Tiny Houses: A big idea to end homelessness

benrl
reply to post by lostbook

 

I certainly think crime would be a concern, but not in the taking of the units type of way.

Id imagine that these would be placed together, and you would create a ghetto of sorts, It would be interesting to see to say the least what would result from something like this.

Id be interested to see what kind of difference long term this could do as well, IN mexico we built small houses like this. What we would see when we returned 1,2, years down the road to build more, was the first set of people had added to the home. Even going so far as to help others build similar homes.

This was in a poor migrant farming community, used only as farm labor most sleeping in tents, or very flimsy structures. There was a net benefit to the community as a whole. I wonder how that would reflect on an urban population as well, interesting food for thought.

Yes, you're right. The benefits out weight the shortfalls. In the longterm, I think this will lead to an economic system where advertisers pay the homeless people to advertise their products on their mini mobile homes as they push them around. This can go in several directions.

pavil
reply to post by lostbook

 

Here's the Elephant in the room......

Who is going to let a 10 of these micro homes in their OWN NEIGHBORHOOD? Right next to their own home.

Who is going to pay for the utilities for them?

Who is willing to let their property values fall? Would you buy a house adjacent to a small group of Homeless homes?

Who is willing to let their kids play in an area with 10 homeless people with mini homes?

Just being realistic here, even our local churches just shuttle the homeless from location to location because even they won't put up with a continued presence of homeless people in their localities.

You would have to put them up in places far from "normal" Suburban life.

Someone tell me I'm wrong..........

You are wrong, not everyone lives in the burbs. I drive through the hood of my metropolis twice a day, see 6 vacant lots, spaced by vacant homes, a few micro houses and gardens on those vacant lots would improve the neighborhoods 10 fold. Sorry we weren't meaning to put them next to your McMansion.

reply to post by lostbook


I don’t know about the ’homeless’ situation in the USA, but a couple of days ago I came across this article that comments on the ‘homeless’ situation in Europe. It turns out that there are about 11 million houses that currently are standing empty over there. That’s an incredible amount of houses. It is actually enough houses to house all the homeless in Europe twice.

www.theguardian.com...

In Spain, at least 3,4 million houses are standing empty. In Italy and France more than 2 million houses are standing empty. In Germany 1,8 million houses are standing empty, and in England a little less than 1 million houses are standing empty. And that’s only to mention a few.
These are all houses that different Banks have confiscated because the former owners could not afford to live in them anymore.

This is in my eyes nothing more than some sort of crime against humanity, because the only reason the multitude of the banks in the world today can function and operate are that the different governments are propping them with endless amounts of fake fiat money. All these banks now refuses to sell these houses or return them to their former owners for a symbolic sum, because they won’t accept a loss. They should never have been allowed to confiscate these houses in the first place.

The entire practice is outrageous , because we all know that the governments that controls these banks at the same time are allowing these banks to step forward and shine in public as if they were the ones that now are saving the world from a worldwide economic disaster.

Banks of today are really nothing less than government controlled criminal syndicates. I totally understand that Max Kaiser calls them 'bangsters'.

reply to post by pavil


You are making good points. I don't even think the guy in the article would argue that. He just sees is as part of a solution, not the whole thing. And honestly, who is going to fault a person for trying to do a good thing in the world now-a-days? My hats off to him.

Where would we put these things? Here is AN idea: many larger cities have areas zoned for industry which (sadly) no longer exists. Look at Detroit or some of the other rust belt cities. Why not utilize some of those areas for these mini homeless houses? Who are they going to offend? Whose home value will drop? Not much chance of NIMBY here. Is it a great idea? No. Is it better than what we have now? Probably.

Dang...thought you meant these...tiny houses

I've been a fan of these for a couple years now...

reply to post by lostbook

The tiny homes in the article are not homes but hardshell sleeping bags. Also, I don't mean to be a debbie downer but, "dividends paid in crime reduction" translates to "lost profits for the prison system".

