7 ms·

Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

64 points by coltr 12y ago

theorique 12y ago
Seems to be largely a means of pushing the problem elsewhere. "Um, could you please be poor some place else? This is Palo Alto - we have a prosperous reputation to uphold."
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  Police in Long Beach, CA does this. When they find a homeless person sleeping on the streets or generally causing trouble, they put them in the patrol car, drive them to a neighboring city and "let them go." Now it's that other city's problem, but that doesn't matter because Long Beach has one fewer homeless person to worry about! (This place is awful for many other reasons, but this just reflects the general mindset.)
- mbillie1 12y ago
  It is, but that's nothing new. The cops in NYC have been known to give the homeless a McDonalds meal and a bus ticket up the coast. I'm curious what the prevalence of work-from-home software jobs will do, over time, to the ridiculous swell in cost-of-everything in the bay area though. I realize that, like Manhattan for finance, there's some status associated with being in tech in the bay area, as well as legitimate opportunities. But there are high-paying tech jobs in places where you can live much more comfortably.
  - theorique 12y ago
    Many people want to be where other people are - the center of the action for their particular universe. They vote with their money. You're right that status is a big part of it. Manhattanites look down on the "bridge and tunnel" crowd.
m_d 12y ago
Does Palo Alto have regulations regarding minimum apartment size? If not, lower-cost microapartment complexes might make a good long-term investment.
- ilyanep 12y ago
  Good luck building anything in Palo Alto.
  - m_d 12y ago
    I'm not familiar with the real estate situation there beyond "people are being priced out of Palo Alto". Is the city averse to all new construction or just lower-cost housing?
    - praptak 12y ago
      Google "Palo Alto NIMBY".
      - rosser 12y ago
        AIUI, the NIMBY-ism in Palo Alto is second only to that in San Francisco.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      both
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Well if Palo Alto is willing to spend $250,000 they could pave a bit of parking lot and put in a bathroom/shower unit like exists in campgrounds. But that seems a bit extreme. The guy profiled was tech worker for 30 years, but allegedly "not good with money." If you're in your 20's don't be that guy. Live within your means, save for those future days.
- fvrghl 12y ago
  As a 20-something, does anyone have any advice me for or know of resources where I can learn about financial management?
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    This seems somewhat helpful: esplanner.com It's, among other things, a consumption smoothing modeler (i.e. make sure that you don't oversave or overspend). It will tell you about how much you need to be saving each year, given a bunch of variables like how much you make, how much you plan to make, etc.
  - option 12y ago
    Have a look here http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started
  - bmj 12y ago
    My advice: * Save at least 10% of your income. "At least," because you want both long-term/retirement savings, and a "rainy day" fund for unexpected expenses. * Minimize your debt. If you have lots of debt, prioritize paying it down. * If you aren't good at the first two items, create a budget, and stick to it. Also, if you want professional advice, ask around and find a good financial adviser, particularly if you are looking for an investment strategy for long-term savings.
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    To start simple, make sure you don't spend more than you earn (excluding exceptional circumstances). A simple table, GNU cash or even pen + paper are enough for that: record every transaction you make, no matter what tools you use, as long as it's reasonably low-friction. I used a simple table with columns date, account, value, purpose. "account" helps getting a sum total for each bank account and for cash, to check how my table compares with reality (ie. bank statements and the content of my wallet). Simply by tracking money flow you already learn a lot about your habits, while collecting data that helps you optimize it if necessary. I also found that making spending a conscious matter like that already reduced impulse buys. After that, the other ideas are good ones - and you'll know if they're achievable for you and how.
sologoub 12y ago
It's very unfortunate, but the main character also an interesting study in skill set relevance and retirement planning (or lack thereof). He's a software engineer in SV... By all the common stereotypes, he should be in the winner circle and living the life. Agism is definitely an issue in tech, but it's likely that he is not up to date with some of the more modern languages or techniques, resulting in lack of employment. If he lived there since the 70's, he could have had a paid off place. (Typical mortgage is 30 years term.) If not save by paying off the mortgage, he could have also saved via 401k or something similar. It probably never really occurred to him that employment might be so hard to come by or that things would get so pricey. Coming from an eastern european background, I was conditioned that if you have a paid off place, you can withstand a lot of up and down swings in the economy and the world. As a society, we should really be focusing on helping people properly market themselves and acquire/update skills needed AND re-enforcing the need to plan for the future. Not really sure how we'd go about implementing the latter without annoying people though...
- muzz 12y ago
