6 ms·

The big bet on "tiny homes" to fix homelessness

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• hombre_fatal 3y ago
  We need this kind of housing option for everyone who wants it, and TFA has a nice section on this topic. I happily lived in a 64sqft dwelling for years surfing at the beach. I would have lived in the same tiny box to get close to a good job in my favorite cities if that's all I could afford. NIMBYism and turd-tier US urban planning are so exhausting.
• JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Our city provides a room in a rooming-house to the stable homeless. So they can have a shower, sit in a common room, lock up their stuff and not worry about thieves (including city teams that clear out shantytowns/ steal from the homeless and create more homelessness. Yes they did that). Changes everything. Having an address, a place to change, to keep clean clothes makes employment 1000X easier.
  • sylens 3y ago
    Many cities do this, but of the people willing to go, they end up choosing not to for other reasons - usually due to the restrictions on the housing, like no pets or no alcohol. However, the bigger issue is the population of homeless that refuse to go because they are not of sound mind and are not thinking rationally. Most jurisdictions do not allow them to be compelled or moved involuntarily. And so a large portion of the homeless population will remain until that particular hurdle is addressed. Not advocating for them to be arrested or sectioned - just trying to highlight something that is often overlooked.
    • NoraCodes 3y ago
      > the bigger issue is the population of homeless that refuse to go because they are not of sound mind and are not thinking rationally. This is an emotionally appealing explanation for many - "we can't help them, they're just crazy" - but I've had a hard time finding evidence for it. Do you know of some study that supports this idea?
      • sylens 3y ago
        I don't have a study at hand to provide, but I've lived in a major US city for 17 years and when this topic inevitably comes up for debate in public forums, somebody asks why we can't just force these people to go into the shelters or housing that already exist. Most of the time, local governments have their hands tied.
        • JohnFen 3y ago
          Also, at least in my area, there isn't nearly enough shelter space to accommodate them. The number of beds available is less than 10% of the number of homeless people.
          • mrguyorama 3y ago
            A local city did a more thorough than usual count of local homeless to better asses what the situation was and improve some resources. They expected about 50 homeless people, give or take. They counted over 250.
      • JohnFen 3y ago
        I don't think the message is "we can't help them", I think the message is "those people need a different, additional kind of help". I have no study that supports what I'm about to say, so anecdata and all that... but I've been working with the homeless on the street for years now. My observations with this particular area is that about 3/4ths of them have crippling psychological/emotional problems that are the primary cause of their homelessness.
        • 3y ago
    • Workaccount2 3y ago
      Watching dozens and dozens of hours of SWUB made me come to the sad conclusion that a sizeable portion of the homeless population (at least in LA), simply just prefer a life of getting high and living on the street. Homelessness seems to be a perpetual problem of "You can bring a horse water, but you cannot make it drink".
      • MattGrommes 3y ago
        Even if that's the case, it's still better to get the people who want to get off the street into housing. Then you can move onto specific solutions for other people.
        • Workaccount2 3y ago
          Every single one of them wants to get off the street. Doing drugs in a house is way better than on the street. That's the rub - society doesn't want the homeless dragging their vices into these homes. So the homeless just stay on the street where they can do whatever they want.
          • mrguyorama 3y ago
            Which do you prefer: Living clean on the street where you get to experience the complete dehumanization afforded to you by millions of wealthy people blaming you for things completely out of control, harassed daily by cops, looked down upon by the majority of people, and generally treated worse than a wild dog, where any time you try to find a place out of anyone's hair enough to get a little privacy or silence or safety, cops come and steal your shit and tell you to get lost, and MAYBE have a SMALL chance of being helped by barebones social programs that are underfunded, under-cared for, and often straight up attacked for dumb political reasons, and take literally all day every day worth of effort to keep up with, and anytime you suffer a sweep you probably get set back in whatever process hell you were in the middle of, all so you can get a few sympathy bucks to not literally starve to death, or a cot in a big room full of much scarier people (I know formerly homeless people, american shelters are hell and can be just as dangerous as staying on the street) Or Scrounging for a couple bucks today so you can get a fix and spend the day mostly zonked out of your mind, and not enduring literal psychological torture. I have empathy for those who supposedly "don't want" to go clean. Maybe, we could give them some absolute minimum humanity and decency before asking them to give up the one thing that allows them to escape literal torture of a process and state that exists the way it does entirely to scare poor people into working themselves to death to at least have a legal residence and not be on the street.
