Remember When The Homeless Were Just Drunks & Bums?

Published on October 19th, 2009

Growing numbers of Americans who have lost houses to foreclosure are landing in homeless shelters, according to social service groups and a recent report by a coalition of housing advocates.

Only three years ago, foreclosure was rarely a factor in how people became homeless. But among the homeless people that social service agencies have helped over the last year, an average of 10 percent lost homes to foreclosure, according to “Foreclosure to Homelessness 2009,” a survey produced by the National Coalition for the Homeless and six other advocacy groups.
[...]
Most people who become homeless because of foreclosure had been low-income renters whose landlords stopped making their mortgage payments, leaving them scrambling for new housing with little notice and scant savings, according to the survey and interviews with shelters.

But in recent months, there has been a visible increase in the number of former homeowners showing up in shelters.
[...]
“These families never needed help before,” said Larry Haynes, executive director of Mercy House in Santa Ana, Calif. “They haven’t a clue about where to go, and they have all sorts of humiliation issues. They don’t even know what to say, what to ask for.”

16 users responded in " Remember When The Homeless Were Just Drunks & Bums? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Norman Speight said, on October 19th, 2009 at 4:18 am

Doesn’t it make you wonder (as I do) why the idiots at the top Obama, Brown et al, do not simply put an embargo on domestic re-possessions?
Easiest thing in the world to do, the only sufferers would be the greedy banks (who are increasingly loaded at our sufferance).
Also. I know I’m dim (do have several post-graduate qualifications, degrees etc.), but what the F is the point of re-possessing when you can’t sell the property and – even if you do at some large discount – the debtor cannot pay you the balance you are owed because he/she hasn’t the money in the first place and repossession just leads to more debt being incurred by those who already owe you!
Is this what is called ‘management’?
Where is the social care and social thinking of the ‘democratic’ leaders?
Or. Is it the case that the main enemies of any recovery must be looked after first and last – i.e. bugger those who have not because I don’t need their votes for another 4 years?

# 2 Pinkerton said, on October 19th, 2009 at 4:23 am

“Remember When The Homeless Were Just Drunks & Bums?”

Let’s not forget mentally ill.

# 3 Neo-Postdarwinst Ben said, on October 19th, 2009 at 4:35 am

In the article it says “Ms. West — mother of three grown children, grandmother to six and great-grandmother to one — passed months on the couches of friends and relatives, and in the front seat of her car.”

Which leads me to wonder, what kinda of complete arseholes are her three grown children? Who lets their own mother couch surf or live in their car?

# 4 Alfred1 said, on October 19th, 2009 at 4:42 am

Had Obama and Congress not spent billions on pork for cronies in their alleged “stimulus,” had they let fail the bastards that caused this collapse, had they rolled back the regulation and taxes preventing new business formation, and slashed government spending…

We would be in a job boom by now and housing would have stabilized as folks, employed, started buying houses again.

# 5 LibertyLover said, on October 19th, 2009 at 5:03 am

Most people who become homeless because of foreclosure had been low-income renters whose landlords stopped making their mortgage payments, leaving them scrambling for new housing

Interesting that.

A lot of people don’t realize that in order to get loans on these types of properties, the borrower (landlord) usually gets his renters to sign a statement stating they will not hold the lien holder liable for the contract THEY sign with their landlord. It is usually in their rental agreement.

# 6 he_who_must_not_be_flamed said, on October 19th, 2009 at 5:04 am

“Let’s not forget mentally ill.”

I think he’s talking about the pre-reagan era homeless

# 7 Improbus said, on October 19th, 2009 at 5:34 am

@Alfie

You are so dense I think your brain is made of lead but it is more likely you are just delusional … take your meds.

# 8 amodedoma said, on October 19th, 2009 at 5:47 am

Personally I’ve been homeless. It lasted 10 days. All it takes is little bad luck. I remember it as a defining moment in my life. Sleeping on the ice plant at a Petaluma off ramp, searching for work with no telephone and no address, competing with the immigrants for day work, eating at the firehouse with the other homeless, and bathing in public restrooms. Finally a christian organization, I think it was called FISH, helped me off the street. They got me a room at the hotel and a job at the slaughter house. From there I was capable of putting it all back together again without help. That was over 20 years ago, and I’ve never stopped feeling grateful to the people of Petaluma. Times are tougher now, lot’s more homeless, more families and not just young individuals. Be careful not to write these people off as drunks and bums. It could happen to you or to your family.

# 9 smartalix said, on October 19th, 2009 at 6:10 am

Aren’t these all the people who supposedly used the lefty cheapie loans to crash our financial market?

# 10 lynn said, on October 19th, 2009 at 6:15 am

#3, Ben, you are critical of the woman’s family for not taking her in. I run a shelter, and I can tell you, if one family member doesn’t have a “cushion” to fall back on, neither do the others. If someone is in subsidized housing, or transitional housing, or has a Section 8 voucher or certificate, they can’t have overnight guests who are not on their case file. Or, the landlord gets upset because of the extra people in the unit. Or the municipality has rules about how many people can live there. Trust me, if kids/parents/siblings who own houses weren’t taking one another in, we’d easily have three times as many homeless. In my town, every house has six cars parked out front because there are three families living together – Grandmom and two sets of grandkids/great-grands, sis and her other sister and brother’s families in with her, etc. In my case, for my family to take me in, I’d have to move from NJ to Wisconsin – brrrrr.

