Tiny homes gifted to homeless only to be seized by the local police.

When I was stationed in Germany I built the best field expedient, stealth structures the brass had ever seen. I used plastic sheet that was enclosed in the ammo boxes of 81mm motor shells as the element limiting material and then area vegetation for structure. In a live fire training mission with lots of people out in the late autumn rainy cold of Germany my little shelters soon got the notice of the battalion commander. They were better camouflaged, warmer and dryer than the military standard issue tent half by a long shot.

Long story short, I have been homeless for a short time many times in my life. Each time I constructed for myself a stealth structure that was near invisible to the trained observer. I included thermal image management which also made the structure more efficient for environment control. When I had obtained sufficient funds to reside in a conventional residence I would gift my stealth structure to someone else that needed it. I would pick this person based not just on need but willingness to gift it again when they no longer needed it. Also I gave them basic training in remaining stealthy by area hygiene and food cashing.

You would trip over one of my stealth shelters before you would see it even with thermal imaging technology.

originally posted by: Shuye
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Why is it that people need to seek protection from the government... Over and over again... This madness has got to stop.

+1 to this, I'm considered successful- but every day I feel that I have to work just a little bit harder than I did the day before to keep ahead of the thugs in jack boots living off the other 30% of my income that I don't get to see, marching behind me and making sure I don't get too comfortable.

I want out, but there's nowhere to go. If it were plausible to live in a tinyhome, I wouldn't be far from making it my goal... but it's really not plausible.

One reason this wouldn't be allowed: if they live there long enough they can claim legal ownership of the land and actually get it.

They would have to live there for quite a while. Exactly how long varies, but generally it's on the scale of a decade or so. If they did stick around that long, they could make a winning legal claim to own that land through a really old and well established body of law.

It's called adverse possession.

I think the tiny home idea is great and I applaud the living Elvis for helping these people out . I have long wanted to start a communal type of situation on the piece of land that I live on ( 70 acres Northern Maine )

I have attempted to bring some of the locals onboard but they always want it to be about us and not keep it open to expansion. I need people with the same vision as me in order for it to work.. that is to create a system that will provide for as many people asvwhat the land can support. Not set ourselves up and say screw everybody else...anyone that has that same mindset is free to u2u me for details. I am a very resourceful and talented person that doesnt mind being used to help others...although I do have my flaws. Namely I am not a good self-starter..but an excellent helper with great skills and ideas. As you can imagine Northern Maine has its own unique set of challenges but nothing that cannot be overcome by working together.

a reply to: 11andrew34

Does it have to be a permanent structure, improvements in a certain time perioud to qualify?

I have owned a couple of campgrounds and have found if you let someone stay that is having a hard time they generally don't get better they just live a lot better on your dime. I have had enough issues that my charity has been pretty much worn out. Little houses don't help they just prolong the issue.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

What a sick society we live in. The neighbors were "hurt" because they didn't ask permission to move into the area. See, the people of LA are actually twisted minds who think you owe them something because you exist. Some would call that communism, I don't know what it is but its very hateful of the people of LA.

My advice is to move away as these people base their lives upon feeding off of the lives of others. The neighbors complained about drugs, yet they don't have any problem with violence in destroying homes of people they don't approve of because they don't meet the neighborhood communist standard for existence.

I suggest to everyone on ATS they they look into intentional communities that show other people a better way of life. Personally I do live a minimalist lifestyle and consider it very safe. I also consider dealing drugs a fine and dandy thing to do. There is nothing wrong with growing and consuming any of the plants God gave us in proper moderation. If LA was a loving society instead of a violent one, they wouldn't feel like they want to escape life through drugs.

These people should have invited their drug-addled terrible neighbors in for dinner to start with instead of sending violent thugs in uniform to destroy people they look down upon as lesser humans in a classed society.

If they are sqoting dont they have some legle rights???

Gods own country, which god? Mammon? A Christian country? some guy named Christian? Land of the free? Free to starve, free to die of gunshot, free to die of starvation? Free to die of exposure? Free to be kicked, beaten, stabbed, garrotted? That flag is even worse than that flown by the NSDAP.

I just want to add to what I said earlier by saying that I am NOT looking for someone come here to help ME get setup. I already am set up and am surviving quite comfortably.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

What an absolute clusterbuck.

I say The homeless should create a shanty town over the walk of fame-many of those actors have 10 room mansions despite the fact that they have only two children. What are the other rooms used for? to store their smugness?

Many CEO's rough it for charity and kudos to them-do you see Kardashians do the same? No. They are afraid of getting their diamond encrusted nail files damaged. I can't wait for preteens to grow up and move on to the next fad so the vapid, cross eyed, pseudo celebrities have to sink to the serfs level and stop riding on the coattails of fame.

a reply to: spirit_horse

In a lot of cases, giving foreclosed homes to the homeless would equate to the bank taking a person's home and then giving it right back to the homeowner, since after foreclosure they could be considered homeless. How about we work harder to prevent foreclosures, so that people who have fallen on hard times can retain their homes and not become homeless in the first place?

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
In this situation peasants of the pre Magna Carta Era had more freedom than we do today.
The more people living like that and not paying taxes and paying into system the less control they have.
Unless their going to provide better housing it's a violation of human rights.

I found this in a history book a while back: medieval peasants had a lower tax rate then Americans do today. Typically, the total taxes (paid in gold or crops) was about 25%.

This home seizure is so sad. I get that a random person just can't build shelters on any property they want, but why couldn't the police work with the builder to relocate the homes instead of seizing them? Are the po-po just power trippin?

originally posted by: eeyipes
a reply to: spirit_horse

How about we work harder to prevent foreclosures, so that people who have fallen on hard times can retain their homes and not become homeless in the first place?