• psunavy03 3y ago
  > Advocates for the homeless, meanwhile, worry that the tiny shelter boom will divert funds that could otherwise go to new permanent housing, preventing people from moving into a real home for even longer. The rush of private industry into the space also gives advocates pause, and they worry that cities will buy bare-bones, cheaper models, place them in remote parts of town, and criminalize those who refuse to go. There needs to be a circle of hell for those who screw over other people when they insist that "perfect" gets in the way of "good enough to be a first step." If people are sleeping on the streets because the problem isn't getting fixed your way, you're part of the problem. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs here. Step one: get people out of tent encampments and doorways. Step two: get them help to get back on their feet.
  • kanja 3y ago
    These advocates are paid in proportion to how bad the problem is. They're advocating in this way to ensure their income isn't interrupted by solving the problem they're being paid to fix.
    • morelisp 3y ago
      As opposed to Dignity Moves, which has no financial interest in this situation?
  • kjkjadksj 3y ago
    The issue is that these projects by and large are from tiny home companies fleecing larger public agencies out of public funds. There’s so much corruption at the local government level in California, these municipalities should really not be granted access to so much funding with such a nonspecific mandate tied to it. Apparently when you factor in operating costs and the cost to install these sites, its like $3300 a month you are paying to subsidize living in a small shack on the side of a highway (1). That would get you a 2 bedroom market rate apartment anywhere in the area. Maybe even 3 bedroom. 1. https://www.curbed.com/2021/04/tiny-home-village-homeless-los-angeles.html https://www.curbed.com/2021/04/tiny-home-village-homeless-lo...
    • deleted 3y ago
• Racing0461 3y ago
  The issue is city governments don't want tiny homes. They want the large mcmansions on the outskirts/suburbs and highrises in the city. These are more expensive so they generate more property tax. Builders don't want to make a 150k home when the initial costs (mainly time) takes the same amount as a 400k home. So builders themselves don't want to build starter homes anymore too.
  • murphyslab 3y ago
    Municipal government are starting to realize the costs of suburbs filled with "mcmansions" because the "they generate more property tax" is not true when taking into account the amount of resources they consume and the infrastructure which they require. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... Still, many tiny homes projects are unlikely to be generating tax at all, at least those run by the charitable sector. However they can significantly reduce municipal and provincial spending on the needs of caring for the unhoused population. So they are likely to be a net benefit to government budgets.
    • Racing0461 3y ago
      AGreed, not saying either/or on the tiny homes, just why they don't happen naturally without some group trying to make them happen. As for SFHs in the surburbs, there are alot more variables to take into account, especially where do people esp families geniunly want to live. I don't see cities and families co-existing. the strongtowns website gives me strong "you will own nothing and be happy" vibes anytime they come across my feed.
• yogurtboy 3y ago
  I love these tiny home blocks, they feel like a great first step; however, every article about a solution to homelessness seems to brush a bigger problem under the rug: zoning laws. One route to fixing homelessness on a bigger scale is to repeal zoning laws. Until local politicians and their constituents start to edit their zoning laws (and therefore lower the cost of housing and other civic projects), most 'solutions' to the homelessness crisis will remain bandaids and not cures. If anyone here knows of any recents attempts/successes in this area, I would love to read them. I hate zoning laws and enjoy seeing them ripped down
  • Workaccount2 3y ago
    It's not going to happen. The solution is to not be poor. Even the most die-hard bleeding heart charity obsessed liberal is still voting for their home to keep up it's appreciation rate.
    • migf 3y ago
      This is not accurate. In my city, we've rolled all that back.
  • potatopatch 3y ago
    The FCC did a lot to block zoning in cell phone tower placement and federal regulators should find a way to intervene here too. Meeting a primary basic need seems a bit more important than perfect 911 coverage to me.
  • rambambram 3y ago
    You seem to get downvoted, but I completely agree. Not from US, but from western Europe and here it's in essence the same. The problem is not building these homes, everybody can do that. The problem is you're not allowed to live like this.
