Tiny Homes For The Homeless: How Do We Make This Happen?

Submitted by: lalapancakes 11 months ago News & Politics
tiny-house-1024

My first introduction to the “tiny home” fad came from a Netflix binge where I watched “TINY: A Story About Living Small” and an episode of Portlandia.

Half of me wanted to brush it off as another weird fad for super northwestern white people and another half has been following the building of tiny homes for the homeless for people in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

In this instance I’ve dialed back my immature desire to poke fun in favor of considering villages of tiny homes for the poor. After personally working in the slums of both Mumbai and Nairobi, I am all for the idea of having tiny villages for the homeless.

There are 13 comments:
Male 1,052
The lesson is people will generally not appreciate something given to them. If they were EARNED, they would not only (typically) take care of them, they would often make the place better. The thing is how to make them earn it.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Create a law against greed, stating that excess funds made by the wealthiest top 10% corporations must go to pay for social programs for the poorest. 10% of the profits. This would force all the corporations to try remain out of the wealthiest 10%, until the point where all corporations they are all making a fairer wage, and poverty is eradicated.
0
Reply
Male 1,195
Grendal, Squidbush, you have both made very legitimate points and if you look around the world places like this don't stay pristine utopias, they very quickly fall into disrepair and hives of criminal activity just look in any large city and you will see the housing projects that were built with the same Ideas, in many places the police wont even go in unless there in numbers. How fast we forget.
0
Reply
Male 3,602
Now go watch the documentaries tent City, Pruitt igoe. And you will see why this would never happen in America. Or just come to the reservation sometime
0
Reply
Male 7,636
It sounds like a win/win, right. And it should be. But wait until you get the lawyers and politicians involved. You have some lawyer sue because not every single house is handicap accessible, and legislation will be passed to require it. Another lawyer will sue because the contract to build the houses didn't go to a LGTB-owned and/or union construction company, and legislation will be passed. Another lawyer will sue because the houses are not 'green' enough, and legislation will be passed. Another lawyer will sue on behalf of the NIMBY's, and legislation will be passed. When it's all said and done, each 'small house' will cost $120,000, will take 20 years to build and can only be placed in the middle of the desert where no one want to live.
0
Reply
Male 1,052
Which just reinforces my idea that for the human race to advance, we need to get rid of lawyers and politicians.
0
Reply
Male 2,423
Sadly there is more than a little truth to your statement.
0
Reply
Male 1,408
True. There are all sorts of issues when you think about who is going to be "responsible" for things. Should the city be responsible? Should the homeless person? What if somebody gets injured? Does the person who created the structure get sued by a homeless guy, or would the city get sued? What if the city creates a "zero responsibility zone" in a city that allows anyone to build a structure and erect it in the zone without being sued for faulty manufacturing and homeless flock to that area for cheap housing and bathroom facilities? Crime in that area would probably shoot up, the city might need an increased police presence in the zone, and some homeless people might not really feel safe in such an area...especially homeless females. All of the "what if" scenarios complicate things greatly, and local politicians need to get involved to pass "homeless friendly legislation" in order to make it easy for this type of movement to become ubiquitous.
0
Reply
Male 529
I think Utah was simply giving foreclosed/ empty homes to the homeless. Here in St. Louis, there are empty homes all over the place - seems like it could be made to work.
0
Reply
Male 1,408
That makes a lot more sense, because when you give someone a home, you give that person a deed and a title to the land, so the person living there becomes responsible for the land and everything on it. When you put a tiny home on a sidewalk, the sidewalk is owned by the city, and the city is responsible for things that happen on its property. When you put a tiny home on a parking lot, the owner of the parking lot is responsible for things that happen on its property. THAT'S when things get complicated.
0
Reply
Male 520
I have said for a long time that instead of offering welfare and just giving people money we should instead focus on small inexpensive housing that offers few amenities. A place to sleep, a place to go to the restroom and a place to cook, that's it. Nothing extra, no bells and whistles. If someone wants more than that, they can get a job and get it for themselves. In the case of people down on their luck, that's all really some of them want/need, a place to stay warm and dry so they can get back on their feet.
0
Reply
Male 3,602
There has been research done in Chicago about how much homeless people cost the taxpayer. Surprisingly it would be cheaper to buy them all houses then continue to let them be homeless
0
Reply
Female 3,390
And you've created jobs for the builders, plumbers, electricians etc
0
Reply