# 11 meetsy said, on October 19th, 2009 at 7:09 am

Obama has too many ties to big banking and finance to want to piss off his “friends”. We, the collective humanity that occupies the United States, are not his friend.
Just remember that when you wonder why the world is as screwed as it is……most, if not all, of our legislators/senators/elected officials are “friends” of corporate $$$, and have opted for personal gain over doing the right thing for the people who elected them.

# 12 The0ne said, on October 19th, 2009 at 10:10 am

I’m conflicted over this as I think some of them deserved what they got for being idiots (their financial decisions). On the other hand it’s terrible seeing families out on the streets begging for change. Yet, I see none of the financial decision makers out there or in jail for their part. Ironically, we as tax payer had to help them instead of helping the families starving. How pathetic of a American society is this?

At times like this I am thankful for our Hmong culture. As #3 said, how the fck can you treat your elders by putting them on the couch and car? But then I’m not at all surprise because most of my “white” colleagues and friends would do this without a thought. That’s not to say they are bad people, I figure it’s just how they came to think of the whole situation. This idea is alien to us Hmong in the literal sense.

If you can see what you can do to help out at the shelters or some of the families out on the streets. And always check out the shelters before giving as some, and I’ve done a bit of research into this, are not what they seem. Only help those that you know to be doing the right thing or needing. And if you see kids, please give them food or some change to get food! And/or call the authorities!!! Kids should not be begging in the streets!

# 13 jak said, on October 19th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

Low income housing just delayed the problem.

# 14 Improbus said, on October 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

@Theone

When dealing with the homeless don’t forget Zombieland Rules:

# 4: Doubletap
#17: Don’t Be a Hero
#22: Be ruthless

Welcome to Amerika!

# 15 Uncle Patso said, on October 20th, 2009 at 2:11 am

# 4 Alfred1:

Had Obama and Congress not spent billions on pork for cronies in their alleged “stimulus,” had they let fail the bastards that caused this collapse, had they rolled back the regulation and taxes preventing new business formation, and slashed government spending…

We would be in a job boom by now and housing would have stabilized as folks, employed, started buying houses again.

Monday morning quarterbacks…

People don’t realize just how close we (the U.S. and most of the world) came to a total financial collapse that would have made the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.

If President Bush (initiator of the first round of bailouts) and President Obama and Congress had “let [them all] fail”, 80% to 90% of the banks in the country (and the FDIC) would be insolvent, ruined, closed. Same for the large insurance companies, investment houses, real estate firms, mortgage lenders and at least half the public companies in the country. Instead of almost no credit, there would be NO credit. Regulation wouldn’t mean anything, because very few of the regulated industries would still be operating.

Don’t you get it? Didn’t you read up about all the highly leveraged debt all the banks and financial institutions were carrying when the bubble burst? On paper, they were all rolling in money, but it was “on-paper” wealth, with 30-to-1 leverage, ready to zoom into the red the second everything wasn’t going up, up and up any more. The whole country, if not the whole world, would be totally bankrupt, the money worth nothing, no credit, no jobs, no prospects. Try to imagine modern society surviving with no money. I don’t just mean the dollar would be worthless, but also the Euro, the Pound, the Peso, the Escudo, whatever. I suppose we could mint all the gold in Fort Knox into coins, but that would be like the Little Dutch Boy (of the finger-in-the-dike story) trying to hold back the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, a straw in the wind, a Band-Aid on a wound the size of the Grand Canyon. I struggle for metaphors to illustrate just how bad it would have been. The losses would have been so highly leveraged that they would be not only greater than the entire U.S. GDP, they might have rivalled the entire Net Worth of the entire United States of America and all her people and all her corporations! Imagine the entire country with a negative net worth!

I suppose it’s entirely possible that we might be in a “job boom” by now — meaning unemployment might have finally fallen below 75% or 80%.

(Whoopee!)

But I doubt it.

# 16 Uncle Patso said, on October 20th, 2009 at 2:30 am

Let’s face it: the cheap energy is running out. This makes everybody in the world a little bit poorer. This affects the U.S. more than most, as we’ve ridden the wave of cheap energy higher than just about everybody else.

As if this weren’t bad enough, 30 years of Reaganomics has sucked all the wealth upward (part of Perot’s “great sucking sound”), leaving the lower ranks screwed already from the richest few “trickling down” all over them all the time. Now the latest “Adventures in De-Regulation” has kicked the bottom a little lower for the whole world. We’re not used to this, to having so many desperately poor people, to having so many families hanging on by a thread. We’re going to have to learn how to deal with it, either by trying to make a more just society (and yes, just so I can’t be accused of being coy, I do mean redistribution of wealth, among other things), or we’re going to have to come to terms with becoming a Third World country, where tens of millions live in cardboard slums with no water and no sewers, plagues and epidemics are rampant and everyone is used to seeing dead bodies on the streets every morning, etc.

Which do _you_ choose?

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!