  > Agism is definitely an issue in tech, but it's likely that he is not up to date with some of the more modern languages or techniques Why do you suspect that he is likely not up date? The first part of your sentence mentions ageism, although the second part sounds a lot like it.
clarky07 12y ago
I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless in other places in America. It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE. All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down.
- timmaah 12y ago
  Agreed on both points. Kicking him out seems kind of harsh since it has been his home for decades, but is there a real solution? He can't afford to live there anymore. There are tons of LTVA (Long term visitor areas) in southern CA and AZ that he can spend months in his RV for under $200.
- mcknz 12y ago
  Perhaps you're right in his particular instance. But the issue is the same even for those who end up homeless through no fault of their own. Moving for the homeless has many hidden costs, including the time and effort required to rebuild the local network of support one has built over many years.
  - sentenza 12y ago
    Also, in my experience, moving is expensive. At least if you want to take more stuff than fits into a suitcase. Another thing that bugs me about the moving advice is this: It is good advice for an individual or a family, but it becomes extremely problematic if too many people do it. Many of the places where living expenses are low are also places were the public finances at the local level are in a catastrophic state. "Unemployment tourism" can be the deathblow for the municipal level if, as is the case in many places here in Europe, the municipal level has to finance much of the social infrastructure.
- GuiA 12y ago
  > It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE. "He was laid off [...] The next year, his wife died at age 55. [...] He turned down an offer from his brother to move to Illinois. He wants to stay in Palo Alto, he says, because it has been his home for so long and because he feels safe here. [...] He said he stayed in Palo Alto in large part because of the memories of his late wife." I agree with you. But... humans don't act rationally. I can imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have to move away from where I spent an entire life with my wife while coping with the loss, even if it would absolutely be the right thing to do financially.
malanj 12y ago
Officials say these bans aim to prevent nuisances that can be created by those living in cars, and most are enforced only on a complaint basis. Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've got a big problem.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. And in your version, you would instead have been arrested / fined immediately regardless of anyone reporting you. The bottom line for selective enforcement is that the police recognize that there is a priority structure in laws. They have limited resources and cannot enforce every law, everywhere, every time. While I would rather see this law unmade, the second best thing that can happen is exactly what is, which is the police only getting involved if an actual legitimate issue is raised. EDIT: A second pertinent example is noise ordinance, which this is similar to as a "public nuisance" law. The law is not worded that it's OK as long as all your neighbors are OK with it. In your world, police would be walking around neighborhoods with a decibel meter and fining every non-compliant house, regardless of whether you cleared everything with your neighbors, or even if your neighbors are the ones making all the noise at your party!
  - mbillie1 12y ago
    > It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. Edit: it is often more of an invitation, however, if you are a minority or poor.
    - jdmichal 12y ago
      If they are going to harass you when you're not breaking the law, then the law itself has nothing to do with it. They could equally harass you for any number of things which no one would argue should be criminal. Making a statement about police harassment and abuse of power is fine, but the topic at hand has little to do with that.
ghalusa 12y ago
Hard to fathom that a 30-year seasoned veteran of software engineering can't find a shred of work in the heart of Silicon Valley. According to the article, Mr. Smith hasn't worked since 2006? Something is terribly amiss here.
Asparagirl 12y ago
Only 15 emergency shelter beds in all of Palo Alto?! And an estimated 150 men, women, and children competing for those spots every night? That's disgusting. Companies who have HQ's in Palo Alto: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Palo_Alto,_California http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_P... Not one of those companies, some of which are valued in the billions, could pick up the cost of sponsoring another ten emergency beds? Another five, even?
- a3n 12y ago
  Possibly, but they'd have to bring in their profits from offshore, and that would be taxed.
  - chris_mahan 12y ago
    Ahhh, but you see, if they were taxed, then Palo Alto would have the money to build more shelters.
    - toast0 12y ago
      Palo Alto doesn't have an income tax. Maybe California or the federal government would have the money though.
  - chiph 12y ago
    That might be something the legislature could do (Sacramento, maybe Washington) -- corporations buying municipal bonds are exempt from the tax.
- smm2000 12y ago
  As soon as you increase number of shelter beds, you increase number of homeless in the city. For example see San Francisco. It's impossible to solve this problem locally.
pharaohgeek 12y ago
