I get your joke, really and truly, but you might be surprised to know a lot of poor people live on boats. I did it. Down at the marina was the shadiest place I’ve ever been.
We were illegal poopers. However! When you are living so close to nature, you are aware of your “footprint”. And it’s just poop. Chemical cleaners were minimal, which is not something “landlubbers” think about.
You just assume it goes down the drain and the problem is solved. But we knew how often the sanitation plants for civic sewage had “incidents” when they couldn’t operate properly and just dumped it all into the river.
So my poop; just a drop in the bucket; picture it. It isn’t all those chemicals; it’s just poo. Picture my poo, picture my poo, picture my poo.
Anyway, if your local news says something about boaters polluting your water, that is a red flag about civic sanitation because a little bit of poop is a small concern when stacked up to everyone’s poop and chemicals. And don’t even get me started on those macerator things some people have in their sinks; those are the worst.
I just want to point out that the other commenter’s experience isn’t universal. My mom lived on a boat for years and loved it. I couldn’t do it long term as there’s very little space available, but it doesn’t have to be a negative experience.
This particular marina had bathrooms with showers up on land which the majority of, if not all, residents used. There was also a restaurant on the water with bathrooms. Electricity and tap water were available at each slip. Heat wasn’t necessary, because it was Southern California.
I never knew how much it cost, but I know for a while she lived there while working as a waitress at that same restaurant, so it couldn’t have been too expensive.
Funny that you mentioned the public washroom. I avoided bringing it up because we were told (under no uncertain terms) we weren’t allowed to use it. Back in the day, an openly gay couple was not common, I guess. So, apparently, straight people peeing and pooping and showering nakedly was fine; but me doing it was “pornographic”. I apologize to everyone I accidentally introduced to hot gay porn. Sorry; my bad.
Now hold on. You say “shadiest” but isn’t that a slur on the fact that a lot of those folks are permanently there instead of swanning in on a sunny day to mess around at leisure?
Okay, this bullshit. It’s not shareholders who would be negatively affected by this, and it’s not shareholders who are actively working against doing something about the problem. Shareholders are just an easy acceptable target to point your fingers at, whether it makes sense or not.
What needs to be done to tackle the homelessness problem (not the only thing, but probably the most important one) is to zone much, much more land inside or directly next to cities for affordable mid-rise multi-family homes. Guess who is opposed to that and has the power to do something about it? Existing property owners. Specifically owners of detached single family homes. Because doing that would negatively affect their property values. Personally, I think that shouldn’t matter, because what good is living in home that is worth absurd amounts of money on paper going to do you if society is falling apart because of it? But home owners are always massively concerned about their property values and will torpedo anything that might threaten it. Of course, pointing your fingers at home owners is much dicier than pointing them at shareholders, because even in a bubble like this one, you are bound to point at some people here who will feel personally attacked by that…
“Shareholders”, on the other hand, aside from those that are also home owners at the same time, don’t really have much reason to care one way or another about effective projects to reduce homelessness.
Have you heard of REITs? Rent-seeking capitalists have been working together for decades to speculate on housing. Wealthy people have billions and billions of dollars invested in the status quo, and they are quite interested in maintaining their position of power.
Corporations holding residential real estate are a growing part of the problem, but still a small one. The vast majority of single famliy homes are still owned by either their residents or small time, non-incorporated landlords.
Never mind increasing the supply of housing would drive down prices and remove pressure regardless of who owns the existing stock.
What about the shareholders? … if we deal with homelessness, it will affect the shareholders!
Won’t someone think of the shareholders?!?
Boatless please help
I get your joke, really and truly, but you might be surprised to know a lot of poor people live on boats. I did it. Down at the marina was the shadiest place I’ve ever been.
Now be honest, your pee and poop went into the water, didn’t it?
It’s technically illegal, but we all know everybody out there does it.
We were illegal poopers. However! When you are living so close to nature, you are aware of your “footprint”. And it’s just poop. Chemical cleaners were minimal, which is not something “landlubbers” think about.
You just assume it goes down the drain and the problem is solved. But we knew how often the sanitation plants for civic sewage had “incidents” when they couldn’t operate properly and just dumped it all into the river.
So my poop; just a drop in the bucket; picture it. It isn’t all those chemicals; it’s just poo. Picture my poo, picture my poo, picture my poo.
Anyway, if your local news says something about boaters polluting your water, that is a red flag about civic sanitation because a little bit of poop is a small concern when stacked up to everyone’s poop and chemicals. And don’t even get me started on those macerator things some people have in their sinks; those are the worst.
How often did you have to go back to land to get clean drinking/showering water supply?
I’m fascinated by the boat lifestyle because I live in a van. I think living in a boat would be charming but a little more complicated than van life.
I just want to point out that the other commenter’s experience isn’t universal. My mom lived on a boat for years and loved it. I couldn’t do it long term as there’s very little space available, but it doesn’t have to be a negative experience.
This particular marina had bathrooms with showers up on land which the majority of, if not all, residents used. There was also a restaurant on the water with bathrooms. Electricity and tap water were available at each slip. Heat wasn’t necessary, because it was Southern California.
I never knew how much it cost, but I know for a while she lived there while working as a waitress at that same restaurant, so it couldn’t have been too expensive.
Funny that you mentioned the public washroom. I avoided bringing it up because we were told (under no uncertain terms) we weren’t allowed to use it. Back in the day, an openly gay couple was not common, I guess. So, apparently, straight people peeing and pooping and showering nakedly was fine; but me doing it was “pornographic”. I apologize to everyone I accidentally introduced to hot gay porn. Sorry; my bad.
Now hold on. You say “shadiest” but isn’t that a slur on the fact that a lot of those folks are permanently there instead of swanning in on a sunny day to mess around at leisure?
I mean, I was living there. I am not putting myself above the shady. That was just life at the time, and still is for people still living there.
I know why people resort to it. I get why desperate people steal. It was where I had to be at the time and I’m not going back.
Okay, this bullshit. It’s not shareholders who would be negatively affected by this, and it’s not shareholders who are actively working against doing something about the problem. Shareholders are just an easy acceptable target to point your fingers at, whether it makes sense or not.
What needs to be done to tackle the homelessness problem (not the only thing, but probably the most important one) is to zone much, much more land inside or directly next to cities for affordable mid-rise multi-family homes. Guess who is opposed to that and has the power to do something about it? Existing property owners. Specifically owners of detached single family homes. Because doing that would negatively affect their property values. Personally, I think that shouldn’t matter, because what good is living in home that is worth absurd amounts of money on paper going to do you if society is falling apart because of it? But home owners are always massively concerned about their property values and will torpedo anything that might threaten it. Of course, pointing your fingers at home owners is much dicier than pointing them at shareholders, because even in a bubble like this one, you are bound to point at some people here who will feel personally attacked by that…
“Shareholders”, on the other hand, aside from those that are also home owners at the same time, don’t really have much reason to care one way or another about effective projects to reduce homelessness.
Have you heard of REITs? Rent-seeking capitalists have been working together for decades to speculate on housing. Wealthy people have billions and billions of dollars invested in the status quo, and they are quite interested in maintaining their position of power.
Do people hold shares in the private equity firms buying up all the homes and driving up the housing costs? No no it’s all the NIMBYs fault.
Corporations holding residential real estate are a growing part of the problem, but still a small one. The vast majority of single famliy homes are still owned by either their residents or small time, non-incorporated landlords.
Never mind increasing the supply of housing would drive down prices and remove pressure regardless of who owns the existing stock.
Do private homeowners and small-time landlords generally leave their homes vacant?