How about if people stop buying too much home in the first place? That would go a long way to preventing foreclosures. Just because a bank approves a person/couple for a $300,000 home does not mean they can afford it.

A good rule of thumb is your total mortgage and escrow payment should not exceed 35% of your NET income. Yet do people bother to go ask someone about how much home a good idea? No, they buy a house that makes them "feel good". When one makes decisions using only feelings, things are bound to go wrong at some point.

I'm not exactly "pro bank" but let's use some common sense here. If people aren't going to use common sense, they have no one to blame but themselves.

a reply to: bulrush

Don't assume that when people face foreclosure it's because they overloaded themselves on their mortgage. Sure, it happens, but it happens just as often to good people who purchased their home wisely and lost jobs, got sick, etc. Yes, let's evict a family in trouble and make them homeless so we can move some other homeless person into their home. By doing that you have solved absolutely nothing.

I'm appalled that the city leaders would allow this to happen. Why couldn't they work with the guy to find a way?
However, I will say that having worked with the homeless for many years, it simply isn't as easy as "give them a home."
I've watched twice as well-intentioned people tried their very best to do the right thing for people who were without shelter. One couple had a campground and managed to buy some RVs and refurbish them to offer shelter. Of the two dozen or so people/families they took in, without any questions asked, first come, first served, only two managed to get it together enough to move on. In the end the rest had to be removed by law enforcement for various reasons. These people had the same issues with the cottages they gave up to the homeless. They are good people trying to help but they are now deeply in debt and facing foreclosure themselves due to their generosity. It is just heart-breaking.
The other case was a couple that had inherited a good bit of money and wanted to put it to use helping others. They bought a motel with six "cabins" much like these tiny houses. They completely refurbished them, spent a ton of money to update them and make them energy efficient and comfortable. They lived on-site in the "manager's office" which wasn't much bigger than the cabins. They teamed up with a couple of area churches to provide free utilities to those who couldn't afford to pay. Again, in their wish to do good, they didn't screen their occupants and it was a total disaster in less than two years. Two of the cabins were burned down and another was ruined by flooding when the occupant "forgot" to turn off the water in the sink.
Every single cabin had to be refurbished after each occupation. I know this to be the case because I went to help them with the cleaning, painting and repairs during the first year. Seeing that it wasn't going to get any better, I returned to working solely with Habitat for Humanity to build affordable homes for struggling families.
It isn't as simple as just handing out housing as much as we would like it to be that way. Sad, there is the reality that those who don't respect themselves can't possibly respect others or the property or goodness of others.

I think i officially hate the neighbors who complained about these small houses, god forbid they should have their sensibilities hurt ...the nerve of them to complain about drugs and safety while no doubt they are sitting in their cocoons being paranoid whilst ingesting copious amounts of legal drugs like xanax to stay "normal"....

originally posted by: mikell
I have owned a couple of campgrounds and have found if you let someone stay that is having a hard time they generally don't get better they just live a lot better on your dime. I have had enough issues that my charity has been pretty much worn out. Little houses don't help they just prolong the issue.

You have a strong point with people not advancing their lives when you try to help them out. I've experienced this firsthand as well. And most certainly, that's where the government/society stands in a way on this issue.

However, when you say little houses don't help and prolong the issue, I have to disagree just as strongly. I'm not trying to be haughty by suggesting that if one of us were to actually sleep outside tonight in the streets, we'd find that little houses would be MUCH preferable to that. In some ways, just getting out of the elements that much can make a difference.

I've seen shantytowns in Jamaica and much about them in videos. The Kowloon Walled city in China was probably the largest and to me, most fascinating of them all. It CAN work and help some to escape not only those harsh conditions of nature but escape the predicament of their lives. Yes, they could spend their lifetimes in such places and very well might. Maybe it's enough for them.

I feel we should designate areas for free living near any metropolis. These areas would not be sustained by the local or federal government, but by the people that live there and those who wish to help, monetarily or physically.
The only interference from the governments would be related to crimes such as murder or abuse/rape/human trafficking etc. because something has to protect people from other people. I think we might be surprised how well such an area could turn out.

A while back there was a lawsuit over 387 acres that was donated to the Veterans in Los Angeles in the late 1800s. www.scpr.org...

Its a shame that this land wasnt opened up to at least the homeless Vets for a tiny house community. Im sure it is locked in red tape and the funds are being funneled into someones pocket. But, I think if half of that property was opened to homeless Vets it would solve more problems then the "approved" mismanagement of the do gooders in control of the Property today.

A lot of homeless Vets want to live free outdoors. The damage that was done mentally during war, has left many incapable of working toward the house, car, and family that most westerners think is the american dream.

I wish these Vets had the capacity to organize and demand this acreage be made available for camping or small house communities. I am sure the cost of garbage pick up and porta potties would wind up being far less then the long term expense of keeping their idea of Vet care funded. They could build a central kitchen and provide meals. And a bathroom and shower building. The vets receive a sum of money every month, so they could pay a little for meals to off set the costs.

a close friend of mine marisol viera is spear heading this with a group of friends. shes been posting updates on facebook for last few weeks. her friend build the little houses and leaves them under bridges and overpasses. they are small lil shanties, but it beats sleeping on the ground.
the sanitation department in LA started confiscating the tiny houses and left them no option but to remove the 13 houses that were left. LA has a huge homeless problem. hte politicians cant fix it, so the average citizens tried to help.
my friends were ridiculed by the mayor, the sanitation department and people passing by. telling her that they are druggies dead beats and pos.. however, most of these homeless people are vets. and got hooked on drugs due to ptsd and similar diseases.
give htem back their lil houses... let them feel normal