At the risk of sounding (or even outright being) cruel, Mr. Smith's real problem is that of terrible financial management skills. Keep in mind that when he moved out there in the 70's, the Valley was not nearly as expensive as it is today. And, with a software engineer's salary during its heyday, he could have very easily purchased -- and paid off -- a place for him to live. As he, himself, said, he made a choice to stay in the area even after he lost his job. He could have made a choice to move somewhere cheaper. At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  In some ways, it's even worse than that. Here's a guy who has been consuming from society at a high rate his whole life (necessarily, or else he would have money saved). When his lack of planning and laying-away comes back to bite him, it's Palo Alto's fault. I feel a lot more sympathy for people with mental issues or who have never been privileged enough to work a high-paying job.
- Xdes 12y ago
  >At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own. I sympathize with him. I do not intend to save since there is no point when the future of the country is so uncertain.
  - smm2000 12y ago
    If you have high salary now and do not save for retirement, I really hope you won't burden society when you are out of job at 65 by either dying young or living exclusively on social security. Spending all income is as selfish as it gets.
    - Xdes 12y ago
      We live in what is called a free country.
ssharp 12y ago
Serious question: Are there trailer parks in the area? A place where you can rent land for parking a mobile-home long term? I am not at all familiar with the SF/Valley rental market, other than hearing how it's exorbitantly expensive and rents keep growing. I'd have to think there would be somewhere where rents are not so expensive. I have a hard time believing a standard suburban studio or one-bedroom apartment would cost $2800. As for the article, it sounds like the man profiled here isn't really making rationale decisions, so it's difficult to tell how bad the situation, outside of this anecdote, actually is.
- chiph 12y ago
  There are a couple of RV parks in the area. I want to say they're $700 a month plus electricity. Not sure if any of them would be up for multi-year residents, that's more of a mobile-home (trailer) park thing. Of which, there are several in the area and from what I can tell from Google maps, they're all full.
- h1karu 12y ago
  yes there are places within a short car ride of the city where you can rent.. for about $750+/month a place to put an RV with electricity and hookups and all of that.. Some of these vehicle dwellers can't even afford that. As far as FREE places to camp with an RV, no absolutely not. You have to drive hours to get to a campground where you might be able to camp for free or close to nothing.
melvinmt 12y ago
"An ordinance passed by Palo Alto last year would punish people cited for living in a vehicle with as much as a $1,000 fine or six months in jail." Yep, that's exactly the incentive they need to not be homeless. /s
jisaacstone 12y ago
"The neighbors in the community, I think, wanted to be reasonable, but they didn't feel safe having their kids go to the center" Making laws to make the neighbors feel safer! Fantastic! "Don't be poor around me, I don't feel safe." This is one of the worst forms of NIMBYism. And treating the disadvantaged as dangerous is a form of prejudice. How unfortunate that people only seem to care about racial prejudice.
sharemywin 12y ago
Let's assume started in 1978 with 30k. Pay increases of 5.75%/yr which gets him to 151K in 2007. assuming saving 10% and a 8% return per yr that's 628k in 401k. Let's assume market takes 40% and losses job with 2-3 years before SSN. Out there you could easily blow through any kind of retirement savings pretty quickly.
- smm2000 12y ago
  4% of 628k (safe withdrawal limit) is 25k - this is amount you can withdraw in pretty much perpetuity (for 62 year old). 25k combined with SSN (20k/year) is very close to average family income in US and guarantee good living in most cities in US (outside of Bay Area/NY and a few other zip codes). Saving 10% is borderline enough to retire on if you do not make stupid financial moves (like moving out of market in 2007 or living in most expensive area in US). It's not enough to be financially secure - you need to save 20-25% for that (totally doable on software engineer salary).
jack-r-abbit 12y ago
I don't see why they needed to make this law specifically against living in a vehicle. Most places already have some sort of limit on how long a vehicle can be parked on the street. Usually around 72 hours and you have to relocate to another street (it doesn't count to just move it a few feet). Let them sleep in their car... as long as they move it to another street every few days.
bowlich 12y ago
I find the overwhelming perspective of comments approaching this article to be, fascinating. I also think that Diogenes of Sinope would have a great deal to say concerning the matter. I would say that it's a fallacy to dwell on why Mr. Smith is living in an RV or what he could have done to prevent himself from landing there. After all, it doesn't answer the question of why the state thinks it ought to so finely dictate the comings and goes of a person or where it is that one should choose to sleep. To seek shelter is as much a natural right as any of the others and to deny someone easy access to readily available public shelter should come with the same level of concern as restricting speech. I think it's more interesting that we choose to allow those who do own or can afford to rent property to dictate and bully others for the convenience of their avoiding a "nuisance." Since apparently choosing to reside in a house grants you greater worth than choosing to reside in a car.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

