Has anyone gone the rent free route of urban tent living? With an REI membership and looking at some resident sidewalk occupants, it does seem viable to have a tent and save $3,000/month while keeping a normal job.
Realizing that the people that have abandoned their dignity are a tiny part of the homeless population, nobody would actually know, great way to save.
I did it for 5.7 years (for health reasons, not to save a few bucks), though I did not camp on a sidewalk and I did freelance work instead of having a job.
I don't recommend it. I also doubt that you would save as much as you think.
Would I be able to ask some questions? What health reasons would cause you to sleep in a tent that doesn't involve saving money?
And where did you sleep? And why not sleep in a vehicle? And why did you not save as much as you thought?
By the way, if you want to live in a vehicle, tent or something like that while freelancing, you could always just move to Eastern Europe, India or someplace else and live well for what you'd spend living in a tent in The Bay Area. Personally, that's what I would do. Alternatively I've read online about being "net cafe homeless" in East Asia for 10-30$ a day. Or, I've wondered about buying a van in Europe and hopping between countries for a couple years, but I've never heard of a non-eu citizen doing this, has anyone?
All of that is almost definitely more effort than it is worth if your only objective is to save money, but they might be good ideas if you want to experience them as part of travelling abroad while on a budget, or just get away on a Steve Jobs-type of adventure like he did to India.
I don't really want to discuss my health issues. That is always all kinds of drama.
I slept in a tent in whatever greenery I could find, usually on the edge of town. The reason I did not sleep in a vehicle: I gave up my car years before I went homeless. I no longer drive.
I didn't say I didn't save money. I said the OP likely would not save as much as they think.
OP said they would save $3000/mo. Let's assume that is current rent.
Housing is a place to store all your stuff. Many homeless people rent a storage unit for their stuff. Subtract the cost of your storage unit.
Housing allows you to buy food cheaply and cook from scratch. No kitchen means buying a lot of prepared stuff from eateries. If you are suddenly "saving" $3k/mo, you probably will not be eating at the absolute cheapest places to save money. Subtract higher food costs from your savings.
If you have a regular job, you need to be presentable. Homeless showers are often pretty horrifying and their schedules are incompatible with most work schedules. Most people will need to pay for some kind of shower access, such as a gym membership, truck stop showers and/or the occasional motel stay. Subtract that from your savings.
You can't expect to leave anything in your tent. It isn't secure. You have to carry everything you own everywhere at all times to secure it. If you leave your tent on the sidewalk, it may be gone when you get back. If you have money, you can potentially buy expensive lightweight, ultra slim items to make your alternative lifestyle work, such as a silk sleeping bag liner instead of heavier bedding. Subtract those expenses from your savings.
Camping tents are not intended to be lived in. They wear out when you live in them full time. I replaced my tent every one to three months. Subtract that from your savings.
Seattle is very wet. Cheap tents are never very waterproof. You either need a more expensive tent or to accept that stuff will be ruined or to check into a hotel anytime it rains hard. When electronics, like a phone or laptop, get wet, they can die. Life on the street is hard on possessions. They routinely get lost, broken or stolen. Subtract that from your savings.
Etc.
I could probably go on, but that should give you some idea.
Thanks for the in depth reply! I asked a question and got downvote censored pretty quick - by time of writing - and I'll probably be shadow banned soon for asking.
So, I really appreciate the discussion.
I never considered that motel checkins would be a recurring thing for people that live that lifestyle.
Motel check-ins are not a recurring thing for most homeless people. They can't afford it because they aren't out there due to imagining that sleeping in a tent is some clever life hack that will save them money. But if you have enough income where it is feasible to spend $3000/mo on housing (that is more than I live on all month, supporting a family of three) and you imagine that sleeping in a tent on the city sidewalk will save you $3000/mo, that is just not realistic.
When the storms come, you will say "Fuck it! I am not sleeping in this! I am checking into a hotel. I can afford it for one night."
As soon as I had enough resources to check into a hotel periodically, my highest priority was being in a hotel during life threatening storms. It was often a financial hardship that I stressed about, but I did it anyway. So, I think the odds are really poor you will willingly subject yourself to sleeping outside in a bad storm as a matter of course if you don't absolutely have to.
