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.
Why would a "shop owner" want to locate here? No cars, homeless 'customers,' distant from population.
What actually HAPPENS in this town?
Why are you still here? I get you think this will fail. I'm obviously aware of your opinion... I put it in the title of this post BECAUSE it's SO common, and it's not original and it's not helpful.
That said as I have an OCD-like obsession to answer questions, so here you go.
Once a property is paid for there is no need for rent. Maintenance of the structure and infrastructure will be cover by the apartment complex in the city. I haven't run all the numbers on how big of a city it will support, BUT I'm building with low maintenance in mind. No painting, or anything like that, and people can't punch holes in concrete walls.
Because the people living there will have some money. As they have internet they could do temp/remote work on the internet for some extra cash. People living on social security, pensions, etc. would have some money as would artist, writers, and the like if/when they sold their works. They could also sell off the food (vegetables/fish) they grow in the nearby city. So while the town's concept is to shelter homeless people who can't work in the traditional sense, they should have some cash to do purchases and as 40% of their income isn't going toward rent they can buy smokes, alcohol, and the like.
Small groups of human interaction. Sitting around a fire pit, playing games on the internet, writing, singing, philosophy, and all that jazz. They already have communities in existence which aren't work focused and are more laid back, this would be another one of those types of communities.
Once a property is paid for there is no need for rent. Maintenance of the structure and infrastructure will be cover by the apartment complex in the city. .
What does this even mean? Apartment complexes do not pay for things. Tenants paying rent to live in that complex do.
So while the town's concept is to shelter homeless people who can't work in the traditional sense, they should have some cash to do purchases and as 40% of their income isn't going toward rent they can buy smokes, alcohol, and the like.
OK a bunch of homeless folks relocated to a place with no police or fire getting drunk and whatever else. Where are your social services? Have you seen existing homeless encampments?
How is this sustainable? What normal person or business would want to locate here?
Are you suggesting that productive citizens will want to pay rent for apartment buildings in a massive housing project for the homeless, and that their rent will support the homeless project? Good luck with that.
I envision that the postal service building will be able to be driven up to, but something like FedEx delivering to your door would likely be that case.
The third option would be where almost everything you needed was in walking/bike range. It limits the support of big ticket items like malls and movie theaters but most of a person's needs can be met without the requirement of a vehicle.
Part of the reason I posted this is because I wanted to find out about those hidden costs. I had not thought of storm drains, but the other stuff could be incorporated if the math works out to a lower price per unit.
Nope
There will be a yearly influx of cash from the apartment complex in the city.
This is the US so it must fall within the US form of government.
Not addressed until the city can support it. If/when the city can support shops (that pay rent to the city) then additional services as the above would be provided. Keep in mind everything is going to be made of concrete fire isn't a big issue. I'm providing internet so they could get their education online if they so wished. Obviously, I could also do some type of volunteer services for police, fire, etc. until the city can support those additional costs.
I don't think several miles outside of town will cause as much of a problem with this as a building within city limits, but my go-to response would do you want them inside the city with you begging on the streets? Do you want them in the city stealing to feed themselves? We're taking them outside of town where you don't have to see/deal with them and providing them food and shelter. We have millions in this country starving and 10s of thousand homeless, this project costs you nothing, and yet you oppose it for what? To keep your homeless? To keep that strain on the cities resources?
Those of us in rural locations don’t want the homeless as neighbors either. I lived next to a homeless “caretaker” who threatened physical harm. No way!
A city for the homeless would turn the homeless into tenants who aren't paying rent. It's essentially just social housing you pay for.
Realistically, a significant % of your residents would have substance abuse and mental health issues. So mental health services will be a significant cost factor, and you will have to think about how you want to deal with recreational drug use and the retail of such substances. Some of that will be the now often legal marijuana, a lot of it will be substances that are banned such as crystal meth, heroin and cocaine. If there's a population of addicts creating demand, then suppliers of such substances will locate themselves in your area. This will naturally cause some issues requiring the presence of law enforcement. You will need a contract with the local Sheriff's department. That's a cost factor.