64 points by coltr 12y ago

Seems to be largely a means of pushing the problem elsewhere. "Um, could you please be poor some place else? This is Palo Alto - we have a prosperous reputation to uphold."

enraged_camel 12y ago
Police in Long Beach, CA does this. When they find a homeless person sleeping on the streets or generally causing trouble, they put them in the patrol car, drive them to a neighboring city and "let them go." Now it's that other city's problem, but that doesn't matter because Long Beach has one fewer homeless person to worry about! (This place is awful for many other reasons, but this just reflects the general mindset.)
mbillie1 12y ago
It is, but that's nothing new. The cops in NYC have been known to give the homeless a McDonalds meal and a bus ticket up the coast. I'm curious what the prevalence of work-from-home software jobs will do, over time, to the ridiculous swell in cost-of-everything in the bay area though. I realize that, like Manhattan for finance, there's some status associated with being in tech in the bay area, as well as legitimate opportunities. But there are high-paying tech jobs in places where you can live much more comfortably.
- theorique 12y ago
  Many people want to be where other people are - the center of the action for their particular universe. They vote with their money. You're right that status is a big part of it. Manhattanites look down on the "bridge and tunnel" crowd.

m_d 12y ago

Does Palo Alto have regulations regarding minimum apartment size? If not, lower-cost microapartment complexes might make a good long-term investment.

ilyanep 12y ago
Good luck building anything in Palo Alto.
- m_d 12y ago
  I'm not familiar with the real estate situation there beyond "people are being priced out of Palo Alto". Is the city averse to all new construction or just lower-cost housing?
  - praptak 12y ago
    Google "Palo Alto NIMBY".
    - rosser 12y ago
      AIUI, the NIMBY-ism in Palo Alto is second only to that in San Francisco.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    both

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Well if Palo Alto is willing to spend $250,000 they could pave a bit of parking lot and put in a bathroom/shower unit like exists in campgrounds. But that seems a bit extreme. The guy profiled was tech worker for 30 years, but allegedly "not good with money." If you're in your 20's don't be that guy. Live within your means, save for those future days.

