South of Sactown? Anyone know any nice places that are not too cold, and where the atmosphere is not super restrictive... where there is some land that's not filled with housing and potentially places to make money and not to find what you're looking for without a car? I don't really know if I'm asking the right questions, but if you know of anyplace that's decent, do post. Thanks.
only place i've ever been was ok if homeless was portland oregon, and the trouble there was you could get by ok that way but there wasn't near enough opportunity to go from that back into more or less usual or what is supposed to be usual of ways for people to live. i don't know too much about south of sacramento except the few times i've driven highway 16 down through the delta (and that was most of ten years ago i had a car). there's some pretty little towns and countryside down in through there but i doubt there'd be much survival help for anyone not having a place. wish i could be more help. maybe someone else will. i think south of sactown might be looking the wrong direction other then maybe some places over by the coast that i don't really know at all well either. santa cruze, that area arround there, coast side of the hills from san jose, might be worth checking out. thomas brother's maps might actualy be useful. a bit spendy but useful for spotting undeveloped places whether or not the're much help finding the ways to get into them. =^^= .../\...
I think you can still make a "claim" on BLM land. You can live there just as long as dig a certain amount each year in search of your glorious ore. The only problem is that most BLM land is in the Mojave desert which can get a tad bit hot in the summer.
BLM = Bureau of Land Management They got all of the federal lands that don't have trees. The Forest Service got the the federal land with trees.
yes, last i heard you could still file mineral claims. you can also, probably, still get 99year leases on dollar an acre poisonously calciferous ancient lakebed type 'sand' lands throughout nevada, utah, nm, az and such places. where the bulk of blm land is located, not the mohavie alone, which is much smaller by comparison. last i heard or checked out anthing about it was more then ten years ago so you might want newer information that i have in my head at present, anyone planning on actualy doing anything. there is a part of the u.s., again last time i heard, with trees and without universaly applied and enforced building codes and that is much of the state of montana. generaly the remoter parts of anywhere. where the main thing is, there ain't no soup lines nor homeless shelters, but it just might, be possible to live off the land. that is, if you have or aquire the skills to actualy do so. personaly, if i thought i was going to do that, i'd seriously consider heading even further north. all of the places where it might once have been relatively easy to live naturaly, have been pretty much taken over by politics that trys to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper, often against their people's wishes at the point of u.s. guns or the implied threat of them. i think the day will come, when nations as we know them today will have pretty much fallen or fallen into ineffectiveness and such people as do survive will do so by doing so. living off of and learning from how to live off of the land, much as indiginous traditions always have. that day may not be immediatly at hand however. of that no one can be entirely certain. but for the moment it seem improbable this will happen real soon, but in the lives of many of the younger members here, it IS quite possible. if we get the "oops, we've been lying about how far away peek oil is and, gee we're sorry but it really is all gone" along about the time simultaniously of virtualy totaly world wide economic colapse, perhaps also brought on and aggravated by such things as global changes in weather patterns and other environmental factors as well as of yet unseen and unimmagined pandemics. in the mean time of course, we are living in mean times that seem to have been getting meaner, although the recent u.s. midterm elections may, hopefully, indicate a positive chainge in the wind of popular will, but at anyrate, so far a hell of a lot of people, i mean percentage wise, who grew up 'middle class' are out on the street, dependent on souplines and shelters. a much larger percentage, about three times as many, at least, as you will likely ever hear acknowledged in any sort of official governmental surveys. (as for berkely or san francisco, last time i heard they already have about five to ten times as many people on the streets as they have beds in homeless shelters. you might find more people willing to wish you well rather then kick you in the ass there, but i'm affraid that's about it. no. the best place i've ever been homeless was portland oregon, othere then the unwillingness of most potential employers there to help you get off the streets by hireing you. not so much just unwillingness but not really that much work available or that strong of an economy to generate it. or at least that's what they always plead. but there is, or were, more shelter beds and souplines there, per capita, then any place else i've ever been or heard of) =^^= .../\...
Santa Cruz is where we went and it was really a great place to go, except the time of year we went it was cold and had started the rainy season... Now I do know of a few places that might've worked a bit, if I ever plan on being homeless again. But Berkeley and SF would be the last places I'd go.
Just don't go to Orlando,FL if you're homeless...they are trying to get some new laws there against feeding the homeless.