I wasn't in Seattle. I was someplace a lot drier. Given how much rain Seattle gets, hotel stays on stormy days could easily exceed $3000/mo. On a per night basis, hotels are usually much more expensive than housing.
Additionally, you will not be welcome at homeless services. Those are aimed at helping poor people, not clever hippies giving the middle finger to society to save a few bucks. And people will likely be much less tolerant of you setting up a tent on the sidewalk than of actual destitute people doing so. If the neighbors and cops figure out you are adding to the homeless problem in spite of being able to afford housing, you may find yourself subject to a campaign of harassment until you either go elsewhere or relent and get back into housing.
If you want to save a few bucks, a better plan is to do some research and look for a cheaper housing arrangement. This might involve getting a roommate or moving to a cheaper town and commuting or something else that adds inconvenience to your life. If you can't tolerate those inconveniences, you really don't want the hassle involved in living in a tent with no plumbing, no electricity, no means to secure your possessions, etc.
Also, I don't imagine they will shadow ban you for asking a naive question in good faith. I don't think that violates any rules here. ;-)
If you're earning a Bay Area salary, almost anywhere else is cheap. You don't even have to go to Eastern Europe, a small-ish city in Western Europe is cheap enough. And quality of life should be better.
If you do want a compromise on the cheaper side of things (I'm biased, though, being from the region), I'd rather go to Eastern Europe. Decent quality of life, low prices, ok-ish infrastructure, quick access to a lot of nice places to see, etc.
If you could find a job in the bay, you can most likely pay for a $500 one way ticket to Wisconsin or Michigan in the summer. By the winter, you would have another job, a $500 a month apartment, and be well on your way to getting your life together.
"Or, I've wondered about buying a van in Europe and hopping between countries for a couple years, but I've never heard of a non-eu citizen doing this, has anyone?"
I think I met some. But why should it be much harder for US, except for Visa? (you just visit a non EU country from time to time)
Hmm, well, what kind of constraints would make this actually viable?
You'd have to be single and have relatively few possessions (because it would all have to fit in a tent, and you'd have to carry it all with you). You'd have to have some way to shower (gym membership, most likely). You probably wouldn't have a car (because otherwise, why live in a tent?), meaning you either live and work near public transportation or you camp close enough to work to walk. It would also help to be healthy.
In the Bay Area, you can accomplish all of this while living in a $1700/month East Bay studio, if you work in SF near BART, getting half the financial benefit with almost none of the down sides. The only major disadvantage over a more normal apartment lifestyle would be you have less personal space, but if you're willing to live in a tent, you probably don't care about that.
All in all, I would say it's probably not worth it. I'd consider van living before I camped in a tent.
There are a few people living out of camper vans at Google and Yahoo HQs. I think that is easier to pull off if your office has plentiful parking and showers on campus.
> Realizing that the people that have abandoned their dignity are a tiny part of the homeless population, nobody would actually know, great way to save.
Great way to be harassed, victimized by gangs and the police, and end up with a criminal record that would make it difficult to get a job. If you're a woman, you would likely be sexually assaulted. If you have children, it would be a horrible injustice to make them live on the street.
You must have a rather privileged life, with few responsibilities to others and no experience of hardship, to think this might be a good idea.
So most Americans live in the suburbs and commute but in a semi-big cities if you are not a middle class you cannot even afford to rent (not even think about buying) an apartment ?
Why is this a big problem ? I thought in the US you guys are more liberal when it comes to building highrises. Or is it because no matter the demand it's just too unaffordable for your avg joe ?
American cities are generally restrictive about building high-rises, or any new housing for that matter.
Everyone wants their city to remain the same as it was when they moved there, and unfortunately they have the political power to obstruct new construction.
> I thought in the US you guys are more liberal when it comes to building highrises.
Even in a no-zoning "paradise" like Houston, short-term economics rule the roost. Approximate rule of thumb in the US I've heard is if a Single Family Residence is 1X cost per unit living area, a Multi-Family Residence (about 3-4 stories) is 3X, and a high-rise is 6X. Developers turn over inventory way faster at the 1X multiplier by selling to a bigger market. This is also confounded by American expectations of living space; they're not tempered much if at all by moving into apartments and high-rises, so costs go up.