fvrghl 12y ago
As a 20-something, does anyone have any advice me for or know of resources where I can learn about financial management?
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  This seems somewhat helpful: esplanner.com It's, among other things, a consumption smoothing modeler (i.e. make sure that you don't oversave or overspend). It will tell you about how much you need to be saving each year, given a bunch of variables like how much you make, how much you plan to make, etc.
- option 12y ago
  Have a look here http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started
- bmj 12y ago
  My advice: * Save at least 10% of your income. "At least," because you want both long-term/retirement savings, and a "rainy day" fund for unexpected expenses. * Minimize your debt. If you have lots of debt, prioritize paying it down. * If you aren't good at the first two items, create a budget, and stick to it. Also, if you want professional advice, ask around and find a good financial adviser, particularly if you are looking for an investment strategy for long-term savings.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  To start simple, make sure you don't spend more than you earn (excluding exceptional circumstances). A simple table, GNU cash or even pen + paper are enough for that: record every transaction you make, no matter what tools you use, as long as it's reasonably low-friction. I used a simple table with columns date, account, value, purpose. "account" helps getting a sum total for each bank account and for cash, to check how my table compares with reality (ie. bank statements and the content of my wallet). Simply by tracking money flow you already learn a lot about your habits, while collecting data that helps you optimize it if necessary. I also found that making spending a conscious matter like that already reduced impulse buys. After that, the other ideas are good ones - and you'll know if they're achievable for you and how.

sologoub 12y ago

It's very unfortunate, but the main character also an interesting study in skill set relevance and retirement planning (or lack thereof). He's a software engineer in SV... By all the common stereotypes, he should be in the winner circle and living the life. Agism is definitely an issue in tech, but it's likely that he is not up to date with some of the more modern languages or techniques, resulting in lack of employment. If he lived there since the 70's, he could have had a paid off place. (Typical mortgage is 30 years term.) If not save by paying off the mortgage, he could have also saved via 401k or something similar. It probably never really occurred to him that employment might be so hard to come by or that things would get so pricey. Coming from an eastern european background, I was conditioned that if you have a paid off place, you can withstand a lot of up and down swings in the economy and the world. As a society, we should really be focusing on helping people properly market themselves and acquire/update skills needed AND re-enforcing the need to plan for the future. Not really sure how we'd go about implementing the latter without annoying people though...

muzz 12y ago
> Agism is definitely an issue in tech, but it's likely that he is not up to date with some of the more modern languages or techniques Why do you suspect that he is likely not up date? The first part of your sentence mentions ageism, although the second part sounds a lot like it.

clarky07 12y ago

I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless in other places in America. It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE. All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down.

timmaah 12y ago
Agreed on both points. Kicking him out seems kind of harsh since it has been his home for decades, but is there a real solution? He can't afford to live there anymore. There are tons of LTVA (Long term visitor areas) in southern CA and AZ that he can spend months in his RV for under $200.
mcknz 12y ago
Perhaps you're right in his particular instance. But the issue is the same even for those who end up homeless through no fault of their own. Moving for the homeless has many hidden costs, including the time and effort required to rebuild the local network of support one has built over many years.
- sentenza 12y ago
  Also, in my experience, moving is expensive. At least if you want to take more stuff than fits into a suitcase. Another thing that bugs me about the moving advice is this: It is good advice for an individual or a family, but it becomes extremely problematic if too many people do it. Many of the places where living expenses are low are also places were the public finances at the local level are in a catastrophic state. "Unemployment tourism" can be the deathblow for the municipal level if, as is the case in many places here in Europe, the municipal level has to finance much of the social infrastructure.
GuiA 12y ago
> It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE. "He was laid off [...] The next year, his wife died at age 55. [...] He turned down an offer from his brother to move to Illinois. He wants to stay in Palo Alto, he says, because it has been his home for so long and because he feels safe here. [...] He said he stayed in Palo Alto in large part because of the memories of his late wife." I agree with you. But... humans don't act rationally. I can imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have to move away from where I spent an entire life with my wife while coping with the loss, even if it would absolutely be the right thing to do financially.

