Submitted by lettuceLeafer in Mutual_Aid (edited )

Let me preface this. I haven't decided if this is a good idea or not. I was just curious to hear people's thoughts in this theoretical..

I've toyed with a few illegal landlord projects which could benefit poor people.

  1. Illegal pod hotels for homeless people. It gives them a place to sleep where they are safe from thieves an cops and won't die of the elements. Providing some stability. And since it uses housing that can't be rented out legally it could be done quite cheap. Tho it would have to be something really cheap like less than 2 dollars a night. So with the great risk of fines it wouldn't be something to profit greatly of of but more building good will with a group of disadvantaged people and help them better their lives.

Maybe for it to be feasible it would rely on public funding bc their are plenty of people who would pay money to give homeless people a safe place to sleep and keep their dignity.

A anarchistically run homeless shelter is in high demand as current homeless shelters are so horrible that sleeping in the street is far preferable for most homeless people. FYI I got this idea from a homeless blogger.

  1. A illegal squatter insurance company of sorts. People pay a cheap fee, no fee and don't on volunteer basis or funded via charity. People would get info and access to a secured squat with some of health risks removed (black mold ect) and has some utilities and ability of climate control. So then it would provide additional security to people who can't afford rent but would pay money for a nicer squatting experience..

In the case of being kicked out of the squat a new squat would already would be available so they wouldn't have to worry about being homeless..

In case if being charged with crime a lawyer would be provided and things in their life that need to be taken care but can't access due to being jailed (child, pets ect).

Maybe could be paired with a cop watching program so there are people patrolling to watch for people invading squats to steal or cops investigating a squat while someone is sleeping there.

Idk this is all fantasy but has made me consider if there is a middle ground where people paying a fee to have a place to live would be ok..

Ideally it would be free but relying on people choosing to donate isn't a reliable enough way to fund a project with such importance

−4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mofongo wrote

[Not based]

Things like pods are already being thought of and they're hardly better than a tent, but less portable/replaceable. It also sounds that you don't have the full grasp of anti-homeless laws/discrimination if you consider having a safe place is the main concern or that you would be able to create a pod camp wherever. Specially it being openly illegal.

Frankly, running an actual legal hotel with homeless shelter on the side would actually achieve all the things you want and skid most anti-homeless and nimby laws.

Also, I don't get why you'd want to privatize centralize a squatters network. Plus charging for it is horribly exploitative. And don't get me started on the privatized anarchist security force, some things don't mix.

12

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Specially it being openly illegal

I guess I didn't specify that being an open legal or otherwise homeless shelter is so attacked by cops where I live I wouldn't even consider it. It would have to be down low and use word of mouth.

Things like pods are already being thought of and they're hardly better than a tent, but less portable/replaceable

Being in a heated home in a room you can lock to prevent theft is no better than living in a tent? How?

skid most anti-homeless and nimby laws

Nah not really where I live the cops literally shut down the salvation army. Also running a hotel isn't even close to achievable for me or most other anarchists for that matter..

privatized anarchist security force, some things don't mix

I was more just talking about coo watching, having a couple people be on shift to let people know when cops are coming, and maybe providing a service to keep watch in cases of stalking or leaving an abusive partner. I think me being vauge possibly gave u the wrong idea.

0

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

At least where I live there are small groups that organize and build small homes for established encampments. They're moderately expensive to build but are solid structures. All funds are through fundraising events or mutual aid donations (no big charities).

I've helped build some and the process is interesting. But more important is the way that they interact with the community to decide who gets to use it (always free).

It's definitely illegal to build these structures, and some have been destroyed by sweeps (i think?) but where i come from the housing crises is bad enough that most of the time the local government is fine looking the other way for most unhoused support work even if it's illegal.

I really like your enthusiasm to address this issue (that's only going to keep getting worse), but I definitely feel like from these proposed ideas you're locked in a thought process of tearing down one power structure just to build another power structure in it's place. Slumlording is inherently problematic whether you put the word anarchy next to it or not. The idea of having some kind of purchased insurance policy is just another way to centralize power and remove decision making abilities from individuals. Maybe the language you used was just a red herring, but it seems like the institutionalization of something (mutual aid, guaranteed housing) that doesn't need to be institutionalized.

[not based] :(

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

The idea of having some kind of purchased insurance policy is just another way to centralize power and remove decision making abilities from individuals

I guess I came to that idea after thinking about why most homeless people don't squat. Tho your question of institutionalized brings an interesting question to me. Do most mutual aid avoid becoming a centrally run organization? Because in my experience and stories of people running food not bombs often times there becomes a division of organizers giving and those receiving services not often getting involved. So what the mutual aid group most times ends up being centrally run by a few people as most who benefit from the org don't want to or can't get involved.

So I wonder if my cynicism around how mutual aid almost always ends up just me doing shit effected this plan. I guess I assumed there would only be a few people getting involved as usual so it looked like from the start that I was trying to make a central org as possible made the assumption that is how it would be especially when talking about homeless people. That and living in illegal housing carries harsh fines where I live so trying to get poor and destitute people in a position where they receive fines too was something I was trying to avoid. So maybe those two combination resulted in these projects coming off as a centralized organization.

Of and the red herring. I realized on raddle way less people will engage with you unless you be purposefully provocative and clickbaity. I got kinda sick of spending in hour or so on a post for no one to even engage with so now I have to phrase most post in some kinda provocative manner. It's annoying but people do it for a reason and raddle is no exception.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Also the idea of anarchist security is kinda interesting to consider. Bc people feeling unsafe us definitely a need to be filled that doesn't get talked about how to address outside if cop watching.

Providing safe places for people to hide away from abusers and relax a bit could be nice. And utilizing this who cop watch for other projects such as keeping watch ect could be interesting. How to utilize the concept of private security anarchistically is a difficult question to answer and one I don't think I'm able to answer.

−1