US residential growth planning is all kinds of dumpster fire ugly, so these are by far not the only factors that contribute to why we don't see more high-rise developments in American cities. Just the tip of the seriously messed-up iceberg.
As a Seattle resident, seeing firsthand these massive and multiple tent cities springing up everywhere, is unbelievably frustrating. Tent cities will appear in one area of town, only to be later cleared by Police and then fences erected to ensure they don't return.
Homelessness is nothing new, but in an area that prides itself on its inclusivity, progressiveness and innovation, Seattle has thus far, failed at addressing the problem. Additionally, given Seattle's place as a major tech hub, the companies (Amazon is directly complicit in this issue since they contributed immensely to the now largely unaffordable rental/housing market) that have profited from the area, need to ask the question if thousands of homeless people wandering the streets is an acceptable cost of doing business.
>the companies (Amazon is directly complicit in this issue since they contributed immensely to the now largely unaffordable rental/housing market) that have profited from the area, need to ask the question if thousands of homeless people wandering the streets is an acceptable cost of doing business
I believe the shareholders have voted with a resounding yes. Companies are not out to make the world a better place - they are trying to maximize profits. I think we should try to find more pragmatic solutions such as improving government programs and creating non-profits to help with the homeless problem.
Perhaps part of the problem is that a) people agree homeless folks need a place to live but b) aren't confident/capable of influencing their representatives to make a change.
Meanwhile they don't want the problem to affect them for the months/years until political action is taken.
It's mostly not Amazon employees stopping new housing from being built. It's long-term residents with "No HALA" signs (which isn't enough, but at least closer to the right direction).
It boggles my mind every time I visit Seattle or San Francisco and I witness the struggle. The wealthiest people in the world responsible for developing, building and deploying the services that we all use everyday (and getting paid massive amounts for it), juxtaposed against the homeless and poverty stricken living directly next to them.
Maybe that's my cynical German view of the USA, but to me that's the natural outcome of a society where the prevailing attitude is that everyone is responsible for themselves and if you have problems that's your fault and your fault alone.
It is more than that. The issue is that SF provides a lot of services to the homeless and tolerates them. In more conservative cities, they have harsh anti-homeless laws. Some cities have even been caught giving "one way" tickets to get rid of their homeless problem. The net effect is that certain cities tend to have an abnormal accumulation of homeless due to homeless moving there.
There are services for the homeless in America. That attitude is only taken by a portion of our population. You have a fair point though, it's a large portion...
The population in the USA is swelling and everyone wants to live in the city, so prices are rising. Except for meth and dope, which only costs a couple bucks. Cities don't have the money or available land to deal with it. It's awful.
There's also another side to this situation, and I might be blowing it out of proportion but here it goes.. I think that we have self-centered attitudes in this country which make young people think that their own experience through life is paramount and above the society around them. I.e. thinking it's OK to backpack around Seattle all day filching cigarettes and dollars from anyone who will look their way, all while leaving their shit and trash in the common spaces.
I have mixed feelings about this because there are poor souls out there who have been fucked over in life and deserve help. But some of these kids have expensive backpacks/tents, nice ink, and smoke fine weed. Maybe I'm misinformed, but the whole scene can really look like narcissism and fat ego.
I saw plenty of homeless and deranged people every time I went to Berlin. One woman actually lived in a tent in front of a police station in Pankow (for safety).
Me too, I go to Berlin about once or twice a month, there are homeless and deranged people around but NEVER anything like what I saw in SF.
One day when going to the Van Ness' Muni station I saw a couple of homeless people, they had syringes hanging from their arms, right before I reached the turnstiles.
I never saw so many deranged people on the streets, screaming as loud as one possibly can as I've seen in San Francisco.
So yes, Berlin has the same problems but I think they are on very different scales.
Admittedly I've never been to Frisco, but when I visited New York (back in 2003 I believe), I haven't encountered anything what I - being from Europe - would perceive as out of the ordinary in this aspect.