malanj 12y ago

Officials say these bans aim to prevent nuisances that can be created by those living in cars, and most are enforced only on a complaint basis. Nothing scares me more than comments like that from government officials. A law that is selectively enforced is effectively an invitation for police harrasment. Either the law makes sense, or it doesn't. If individual civil servants get to decide when to apply a law, you've got a big problem.

jdmichal 12y ago
It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. And in your version, you would instead have been arrested / fined immediately regardless of anyone reporting you. The bottom line for selective enforcement is that the police recognize that there is a priority structure in laws. They have limited resources and cannot enforce every law, everywhere, every time. While I would rather see this law unmade, the second best thing that can happen is exactly what is, which is the police only getting involved if an actual legitimate issue is raised. EDIT: A second pertinent example is noise ordinance, which this is similar to as a "public nuisance" law. The law is not worded that it's OK as long as all your neighbors are OK with it. In your world, police would be walking around neighborhoods with a decibel meter and fining every non-compliant house, regardless of whether you cleared everything with your neighbors, or even if your neighbors are the ones making all the noise at your party!
- mbillie1 12y ago
  > It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. Edit: it is often more of an invitation, however, if you are a minority or poor.
  - jdmichal 12y ago
    If they are going to harass you when you're not breaking the law, then the law itself has nothing to do with it. They could equally harass you for any number of things which no one would argue should be criminal. Making a statement about police harassment and abuse of power is fine, but the topic at hand has little to do with that.

ghalusa 12y ago

Hard to fathom that a 30-year seasoned veteran of software engineering can't find a shred of work in the heart of Silicon Valley. According to the article, Mr. Smith hasn't worked since 2006? Something is terribly amiss here.

Asparagirl 12y ago

Only 15 emergency shelter beds in all of Palo Alto?! And an estimated 150 men, women, and children competing for those spots every night? That's disgusting. Companies who have HQ's in Palo Alto: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Palo_Alto,_California http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_P... Not one of those companies, some of which are valued in the billions, could pick up the cost of sponsoring another ten emergency beds? Another five, even?

a3n 12y ago
Possibly, but they'd have to bring in their profits from offshore, and that would be taxed.
- chris_mahan 12y ago
  Ahhh, but you see, if they were taxed, then Palo Alto would have the money to build more shelters.
  - toast0 12y ago
    Palo Alto doesn't have an income tax. Maybe California or the federal government would have the money though.
- chiph 12y ago
  That might be something the legislature could do (Sacramento, maybe Washington) -- corporations buying municipal bonds are exempt from the tax.
smm2000 12y ago
As soon as you increase number of shelter beds, you increase number of homeless in the city. For example see San Francisco. It's impossible to solve this problem locally.

pharaohgeek 12y ago

At the risk of sounding (or even outright being) cruel, Mr. Smith's real problem is that of terrible financial management skills. Keep in mind that when he moved out there in the 70's, the Valley was not nearly as expensive as it is today. And, with a software engineer's salary during its heyday, he could have very easily purchased -- and paid off -- a place for him to live. As he, himself, said, he made a choice to stay in the area even after he lost his job. He could have made a choice to move somewhere cheaper. At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
In some ways, it's even worse than that. Here's a guy who has been consuming from society at a high rate his whole life (necessarily, or else he would have money saved). When his lack of planning and laying-away comes back to bite him, it's Palo Alto's fault. I feel a lot more sympathy for people with mental issues or who have never been privileged enough to work a high-paying job.
Xdes 12y ago
>At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own. I sympathize with him. I do not intend to save since there is no point when the future of the country is so uncertain.
- smm2000 12y ago
  If you have high salary now and do not save for retirement, I really hope you won't burden society when you are out of job at 65 by either dying young or living exclusively on social security. Spending all income is as selfish as it gets.
  - Xdes 12y ago
    We live in what is called a free country.

