Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you're trying to shelter under a bridge in a rain storm, one of those little houses might look pretty good to you. The lack of a home for most people is simply a matter of money: low rages, high rents, expensive houses. How are you going to cure that problem? And because you can't, is that any reason to not try to shelter people who need it?
In Santa Cruz at least there were shelters where people can get an indoor place to sleep and a meal. That doesn't solve the problem either, but it is more efficient.
Quote:
A tiny house can have a 50 year roof. They have insulation like a regular house. They won't break down in a couple of years like trailers do from being lived in full time.
There are all sorts of trailers also. Some are built as well as any house.
If someone is in an average to low end job in a San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, etc, you're probably better off moving to Middle America. I'm sorry, but the elite coastal metros are basically the realm of the top 20% of wage earners or so.
Thing is these places need low end workers too, and they have to live somewhere in the city or close to it. Who do you think picks the Amazon orders, serves the lattes to the software engineers, stocks the grocery shelves, and on and on.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,578 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57818
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
I'm sure these are well meaning folks, but I don't understand what problem they are trying to solve. A lack of a home certainly *isn't* the problem, it's the symptom. And I hope they have water and toilets nearby along with someone who cleans and maintains the facility, else it will be a mess.
I lived with homeless people in Santa Cruz for a few months. Police harassment is pretty constant because... guess what, people paying rent and mortgages don't want dirty addicts and mentally unstable people living in their neighborhood. Or anywhere near for that matter.
They will have portable toilets, and it won't bother the neighbors much since it's in an industrial area next to a rickety bridge.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,578 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57818
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver
By tiny house, you mean a single wide. Funny how before "tiny houses" hit the market, they were just called trailers and you lived in a trailer park. I wonder how many of those people would live in a trailer park?
There is the other problem with tiny homes, where to put them. There are very few trailer parks left. Land has become too expensive. Around here I know of 4 that have closed in the last 10-20 years, replaced by big box stores, hotels or condos.
And for everyone here who says that tiny houses are just trailers, you have no idea what you're talking about. Trailers are not built for living in full time. Eventually, the roof leaks. They're not insulated in the same way tiny houses are.
A tiny house can have a 50 year roof. They have insulation like a regular house. They won't break down in a couple of years like trailers do from being lived in full time.
I've lived in trailers for most of the past 16 years. Ask me how I know these things.
Are these tiny houses built on a trailer? If they are, then they are a trailer and insured as such. Now, if you are talking about a small Sq/Ft house built on a foundation, that is completely different.
I like watching some of the tiny home shows because some of the ideas they come up for storage in small spaces are pretty neat and I'd like to try some of them out in my more standard sized home. I have nothing against living in a small space but some of them take it too far for my tastes, and their bathroom solutions tend to involve pooping in a bucket with a lid on it. I would never pay a premium for the privilege of pooping in a bucket.
Carbon footprints never cross my mind when thinking of the walkability of an area. I enjoy getting out, and walking varying routes on a daily basis for exercise. It helps for running too. I also don't have wheels anymore so I need to be within a couple miles of stores for shopping, carrying food, or whatever home.
The semi rural place I lived didn't have side walks so I had to walk in the street, and was forever dodging traffic so as not to get run over. And that area had a surprising amount of traffic for the type of area it was, mainly because it led to the one traffic light crossing the highway. Also there wasn't much variety in walking routes there either which gets boring quickly. Just long roads with no intersections leading to different areas. It had a low walkability score from me. If I could have done it over I would not have bought the place. Hindsight is 20/20, lol.
Hmm, $70-80,000 plus $450/month lot lease, doesn't sound practical financially, if you can still buy an average sized home land and all there for under $300k, smaller one 1,000-1,500 sf under $100k.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
