2 ms·
It quite literally does solve the problem of people being unsheltered. It doesn’t solve the problem of people being effectively unable to care for themselves, b
by weitendorf 2y ago
It quite literally does solve the problem of people being unsheltered. It doesn’t solve the problem of people being effectively unable to care for themselves, but that’s a separate (and intertwined) problem from homelessness itself. You don't need to solve those problems at a shelter per se, and from what I recall only about 1/3 of homeless people are too addicted/mentally ill to care for themselves (these are just the most visibly homeless and the most likely to sleep rough), in which case this actually seems like a preferable arrangement compared to a group shelter for the 2/3 of homeless who literally just need a place to live.
> We can’t handle the upkeep
The main benefit of these is that they are effectively disposable, and they’re dispersed enough that you don’t have to deal with one person starting a flood or fire and wrecking a whole building.
If I were ever to become homeless I would much rather live in a tiny home than in a shelter, even if I had to go to a shelter or gym or something to take showers and interact with social workers. I feel like I’d never feel a sense of safety, privacy or autonomy in a shelter.
- nothercastle 2y agoYou can’t separate the services problem from the housing problem. These tiny houses need additional services for bathrooms showers and food nearby and for that you be viable you need 25-50 units near each other.