ssharp 12y ago

Serious question: Are there trailer parks in the area? A place where you can rent land for parking a mobile-home long term? I am not at all familiar with the SF/Valley rental market, other than hearing how it's exorbitantly expensive and rents keep growing. I'd have to think there would be somewhere where rents are not so expensive. I have a hard time believing a standard suburban studio or one-bedroom apartment would cost $2800. As for the article, it sounds like the man profiled here isn't really making rationale decisions, so it's difficult to tell how bad the situation, outside of this anecdote, actually is.

chiph 12y ago
There are a couple of RV parks in the area. I want to say they're $700 a month plus electricity. Not sure if any of them would be up for multi-year residents, that's more of a mobile-home (trailer) park thing. Of which, there are several in the area and from what I can tell from Google maps, they're all full.
h1karu 12y ago
yes there are places within a short car ride of the city where you can rent.. for about $750+/month a place to put an RV with electricity and hookups and all of that.. Some of these vehicle dwellers can't even afford that. As far as FREE places to camp with an RV, no absolutely not. You have to drive hours to get to a campground where you might be able to camp for free or close to nothing.

melvinmt 12y ago

"An ordinance passed by Palo Alto last year would punish people cited for living in a vehicle with as much as a $1,000 fine or six months in jail." Yep, that's exactly the incentive they need to not be homeless. /s

jisaacstone 12y ago

"The neighbors in the community, I think, wanted to be reasonable, but they didn't feel safe having their kids go to the center" Making laws to make the neighbors feel safer! Fantastic! "Don't be poor around me, I don't feel safe." This is one of the worst forms of NIMBYism. And treating the disadvantaged as dangerous is a form of prejudice. How unfortunate that people only seem to care about racial prejudice.

sharemywin 12y ago

Let's assume started in 1978 with 30k. Pay increases of 5.75%/yr which gets him to 151K in 2007. assuming saving 10% and a 8% return per yr that's 628k in 401k. Let's assume market takes 40% and losses job with 2-3 years before SSN. Out there you could easily blow through any kind of retirement savings pretty quickly.

smm2000 12y ago
4% of 628k (safe withdrawal limit) is 25k - this is amount you can withdraw in pretty much perpetuity (for 62 year old). 25k combined with SSN (20k/year) is very close to average family income in US and guarantee good living in most cities in US (outside of Bay Area/NY and a few other zip codes). Saving 10% is borderline enough to retire on if you do not make stupid financial moves (like moving out of market in 2007 or living in most expensive area in US). It's not enough to be financially secure - you need to save 20-25% for that (totally doable on software engineer salary).

jack-r-abbit 12y ago

I don't see why they needed to make this law specifically against living in a vehicle. Most places already have some sort of limit on how long a vehicle can be parked on the street. Usually around 72 hours and you have to relocate to another street (it doesn't count to just move it a few feet). Let them sleep in their car... as long as they move it to another street every few days.

bowlich 12y ago

I find the overwhelming perspective of comments approaching this article to be, fascinating. I also think that Diogenes of Sinope would have a great deal to say concerning the matter. I would say that it's a fallacy to dwell on why Mr. Smith is living in an RV or what he could have done to prevent himself from landing there. After all, it doesn't answer the question of why the state thinks it ought to so finely dictate the comings and goes of a person or where it is that one should choose to sleep. To seek shelter is as much a natural right as any of the others and to deny someone easy access to readily available public shelter should come with the same level of concern as restricting speech. I think it's more interesting that we choose to allow those who do own or can afford to rent property to dictate and bully others for the convenience of their avoiding a "nuisance." Since apparently choosing to reside in a house grants you greater worth than choosing to reside in a car.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]