IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_itvi29e wrote
> But about 69,000 children were doubled up with other families,
Not to downplay the severity of child homelessness, but this seems like a stretch. My family lived with my brother's family for a few years. In Westchester, in a 4000sqft home. But they would have been considered homeless?
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_itvizyv wrote
You really think that’s the norm of the 69,000? Lower income people living in overcrowded apartments in the city are a very well documented event.
elizabeth-cooper t1_itvnm83 wrote
Regardless of whether that's the norm, unless you're suggesting that all the single adults who live with roommates are actually homeless because they couldn't afford an apartment otherwise, doubled up families may be overcrowded, but they're not homeless.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_itvnt16 wrote
They would be housing insecure. And my point is the vast majority of these people would likely fit that definition by any reasonable standard. Neighborhoods in the city are filled with 2 bedrooms housing 10 people and multiple families
IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_itwgvc9 wrote
Being 'housing insecure' is not being homeless. They are not using that definition to define homeless. Not sure why you can't stay on topic. By your measure, nearly everyone is homeless because the high cost of housing.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_itwkbsj wrote
Bold claiming that under an article that literally makes that point repeatedly and in a city / state that uses the definitions referenced in the article.
IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_itwr0d2 wrote
Where does the article state housing insecure?
How can a family be 'housing insecure,' ie. homeless, and still have full protection of the law as a tenant? So they are both homeless and a tenant?
elizabeth-cooper t1_itvrqsv wrote
I mean, that's what this sub wants - a return to the tenement era. One person gets a coat closet, 10 people get a walk-in closet.
IAmGoingToSleepNow t1_itvnkbb wrote
Did I say it was the norm?
Quantifying living with other people as homeless is padding the numbers. You use the word 'overcrowded', but I don't see it anywhere in their documentation. That is not a prerequisite to being 'homeless,' according to the Advocates for Children of New York.
Scout-Penguin t1_itxiozh wrote
This is the Federally-mandated definition of "homeless" in the education context - it's not padding, it's the measurement that Congress told the states they had to use.
bangsnailsandbeats t1_itvrou1 wrote
> Lower income people living in overcrowded apartments
That’s the very definition of being not homeless.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_itvuizr wrote
It’s very much not. Often housing insecure is included as it’s a large problem that can lead to people bouncing between homes and in and out do shelters or even on the street.
thesecondtolastman t1_itwivjz wrote
Came here to point the exact same thing out. It seems almost intentionally misleading without any clarifying context on how they define a doubled up family. If you live with a Grandmother, are you doubled up? A cousin? How is this number counted and are we muddling definitions with these broad inclusions?
Double-Ad4986 t1_itxdv0v wrote
i was thinking more like the kindergarten student i had one year who was living in a 3 bedroom apt but only sharing 1 room sith her baby sister and mom while the other rooms were occupied by strangers
Scout-Penguin t1_itxhvon wrote
The legal definition of "homeless" in the education context is from the McKinney-Vento Act.
With respect to "doubling-up", those are
>children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason
So, no, your example would not count.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments