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.
Here's the thing though -- these houses will take a LOT more space than an equivalent apartment building. This limits them to lower property value areas unless they are being subsidized by the government (at which point they should units that make better use of the space like the free market would). These are either really poor or less dense. Areas that are poor but dense generally already have an oversupply of housing that was built in better times, and it would be more efficient to maintain what already exists than to build new. Areas that are less dense, this type of housing could be quite successful, but the potential people who would want to live there wouldn't be the homeless who wouldn't be able to get around a less dense area with worse public transit easily, but rather singles and empty-nesters who like the idea of a small single-family over apartment living.
I would totally rent one of these; I am also totally not the target audience policymakers are trying to reach.
??? I'm comparing them to existing houses not to apartment buildings. One can easily put four, maybe six to eight, tiny houses on a standard-sized city lot. So a builder could make more money putting tiny houses on a vacant lot then by sellinng a single-family house.
Yes you did, you said they would be torn down as fast as they went up.... why the hell would they be torn down if their is a demand for them?
The question was, would this solve the homeless problem. If you want to ask whether or not there might be a market for inexpensive housing that is another question. If we are building these for the homeless they are not going to be paid for or maintained over the long term.
Quote:
Well I do, so too bad. One of my co-workers lives in a car..
Well then, that proves it, you know many.
Quote:
No, people living with parents are not homeless, but they would prefer to rent their own place. Houses like this would solve their problem and therefore creates a demand for the housing. I was reiterating how silly your claim that they would be torn down right away is.
LOL....I stand by my actual claim.
Quote:
If they are capable of rational thought, they are capable of renting a place. It is in their rational self-interests.
So is not being an addict in the first place but those rational thoughts aren't making it happen.
Quote:
Yeah, you just said that people who are addicted to drugs are not capable of keeping a place up and making rent. I proved that claim false.
It's really sad that you are not able to address what I actually say and feel this incredible need to twist what I say to fit your argument.
Quote:
Lies.
Even when I agree with you in your desire to prove me wrong, you don't actually read what I said.
You said you would spend YOUR money investing in homes to rent.
Was that just talk???
I thought so.
And maybe they will....
They don't have to do it NOW to make the claim true, and they don't have to prove to you that they did it. The poster you are arguing with and I do not get along, but you are just being ridiculous.
No. People aren't homeless because there isn't enough affordable housing.
They are homeless because of mental issues, drug and alcohol addictions.
Most of them are, yes. Some low-wage workers get squeezed by high rents which usually are accompaied by low supply and high demand. I have two friends in Portland who are employed and homeless. Both are attractive women and thus have more couch surfing options than most men. One also sleeps in her car when she doesn't have a couch on which to surf or doesn't want the couch being offered with a quid pro quo
I am completely against public funding of these developments, but I wish they existed. And they should not be limited to homeless people either. I have a car and a job, and I would still rent one of these if the option was available to me. In a heartbeat.
100% agreed on all points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
??? I'm comparing them to existing houses not to apartment buildings. One can easily put four, maybe six to eight, tiny houses on a standard-sized city lot. So a builder could make more money putting tiny houses on a vacant lot then by sellinng a single-family house.
Depends on the market whether or not that would be the case. It would be nice if they were allowed to build these where they would be economically viable; like Xander I would personally be interested in this type of housing if it was available and affordable where I live.
I just think that as a public policy response to homelessness it won't fly because building them where poor people would want to live doesn't make sense and putting them in depressed rural areas, while cost-efficient, would be very unpopular with both potential residents and with the liberal politicians that generally push public housing - and in those areas a private buyer generally already can put down a mobile home, which isn't that different from this idea.
Basically I'm separating the premise of the OP into two parts:
1) This is a desirable form of housing which should be allowed to be built in many areas where it presently is not allowed, which I agree with.
2) This is a potentially viable way to reduce homelessness via public policy, which I don't agree with.
Once you give people a home they need to maintain it and few can do that. It's one of those things where everything you ever do ends up being your responsibility...forever. Another agency, another budget item, another "tear it down and rebuild" every few years. Blah.
Depends on the market whether or not that would be the case. It would be nice if they were allowed to build these where they would be economically viable; like Xander I would personally be interested in this type of housing if it was available and affordable where I live.
I just think that as a public policy response to homelessness it won't fly because building them where poor people would want to live doesn't make sense and putting them in depressed rural areas, while cost-efficient, would be very unpopular with both potential residents and with the liberal politicians that generally push public housing - and in those areas a private buyer generally already can put down a mobile home, which isn't that different from this idea.
Basically I'm separating the premise of the OP into two parts:
1) This is a desirable form of housing which should be allowed to be built in many areas where it presently is not allowed, which I agree with.
2) This is a potentially viable way to reduce homelessness via public policy, which I don't agree with.
In rural areas the site improvements could cost more than the homes.
The question was, would this solve the homeless problem. If you want to ask whether or not there might be a market for inexpensive housing that is another question. If we are building these for the homeless they are not going to be paid for or maintained over the long term.
I think they can help reduce homelessness by providing cheap, secure housing. There is nothing to indicate that that statement is untrue.
I completely reject funding them with tax dollars, but the existence of the housing would definitely help homelessness if private developers could build them without interference from silly zoning and codes.
Quote:
Well then, that proves it, you know many.
I do, you can't provide evidence that I don't. I am not obligated to share my personal information with you or the personal information of those people with you to verify anything.