I have no such recollection at least.
Obviously I may not have gone to the right places; or other locally specific factors could be at play, such as some homeless-hostile regulations.
For this reason though I'd be sceptical of broad explanations such as "that's because the core values of your society are so and so".
Ironically, it's no other than San Francisco that is reputed to be (culturally) the most European city in the US...
You're seeing this is smaller cities as well (San Diego and Portland come to mind). I'm curious on the data of homeless pop percentage-wise - as I think both of those cities would be much higher.
From an anecdotal perspective, I left San Diego for a year to travel and coming back now it's much, much worse than before. Tent cities are way bigger, the homeless population seems much more aggressive, and the small fact that we have a Hepatitis A outbreak due to there not being bathrooms for them[1].
While San Diego rent hasn't skyrockets like SF/Seattle, etc - the sentiment locally seems to be the huge increase is mostly due to other cities sending their tough cases here [2][3].
Seems like this should be one thing the government should be ready to handle, but it's only getting worse.
Aren't there any state housing programs in the US? Where I live a person basically needs to contact social wellfare and their rent will be handled by the state when they can prove they don't have income or savings. And our GDP is nowhere close that of US (GDP, Finland 40k per capita, US 51k per capita)
There are, but they're completely overwhelmed and have enormous waiting lists. There's also large issues with basically every attempt to construct housing being blocked, because no one wants it near their house
I just returned from a 10 day vacation in Switzerland. And I am not making this up, I didn't see a single homeless person. Can anyone enlighten why there are so few homeless folks in Europe compared to the US ?
There's around twice as many european countries with a lower percentage of homelessness than the US on that list compared to those with higher. Though, those where to a larger degree more populated. You could probably cut it how you want it, but framing it as Europe having lower homelessness is too simplistic and that was my main point.
While Switzerland is one of the countries with lower amount of homeless people, most of EU is much lower than - say - the UK (in Brexit times this might be interesting), but this kind of numbers may well (and actually are) very debatable because of different ways the "homelessness" is calculated.
Also you have to consider how in continental Europe there is an ethnic group, the Romanis (more commonly called gypsies) that traditionally move across the various countries and that may be counted one way (homeless) or the other (or not counted at all).
And comparng a single smallish country with the whole US makes little sense anyway, usually homelessness (like in this case talking of Seattle) is concentrated in very limited areas (usually in or around large cities) where the rest of the country is unaffected.
There is basically a right to housing in Switzerland, so technically there are no homeless citizens. Although, there are some homeless people, they live that way mostly by choice, since they could request an apartment at anytime.
46 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 82.4 ms ] threadRealizing that the people that have abandoned their dignity are a tiny part of the homeless population, nobody would actually know, great way to save.
I don't recommend it. I also doubt that you would save as much as you think.
And where did you sleep? And why not sleep in a vehicle? And why did you not save as much as you thought?
By the way, if you want to live in a vehicle, tent or something like that while freelancing, you could always just move to Eastern Europe, India or someplace else and live well for what you'd spend living in a tent in The Bay Area. Personally, that's what I would do. Alternatively I've read online about being "net cafe homeless" in East Asia for 10-30$ a day. Or, I've wondered about buying a van in Europe and hopping between countries for a couple years, but I've never heard of a non-eu citizen doing this, has anyone?
All of that is almost definitely more effort than it is worth if your only objective is to save money, but they might be good ideas if you want to experience them as part of travelling abroad while on a budget, or just get away on a Steve Jobs-type of adventure like he did to India.
I slept in a tent in whatever greenery I could find, usually on the edge of town. The reason I did not sleep in a vehicle: I gave up my car years before I went homeless. I no longer drive.
I didn't say I didn't save money. I said the OP likely would not save as much as they think.
OP said they would save $3000/mo. Let's assume that is current rent.
Housing is a place to store all your stuff. Many homeless people rent a storage unit for their stuff. Subtract the cost of your storage unit.
Housing allows you to buy food cheaply and cook from scratch. No kitchen means buying a lot of prepared stuff from eateries. If you are suddenly "saving" $3k/mo, you probably will not be eating at the absolute cheapest places to save money. Subtract higher food costs from your savings.
