "sides" in the thread above keep hitting each other with, it's a wide, complicated, and nuanced topic.

The folks pushing for different words seems to be coming from a fear that grouping all "not sleeping in a home" into one bucket risks having stories like this (opt-in, mentally capable, not-in-deep-danger, safety net) make ALL homelessness seem easier or safer or a choice, which is a common pushback for helping people in modern politics (get a job, shouldn't have had sex/been dressed that way, shouldn't have tried drugs, etc). There is also a trauma of so much bad faith out there in the world right now making this kind of point implicitly on purpose (along the same vein as "I'm just asking questions").

They aren't phrasing it that succinctly but that's my good faith reading.

The holy war on the other side is "don't project your XYZ on my story" and "don't put words in my mouth" which seem valid to me given the context; I think someone should be able to tell their own story in good faith without being responsible for how other use it, within reason, which is likely not a terribly controversial take.

I personally see points in both sides and mostly think this is an issue because of the choice of venue. I think it isn't helpful to start an argument/debate without agreeing on what to argue/debate about and we're seeing that here (plus the topic being a proxy argument for a group of underlying political/social philosophy values not directly being discussed).

[yusina]

Exactly. Thank you.

[potato3732842]

Where does "vanlife because I have no better options" fall? It isn't black and white.

[marci]

Where "tent because I have no better options" fall.

[vehemenz]

I think most people understand this, but in reality many homeless do have a choice in their living situation. This idea that they can’t possibly have chosen their life reduces the homeless to human-like primates with no agency. Often they have a sense of personal dignity and are capable of making their own decisions, despite how destitute we see their situation.

[knuppar]

Have you talked to homeless people?

My experience is from São Paulo and Seattle but entertaining this notion that it's a thought-out choice full of intention is wild. Most homeless people just want some shade of stability and would leave that situation any day any time if given resources.

They are not primates with 0 agency but most societies don't really give them a lot of options.