• morelisp 3y ago
  [Advocates for the homeless] worry that cities will buy bare-bones, cheaper models, place them in remote parts of town, and criminalize those who refuse to go. [Tiny homes] may provide cities with the legal authority to then clear out any remaining tent encampments: Funk told me she can determine “exactly how many units you need in order to make it illegal to sleep on the streets within the city limits in San Francisco.” "Advocates for the homeless are worried cities might abuse this; cities and tiny home sellers, meanwhile, are openly salivating to abuse it"? This seems less like a, uh, "big bet" and more like yet another excuse to waste money and harass the homeless.
• MichaelRo 3y ago
  I feel that I'm going to get fiercely downvoted for expressing this but I always felt that a realistic and cost-constrained solution for homelessness would look a lot more similar to a prison than to a lavish suburb. There are several problems to solve and prisons do it to the best of their capabilities, being also constrained by the population housed inside: - Cost of operation must be minimized. Comfort and space is a luxury for people who can afford it. When the state needs to provide it for a large number of inmates, small rooms with little privacy is all that's possible. There's a vast difference between a Swedish prison and one in Antananarivo and eventually it all reduces to available budget. It's not like Madagascar wouldn't like to have Swedish prison conditions, they just can't afford it. In fact by reductio ad absurdum if they would DO have Swedish prison conditions they'd probably have a problem keeping people out, not in :) - Food would follow the same typology. Expect prison / hospital / army level food rather than Michelin 3 stars restaurant quality. - Unlike a "normal" neighborhood, expect a much higher percent of troublesome population. Mental illness, disability, substance abuse, violent behavior that is. So the problem is not just housing these people, is providing protection not just from the natural elements but from their own kind. Communities like this simply cannot function as regular suburbs, they probably need to be policed and controlled if not like a prison at least like a psychiatric institution. Before jumping at my throat like rabied dogs for daring to propose such a revolting solution rather than build lavish villas to each homeless person on "money taken from the rich", in fact let's build TWO MANSIONS for each person! (I'm being sarcastic if you haven't noticed)... think a bit that it's better than sleeping on the streets, particularly winter streets. And people would be free to leave and live as they wish ... if they can afford something better nothing's stopping them. For some unfortunately, this might be their entire existence so needs to be made as endurable as possible but they need to be realizable realistically and not just dreams of utopias just so we can go to sleep without actually doing anything.
  • natbennett 3y ago
    There’s a lot of space between “lavish villa” and “literally lock people up.” SRO hotels, for instance.
  • stcredzero 3y ago
    cost-constrained solution for homelessness would look a lot more similar to a prison than to a lavish suburb Why wouldn't this just devolve into a slum? I went to a military academy boarding school, and the largest barricks building on campus took on some of the qualities of a slum on the weekends, to the point where some adults would have some trepidation entering it. The problem with institutional solutions like this, is that they concentrate the problematic and traumatic elements. What if homeless people were dispersed in normalized environments that could absorb and dilute the problematic or traumatic elements in their lives? (With some additional professional supervision and help, of course.)
• mrguyorama 3y ago
  How does making the box cheaper solve the fact that for the majority of homeless people, the land the box is on is the cost factor that prevents them from scrounging up legal residence? They already have tents, if they could put them somewhere legally they would! That's the entire problem for the ones that "don't want" the "help" of all these stupid "solutions". My city conducted a "sweep" (read: stole all the stuff from our homeless people and threw it in a dumpster and just otherwise harassed them) of a homeless camp that was situated on a highway off-ramp. Now that area is empty, unused, and completely devoid of a point. What the heck was the concern? It wasn't a crime hotspot, it wasn't building up trash, it's completely distant from any business or facility that could be "annoyed" by a homeless camp, it was just a perfectly good use of public property. Where the fuck should they go then? There aren't enough beds in the shelter, and the shelter isn't even close to the social services they need. I'm so tired of people doing everything they can to apologize for destroying human beings for being inconvenient. "Oh but they do drugs in public and make trash and they poop in the open" Okay, I've just taken away your legal residence and your bank accounts. Where the fuck do YOU poop?
• GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  Tiny homes are a vanity driven "false solution". It's massively easier (for the homeless and the tax payer) by simply building programs that prevent homelessness. In fact there's an entire cottage industry around taking public money, shuffling it through a hundred non-profits, resulting in a few pathetic sheds. (I'm looking at you SF). If you directly assist people who are at risk of becoming homeless, there's no room for your political cronies to get a kickback.