If you have a regular job, you need to be presentable. Homeless showers are often pretty horrifying and their schedules are incompatible with most work schedules. Most people will need to pay for some kind of shower access, such as a gym membership, truck stop showers and/or the occasional motel stay. Subtract that from your savings.
You can't expect to leave anything in your tent. It isn't secure. You have to carry everything you own everywhere at all times to secure it. If you leave your tent on the sidewalk, it may be gone when you get back. If you have money, you can potentially buy expensive lightweight, ultra slim items to make your alternative lifestyle work, such as a silk sleeping bag liner instead of heavier bedding. Subtract those expenses from your savings.
Camping tents are not intended to be lived in. They wear out when you live in them full time. I replaced my tent every one to three months. Subtract that from your savings.
Seattle is very wet. Cheap tents are never very waterproof. You either need a more expensive tent or to accept that stuff will be ruined or to check into a hotel anytime it rains hard. When electronics, like a phone or laptop, get wet, they can die. Life on the street is hard on possessions. They routinely get lost, broken or stolen. Subtract that from your savings.
Etc.
I could probably go on, but that should give you some idea.
So, I really appreciate the discussion.
I never considered that motel checkins would be a recurring thing for people that live that lifestyle.
When the storms come, you will say "Fuck it! I am not sleeping in this! I am checking into a hotel. I can afford it for one night."
As soon as I had enough resources to check into a hotel periodically, my highest priority was being in a hotel during life threatening storms. It was often a financial hardship that I stressed about, but I did it anyway. So, I think the odds are really poor you will willingly subject yourself to sleeping outside in a bad storm as a matter of course if you don't absolutely have to.
I wasn't in Seattle. I was someplace a lot drier. Given how much rain Seattle gets, hotel stays on stormy days could easily exceed $3000/mo. On a per night basis, hotels are usually much more expensive than housing.
Additionally, you will not be welcome at homeless services. Those are aimed at helping poor people, not clever hippies giving the middle finger to society to save a few bucks. And people will likely be much less tolerant of you setting up a tent on the sidewalk than of actual destitute people doing so. If the neighbors and cops figure out you are adding to the homeless problem in spite of being able to afford housing, you may find yourself subject to a campaign of harassment until you either go elsewhere or relent and get back into housing.
If you want to save a few bucks, a better plan is to do some research and look for a cheaper housing arrangement. This might involve getting a roommate or moving to a cheaper town and commuting or something else that adds inconvenience to your life. If you can't tolerate those inconveniences, you really don't want the hassle involved in living in a tent with no plumbing, no electricity, no means to secure your possessions, etc.
Also, I don't imagine they will shadow ban you for asking a naive question in good faith. I don't think that violates any rules here. ;-)
If you do want a compromise on the cheaper side of things (I'm biased, though, being from the region), I'd rather go to Eastern Europe. Decent quality of life, low prices, ok-ish infrastructure, quick access to a lot of nice places to see, etc.
I think I met some. But why should it be much harder for US, except for Visa? (you just visit a non EU country from time to time)
You'd have to be single and have relatively few possessions (because it would all have to fit in a tent, and you'd have to carry it all with you). You'd have to have some way to shower (gym membership, most likely). You probably wouldn't have a car (because otherwise, why live in a tent?), meaning you either live and work near public transportation or you camp close enough to work to walk. It would also help to be healthy.
In the Bay Area, you can accomplish all of this while living in a $1700/month East Bay studio, if you work in SF near BART, getting half the financial benefit with almost none of the down sides. The only major disadvantage over a more normal apartment lifestyle would be you have less personal space, but if you're willing to live in a tent, you probably don't care about that.
All in all, I would say it's probably not worth it. I'd consider van living before I camped in a tent.
Great way to be harassed, victimized by gangs and the police, and end up with a criminal record that would make it difficult to get a job. If you're a woman, you would likely be sexually assaulted. If you have children, it would be a horrible injustice to make them live on the street.
You must have a rather privileged life, with few responsibilities to others and no experience of hardship, to think this might be a good idea.