I mean, I kinda like the idea but, I'm sure someone is bound to place a whole lot of obstacles in the way.

reply to post by Dianec


Compete? Or work hard and buy it?

I think it's a good idea, as long as there's something keeping them from working, but these handouts to lazy people has to stop.

Great idea put them on pontoons and let them enjoy the waterways on their way out of town. Some rope to tie them into a big barge. Bad people gathered together in large groups is never a good thing.

I'm spreading the hate.

Why not take few billions from the foreign aid and build some real house for these guys ? Make a new slum town and bring up some industries there for them to work and cover a bit the cost. Economy up, no more homeless, job opportunities, cheap labor, everyone wins. For starter, lets make a recycling center.
Just pick few B from these guys - Recepient

No ? Looks like American dream is not that beautiful.

reply to post by ABNARTY


Iknow your thinking of a place to put them but when you say some place that is zoned off you are aleinated them. which leads negativity. crime and such. we need to find ways of incorporated them back into the postive of society,

BubbaJoe

You are wrong, not everyone lives in the burbs. I drive through the hood of my metropolis twice a day, see 6 vacant lots, spaced by vacant homes, a few micro houses and gardens on those vacant lots would improve the neighborhoods 10 fold. Sorry we weren't meaning to put them next to your McMansion.

Bubba, thanks for the reply.

You say you "drive through" the Hood, don't live there eh???? Till you do, I would humbly suggest that you ask the "Hoodites" if they want those people there. See you are willing to locate them, just not ANYWHERE near you. You made my point.

If you think the average long-term homeless person is going to be planting gardens by their homes, I suggest you go visit one the "shanty towns" that are currently in your neighborhood now, where the homeless people reside. You probably don't think there is an enclave in your area, I would bet there is. I've been in them, I am not exaggerating when you have to watch where you walk so you don't step in feces or syringes. I'm not talking the temporary homeless, they will pick them selves up by the bootstraps, I'm talking the hardcore, always going to be, homeless.

I Grew up all my youth in Detroit, my old neighborhood would make the one you talk about seem nice. Point being, while it may be a nice project, from a City building perspective, doing this does nothing but harm the overall value of said neighborhood. Just another name for a ghetto. But we probably can't say that in this PC age. We will have to come up with a new word for it. Ghetto works for me. Let's not sugar coat it.

I live in the suburbs, big whoop. McMansion? Hardly. Still not a one of my neighbors, all fairly decent people I might add, would think having 10 homeless people move in would be a good thing for their community.


Good luck promoting it, just don't put one up by me. Thanks At least I'm honest about it.

reply to post by ABNARTY



Before everyone thinks I'm a heartless bastard.....
I don't fault them for trying, it's a noble venture. However it is a band aid on a disease. I work with a program that gets homeless veterans off the streets. First condition is that they want to change and will stay clean and sober throughout the 18 month long program. If they do they end up in a furnished apartment with a real job. It's a great program, but even with all the assistance given to them, our washout rate is still about 33% in a good year. The end result of the program I help with gets a Veteran back to being a Valued Citizen, reunited with their family, holding a job and paying for their own place that they can call their own. To me, that's a more worthwhile program than giving people who don't want to change, everything handed to them with unconditionally.

BTW, this program is a private run non profit, the Government wouldn't nearly have the success rate we do if they ran it.

reply to post by pavil


Agreed. Good on you for your effort too.

reply to post by American-philosopher


I am not sure they all want to be a part of what alienated them in the first place. The location is just one step in many required. But I agree the attempt needs to be made. That point I made was in context to the NIMBY attitude of the little houses going up near established neighborhoods.

reply to post by ABNARTY


Thanks, I'm just a volunteer, the real people to thank are the ones running the Foundation 24/7. They are the ones making it a reality. About 1 in 12 homeless you see are a Veteran. It's a national disgrace that we have let this happen our Vets.