You will also one way or another need a contract with someone providing fire & rescue services. You will have a population where health emergencies will occur at an above average rate.
I don't understand why you would start with a 'city' for the homeless rather than just creating and operating a homeless shelter in an existing municipality. What do you hope to be the advantage of having your own 'city' (and I imagine we'd initially be really talking about an unincorporated settlement)?
I get it dude, you don't think it'll work, so why are you still responding to this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KemBro71
What does this even mean? Apartment complexes do not pay for things. Tenants paying rent to live in that complex do.
A cap rate is the amount of money (shown as a percentage) that a real estate property generates in a year after all the expenses are paid. If you're struggling with that concept think of it as being an individual working a job where they bring home 230k a year and donate all that money to my city to pay to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KemBro71
OK a bunch of homeless folks relocated to a place with no police or fire getting drunk and whatever else. Where are your social services? Have you seen existing homeless encampments?
How is this sustainable?
Yes, I have seen homeless encampments sustained for years. Encampments where they live off of begging and have no private space to call their own. No guaranteed food or knowledge of if/when their next meal is coming. Exactly zero social services, or any type of prevention from freezing to death. (several hundred freeze to death a year as I understand it)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KemBro71
What normal person or business would want to locate here?
Who said I was targeting "normal"? Who said "normal" was a requirement? Our vets can't keep "normal" jobs because they have PTSD from killing children in a war zone on the other side of the planet just to secure the 1% oil interests and petrodollar. Not everyone wants to work from 16 until death, some people are fine with having a small place to call their own and doing their own thing without having a 9 to 5 job or being a part of the rat race. What "normal" person NEEDS this kind of help? Don't you think "normal" people already have solutions in place?
Again dude why are you still responding to this thread? Go be a harbinger of doom somewhere else. Your opinions are not original or helpful.
Are you suggesting that productive citizens will want to pay rent for apartment buildings in a massive housing project for the homeless, and that their rent will support the homeless project? Good luck with that.
No I literally said what I was expecting. In a regular city, I would have an apartment complex that would require people to pay rent. I don't need "luck" to achieve that, I've been successful at that for years now. The only difference would be rather than me pocketing the money, it would be used to take care of the homeless city that I envision several miles outside of that town. This may be a crazy thought on my part but I think people would enjoy the idea of their rent being used to feed and shelter people, but then maybe I'm just hoping to get lucky and find some people who have empathy in a world full of people who don't.
Again guys, I get it, you don't think it'll work, you're opinions are noted, you have done your due diligence, consider me informed, but you not helpful so could you go bother someone else, please? I'm looking for information I don't want to argue with harbingers of doom.
Those of us in rural locations don’t want the homeless as neighbors either. I lived next to a homeless “caretaker” who threatened physical harm. No way!
They'll have their own community they aren't going to be living close to that many people. Also once they start living there they will no longer be homeless as that's what I'm providing them. That said if someone threatens you, just like normal call the cops. Your anecdotal experience doesn't resolve the issue. Lastly and most importantly what do you expect to happen? Homeless people to just what go find someone convent to quietly die? That's not going to happen, because that's not human nature. If you provide them food and shelter they're going to be a LOT less likely to steal from you or assault you because now they have something they can lose.
A cap rate is the amount of money (shown as a percentage) that a real estate property generates in a year after all the expenses are paid. If you're struggling with that concept think of it as being an individual working a job where they bring home 230k a year and donate all that money to my city to pay to support it.
If nobody is paying rent to live in those apartments how are they generating any money?
Or are the homeless paying $0 but others who move there voluntarily paying $xxxx?
Look, I honor what you're doing in so far as trying to take a fresh lens onto the homeless crisis in our country. But I would do a ton more research on novel approaches being already tried by others and less on sketchy back-of-envelope calculations. You can see how the new ideas failed and then try to improve upon them and find ways to eliminate the failure points. I do think progress could be made.
An unincorporated, unsupervised 'burning man' encampment is a non-starter.
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.
