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.
If you have no property....you have no property rights.
Neither does the wannabe seller who wanted to sell me X property. What do you say to X? Nyuk nyuk nyuk?
As I noted earlier, the lack of full property rights impairs the ability to invest. I support full property rights for owner X because my ability to invest depends on those property rights.
As a poor person without property I recognize that I literally need American property owners to have property rights because my ability to purchase property depends on them. A lot of conservatives would probably say that more poor people should think like me.
It's all irrelevant. As some have already noted the majority are homeless by things others can not control. 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.
Neither does the wannabe seller who wanted to sell me X property. What do you say to X? Nyuk nyuk nyuk?
As I noted earlier, the lack of full property rights impairs the ability to invest. I support full property rights for owner X because my ability to invest depends on those property rights.
I can sell you land.....you just can not build on it.
You fight is with your local board.....most of the time that goes no where.....but, who knows.
Like I told you before....you made a bad deal....you did not check on zoning or, watch for changes.
If I wanted to build a development like this on private land, with private funding, I would still get messed with. What if I own the property, but the zoning won't let me engage in consensual transactions of renting these tiny houses because of living space requirements and such?
This is why these homes are often built on wheels, to get around the ridiculous rules that apply if you set it on a foundation.
Driller and her neighbors cut you off at the pass; no trailers allowed.
It's all irrelevant. As some have already noted the majority are homeless by things others can not control. 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.
Build them, you will soon be tearing them down.
Bull crap.
I would rent a 200 sq ft house for 250-350 dollars a month in a heartbeat, and I am employed. It is ridiculous to say that there would not be a demand for cheap, secure housing.
I know plenty of employed homeless people, I know plenty of employed people who are forced to live with their parents because of high rent costs.
These don't have to be limited to street urchins, and your claims are proven false by science anyway. You are inferring that addicts are not capable of rational thought, science says otherwise:
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.
I can sell you land.....you just can not build on it.
You fight is with your local board.....most of the time that goes no where.....but, who knows.
Like I told you before....you made a bad deal....you did not check on zoning or, watch for changes.
It is just time to move on.
I knew what the zoning was; I wanted to make a point. It is standard zoning practice that the ownership of guest houses, granny flats, and similar "accessory dwelling units" shall not be segregated from ownership of the "primary" dwelling. Towns behind the times generally don't even allow such dwellings; those that do, follow the standard practice. So the two options are "X not allowed" and "X allowed but can be sold only in a package with Y".
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 knew what the zoning was; I wanted to make a point. It is standard zoning practice that the ownership of guest houses, granny flats, and similar "accessory dwelling units" shall not be segregated from ownership of the "primary" dwelling. Towns behind the times generally don't even allow such dwellings; those that do, follow the standard practice. So the two options are "X not allowed" and "X allowed but can be sold only in a package with Y".
My problem with zoning, is it implies public ownership of the land. You have to make a choice, either private property exists, along with the inherent property rights... or zoning is legitimate and private land ownership doesn't actually exist.
All the "benefits" of zoning could be achieved peacefully through deed restrictions, without violating property rights.
I would rent a 200 sq ft house for 250-350 dollars a month in a heartbeat, and I am employed. It is ridiculous to say that there would not be a demand for cheap, secure housing.
I didn't say there wasn't.
Quote:
I know plenty of employed homeless people, I know plenty of employed people who are forced to live with their parents because of high rent costs.
I doubt you know "plenty" and if you are living at home you aren't homeless.
Quote:
These don't have to be limited to street urchins, and your claims are proven false by science anyway. You are inferring that addicts are not capable of rational thought, science says otherwise:
Once again, something I never said. Of course addicts are capable of rational thoughts, some are just not able to overcome their addictions. Now for the mentally ill the story is different.
Quote:
There are millions of alcohol addicts who own, rent homes in this country... and alcohol is one of the hardest drugs known to man, if not the hardest.
Of course there is, so they are not homeless.
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.
That doesn't help any.
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.