You should volunteer for charities, you would know many too.
Quote:
LOL....I stand by my actual claim.
Which only works if the houses are publicly funded, restricted to homeless people, and your misinformation was correct.
You simply are wrong about addicts being able to maintain and rent a place, I proved it wrong conclusively. Also, these things DO NOT HAVE to be funded publicly or be restricted to homeless people.
Quote:
So is not being an addict in the first place but those rational thoughts aren't making it happen.
Yeah, and the rational self interest of not becoming an addict doesn't stop alcoholics either, yet they can still act in their rational self-interest when it comes to putting a roof over their head.
Quote:
It's really sad that you are not able to address what I actually say and feel this incredible need to twist what I say to fit your argument.
No twisting here, I will now quote you directly:
Quote:
Once your addiction or mental illness has got you to the place where you are homeless you aren't going to keep up your own place no matter what size it is.
This explicitly says they are incapable of keeping a place up, which is what I quoted you as saying. Now who is being dishonest?
Or are you now claiming that the argument hinges on them being an addict AND homeless? Like the act of not owning a home changes the mental composition of an addict.
Quote:
Even when I agree with you in your desire to prove me wrong, you don't actually read what I said.
Wrong. Lies. Wow you are dishonest.
First of all, this is a deflection, and not your first... it doesn't address the issue at all.
Second, you are LYING in this claim.
I made the claim that if we erased bad laws, it would cut down on homelessness.
I said:
Quote:
Maybe if you didn't have hypocritical drug laws, these people could maintain their habit just as well as people addicted to alcohol. People don't have their lives ruined over alcohol possession, that is the difference.
this was your direct response:
Quote:
That doesn't help any.
You quoted two sentences, lets try your response to each:
"People don't have their lives ruined over alcohol possession, that is the difference." --- "That doesn't help any." Well, that doesn't make sense, it must have been in response to the other sentence you quoted.
"Maybe if you didn't have hypocritical drug laws, these people could maintain their habit just as well as people addicted to alcohol." -- "That doesn't help any."
You responded to my claim that repealing drug laws would reduce homelessness, with "That doesn't help any."
Once you give people a home they need to maintain it and few can do that. It's one of those things where everything you ever do ends up being your responsibility...forever. Another agency, another budget item, another "tear it down and rebuild" every few years. Blah.
This isn't really about the thread topic but the "non-affordable" issue hits Habitat for Humanity and Christmas in April.
People get a house for essentially sweat equity (Habitat) or have improvements/capital maintenance (windows, siding, roof, structure) fixed (Christmas) but have no idea going forward how to maintain it.
Habitat fares a bit better but I watch Christmas in April here go back to the same houses year after year performing tasks or fixing things that even the most casual homeowner should be able to do. One of my neighbors has had work done on his house four times in the last 12 or so years by the Christmas folks.
Full disclosure:
I used to be very involved here in the Christmas in April program until a leadership change resulted in the majority of projects being performed on rental properties and the people who needed the program were ignored.
I think they can help reduce homelessness by providing cheap, secure housing. There is nothing to indicate that that statement is untrue.
I completely reject funding them with tax dollars, but the existence of the housing would definitely help homelessness if private developers could build them without interference from silly zoning and codes.
Kind of a generalization. No, we are not going to be writing code here and generalizations are fine. Some may well be silly but not all are.
Is the idea of small inexpensive housing a dismiss able bad idea? No it's not. I'm not dismissing the idea. I'm saying it's not really going to address the idea of the homeless. Sure, there may be a small number but it will be a small number. Could it be great for someone just out of college not needing a lot of room getting started? Sure, if they are able to find an apt for $250 as opposed to $700 that's a good bit of money they could put towards their college debt.
Would I rather live by myself in a small affordable spot as opposed to having to find three room mates to split costs? Yes I would.
Quote:
I do, you can't provide evidence that I don't. I am not obligated to share my personal information with you or the personal information of those people with you to verify anything.
You should volunteer for charities, you would know many too.
I've been to the local Salvation Army homeless center. Addicts and the mentally ill by and large.
Quote:
Which only works if the houses are publicly funded, restricted to homeless people, and your misinformation was correct.
You simply are wrong about addicts being able to maintain and rent a place, I proved it wrong conclusively. Also, these things DO NOT HAVE to be funded publicly or be restricted to homeless people.
At which point it becomes a different question. It's then not about the homeless. I noted what I thought about that above.
Quote:
Yeah, and the rational self interest of not becoming an addict doesn't stop alcoholics either, yet they can still act in their rational self-interest when it comes to putting a roof over their head.
Some can and are. Some can't and aren't.
Quote:
This explicitly says they are incapable of keeping a place up, which is what I quoted you as saying. Now who is being dishonest?
You are. I didn't say addicts were incapable of providing a roof over their heads. I said once it gets to the point that they can't, they can't.
Quote:
Or are you now claiming that the argument hinges on them being an addict AND homeless? Like the act of not owning a home changes the mental composition of an addict.
I know functioning alcoholics. Some are able to function around their addiction and maintain a home and others aren't. The ones that aren't become the homeless.
Quote:
Wrong. Lies. Wow you are dishonest.
First of all, this is a deflection, and not your first... it doesn't address the issue at all.
Second, you are LYING in this claim.
I made the claim that if we erased bad laws, it would cut down on homelessness.
I said:
And I said those laws don't help the problem.
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.
