You decide: would you call this being homeless?

Can they live on one of their boats? If so, they are not homeless.

Yes. I wouldn’t call them unsheltered, and it seems like with their savings this won’t be a long-term problem, but they don’t have a home.

GA @ragingloli

In general however I prefer the term Urban Outdoorsman.

I feel like having a lot of money doesn’t make it any less devastating to have your home ruined. Yes, they can re-buy all of the things they had. But they can’t re-buy the memories they had there. It isn’t any less shocking.

But I bet they got soooo much insurance money.

No.

If they are truly wealthy they could rent an apartment, hotel room or buy a residence in a matter of minutes.

IMO, they are temporarily without their typical home/lifestyle.

It’s all relative.

Loss is loss.

Anyone that comes away from disaster with their lives and health should consider themselves fortunate.

No. Being without a house is different than being homeless.

@SpatzielLover I think they rented a condo !

Technically speaking.

the were renting someone else’s condo?

If they have enough money to rent another place right away, I wouldn’t count them as homeless. It still sucks that they lost their stuff though. Some things (family heirlooms, photographs) are irreplaceable no matter how much money you have.

I’d say they are temporarily homeless. Obviously not in the same boat as the perpetually homeless, but at this moment they are without a home.

They own the deed to the ruin, and they are probably insured, they can afford hotels and rent instantly, and so I say no.

If I walk up to a homeless man on the street, who only wants a home in life, and I give him a million dollars, is he still homeless? Yes he is standing on the street looking like a bum, but he is on his way to a real estate agent ASAP. To me that is not homeless anymore.

Yes, from a technical point of view, if we are calling not owning a house you can live in homeless then yes these people are homeless for now, technically. But to me the word homeless is wrong, it is too soft. Eat out of the trash, write things down on card board, sleep on the street a few nights, then you are homeless.

I would really go as far as describing what people call being homeless, as just being 3rd world in a 1st world area. That is really what it is, it’s living “wild” so to speak.

Yes, bricks & mortar make up a house & it’s foundations, but a home is far more personal than that. Full of memories & a rich history, when that’s taken away, then you can certainly be described as homeless.

They are homeless in that they can’t live in their flood ruined home. But I am not too worried about them getting a bed for the night.

They have lost their home, which makes them homeless, but it’s only a very temporary situation. It’s a yes, but . . . . . they are not impoverished or hungry or unable to change their circumstance, which often goes with being homeless. I can imagine their saying, “We are homeless,” to their well-heeled friends and laughing.

When natural disasters occur and cause people to lose their sole home, then they are technically homeless. If my house were to be razed by some disaster, be it natural, accidental or caused on purpose by a human, I do not think that I could label myself homeless. There are enough friends, family members, insurance and money set aside to put a roof over my head until the situation got sorted out.

To me, homeless represents someone who either chooses to live without a permanent roof over their head or cannot afford to do so.

Seems like calling the situation “homeless” is a semantic issue.
Sure, they lost their primary residence, their home, and that is a genuine tragedy.
But it’s not at all like they won’t have a roof over their heads.