That's probably not true, although it depends where you are comparing it to.
Everyone wants their city to remain the same as it was when they moved there, and unfortunately they have the political power to obstruct new construction.
Even in a no-zoning "paradise" like Houston, short-term economics rule the roost. Approximate rule of thumb in the US I've heard is if a Single Family Residence is 1X cost per unit living area, a Multi-Family Residence (about 3-4 stories) is 3X, and a high-rise is 6X. Developers turn over inventory way faster at the 1X multiplier by selling to a bigger market. This is also confounded by American expectations of living space; they're not tempered much if at all by moving into apartments and high-rises, so costs go up.
US residential growth planning is all kinds of dumpster fire ugly, so these are by far not the only factors that contribute to why we don't see more high-rise developments in American cities. Just the tip of the seriously messed-up iceberg.
Homelessness is nothing new, but in an area that prides itself on its inclusivity, progressiveness and innovation, Seattle has thus far, failed at addressing the problem. Additionally, given Seattle's place as a major tech hub, the companies (Amazon is directly complicit in this issue since they contributed immensely to the now largely unaffordable rental/housing market) that have profited from the area, need to ask the question if thousands of homeless people wandering the streets is an acceptable cost of doing business.
I believe the shareholders have voted with a resounding yes. Companies are not out to make the world a better place - they are trying to maximize profits. I think we should try to find more pragmatic solutions such as improving government programs and creating non-profits to help with the homeless problem.
Meanwhile they don't want the problem to affect them for the months/years until political action is taken.
The population in the USA is swelling and everyone wants to live in the city, so prices are rising. Except for meth and dope, which only costs a couple bucks. Cities don't have the money or available land to deal with it. It's awful.
There's also another side to this situation, and I might be blowing it out of proportion but here it goes.. I think that we have self-centered attitudes in this country which make young people think that their own experience through life is paramount and above the society around them. I.e. thinking it's OK to backpack around Seattle all day filching cigarettes and dollars from anyone who will look their way, all while leaving their shit and trash in the common spaces.
I have mixed feelings about this because there are poor souls out there who have been fucked over in life and deserve help. But some of these kids have expensive backpacks/tents, nice ink, and smoke fine weed. Maybe I'm misinformed, but the whole scene can really look like narcissism and fat ego.
One day when going to the Van Ness' Muni station I saw a couple of homeless people, they had syringes hanging from their arms, right before I reached the turnstiles.
I never saw so many deranged people on the streets, screaming as loud as one possibly can as I've seen in San Francisco.
So yes, Berlin has the same problems but I think they are on very different scales.
I have no such recollection at least.
Obviously I may not have gone to the right places; or other locally specific factors could be at play, such as some homeless-hostile regulations.
For this reason though I'd be sceptical of broad explanations such as "that's because the core values of your society are so and so".
Ironically, it's no other than San Francisco that is reputed to be (culturally) the most European city in the US...
https://roominate.com/blog/2016/anatomy-of-a-swindle/
(Unless we can come up with a better means of sharing/distributing productive output).
From an anecdotal perspective, I left San Diego for a year to travel and coming back now it's much, much worse than before. Tent cities are way bigger, the homeless population seems much more aggressive, and the small fact that we have a Hepatitis A outbreak due to there not being bathrooms for them[1].
While San Diego rent hasn't skyrockets like SF/Seattle, etc - the sentiment locally seems to be the huge increase is mostly due to other cities sending their tough cases here [2][3].
Seems like this should be one thing the government should be ready to handle, but it's only getting worse.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/health/hepatitis-a-outbreak-sa...
2) http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Nevada-Settles-Homeles...
3) http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/sdut-san-diego-...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09380
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeles...
Also you have to consider how in continental Europe there is an ethnic group, the Romanis (more commonly called gypsies) that traditionally move across the various countries and that may be counted one way (homeless) or the other (or not counted at all).
And comparng a single smallish country with the whole US makes little sense anyway, usually homelessness (like in this case talking of Seattle) is concentrated in very limited areas (usually in or around large cities) where the rest of the country is unaffected.