Tiny Homes for the Homeless Now Under Attack in California

originally posted by: jimmyx
the problem is sanitation and the laws that are on the books regarding them. they need to be reworked to accommodate these little houses being built in differing neighborhoods.....maybe dialing it back a little, and trying to work it out in a sane and thoughtful manner is the best solution.....but, even a "sane and thoughtful" approach, doesn't even work here on ATS some of the times, let alone in the BIG EGO world of politics

The problem is the people, not their circumstances. When you move section 8 housing into a nice neighborhood, what happens -- do the section 8 people assimilate and become wealthy or does crime and drug use go through the roof? The answer is obvious.

If you put your life savings into a property or business, you'd be insane to want typical homeless people moving in and around. You'll lose everything that you ever worked for and the neighborhood will go to # at the same time.

I can see the worry here.

If you can just put them up wherever its going to create health and sanitation hazards.

Just look at any African city. You really want uncontrolled slums going up.

When in the USA last year I had the unpleasant experience of passing through a tent city and it was like being in the 3rd world.

The main problem is sewage where does it go?

What they need to do is take this idea put move it to regulated sites with proper sewage and safety facilities.

Another point.


You know why this may be the future?


This modern civilization is loosing its traditions.


It’s like when it was an era of hunter gatherers way back and there was no tradition but eat and hunt.


So what kept the nuclear family together is falling apart


Where moving out of traditions into a world of crass materialism and this may be the result as time goes by

Dystopian fact!

a reply to: eluryh22

1) Solar powered.

2)They are being placed on public areas, namely under overpasses/bridges that are considered "out of the way."

Regardless, they're built structures on places where they likely aren't permitted; hence, their removal.

a reply to: opethPA

Yes, there is quite a of hyperbole.

*If* they had a plot of land where they could place these small "camps," that would be desirable (as other cities have experimented): they wouldn't be strewn out everywhere in public, but they would become slightly more permanent micro-communities.

However, that would then likely put them within "the system" and therefore subjects thereof even more.

ETA: LATimes Article

originally posted by: crazyewok
I can see the worry here.

If you can just put them up wherever its going to create health and sanitation hazards.

Just look at any African city. You really want uncontrolled slums going up.

When in the USA last year I had the unpleasant experience of passing through a tent city and it was like being in the 3rd world.

The main problem is sewage where does it go?

What they need to do is take this idea put move it to regulated sites with proper sewage and safety facilities.

That’s a good idea

How about a prison camp!?

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Willtell

Just curious about two things after reading the article....

1) It said that the units come with lights. Are these battery powered or hard wired? If hard wired, where are they getting the electric from?

2) Where are these tiny homes being placed?

I wonder too where they put these little homes. I'm sure home owners wouldn't want these boxes near their homes.


I know in Japan they put them in apartments like chicken coups...

Japan is an extremely wealthy first world country with amazing social safety nets and an amazing people not prone to the problems that cause homelessness in the first place. You're thinking of Hong Kong.

And the people that live in these aren't 'homeless people', crazy people, or drug addicts. They're hardworking poor people working in the factories that make your iPhones and other stuff that uses cheap labor.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: crazyewok
I can see the worry here.

If you can just put them up wherever its going to create health and sanitation hazards.

Just look at any African city. You really want uncontrolled slums going up.

When in the USA last year I had the unpleasant experience of passing through a tent city and it was like being in the 3rd world.

The main problem is sewage where does it go?

What they need to do is take this idea put move it to regulated sites with proper sewage and safety facilities.

That’s a good idea

How about a prison camp!?

As far as I know, no one was advocating them not being able to leave.

a reply to: crazyewok

Gotta disagree with you about ANY African city. There are a lot of metro areas in a lot of African cities. Just saying man. All of Africa is not mudhuts my friend.

originally posted by: RedDragon

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Willtell

Just curious about two things after reading the article....

1) It said that the units come with lights. Are these battery powered or hard wired? If hard wired, where are they getting the electric from?

2) Where are these tiny homes being placed?

I wonder too where they put these little homes. I'm sure home owners wouldn't want these boxes near their homes.


I know in Japan they put them in apartments like chicken coups...

Japan is an extremely wealthy first world country with amazing social safety nets and an amazing people not prone to the problems that cause homelessness in the first place. You're thinking of Hong Kong.

And the people that live in these aren't 'homeless people', crazy people, or drug addicts. They're hardworking poor people working in the factories that make your iPhones and other stuff that uses cheap labor.

No Its Japan
www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: Willtell

Drop the hyperbole.

Just a plot of public land with proper sanitation facility.

originally posted by: JimiBlack
a reply to: crazyewok

Gotta disagree with you about ANY African city. There are a lot of metro areas in a lot of African cities. Just saying man. All of Africa is not mudhuts my friend.

And on the outside of those metro areas slums. Unsafe, dirty slums.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Willtell

Drop the hyperbole.

Just a plot of public land with proper sanitation facility.

Come on lets liven it up a bit
Fema camps?

a reply to: Willtell

Naturally these little homes aren’t your best choice but is the government really after the best interest of the people or just eager to maintain a society of debt slaves and afraid of this novel independent idea?

Typically congress is to lazy and stupid to have such initiatives. This is more likely the doing of the lobbyist.

So look at who this small and upcoming market is threatening to compete with. I say this could impact the trend with spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get that McMansion or that new and shiny RV in the 100K+ range.

I'm sure that the builder and RV lobbyist industries wouldn't be happy , if the public started to conserve spending and changing their mentality from keeping up with the jones to sustainable.



Personally, I think I would prefer a mobile travel trailer with slide outs than one of this tiny homes. The travel trailer can be bigger,more Mobil, and cheaper.

a reply to: Willtell

"They claim they are safety hazards, as if living on the street is safe!"

Truer words have never been spoken...a simple and cheap solution but who wants a simple and cheap solution..

I guess the biggest issue would be, where do you park the tiny houses?

Another good idea trampled by bureaucracy...

It's an idea that needs to be developed a tad bit more, not just for the homeless, but for those of us who are struggling to find affordable rent. Personally I love the tiny homes, wouldn't mind living in one but it would have to have some kind of septic system, and well, solarpanels would be real nice. And, I wouldn't want it under a bridge or on the curb.

every city has land it's not using and they probably still have lots of empty houses that are behind in the taxes because the banks kicked the last occupants out and yet expect that they will pay the taxes. they are deteriorating which is a shame. it's stupid to have so many empty houses, unused areas, and yet have people with no place to lay their head down. we could do better if we wanted to. but, instead, by what I hear it's possible that hud is changing the regulations so that these tiny homes wouldn't be considered legal for full time living, as well as rv's ect.

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: Willtell

"They claim they are safety hazards, as if living on the street is safe!"

Truer words have never been spoken...a simple and cheap solution but who wants a simple and cheap solution..

I guess the biggest issue would be, where do you park the tiny houses?

Another good idea trampled by bureaucracy...

No it is a good idea.

But you cant put these homes anywere.

They need to be placed in a way so there is proper sanitation.

a reply to: RedDragon

why cant homless go live somewere else like national forest? it would get them out of our hair.

oh wait, the feds will kick them off if they do try and take care of their own.

stop trying to put labels on people as to prove a point.

we have the resources to care for these people or at least have the resources to provide so they can care for them selfs, but the government doesn't allow it. so if your going to get mad, get mad at the system, its not working.

That is quite sickoning to be honest, they have banned beggers in england begging on the street and move them on from wherever they are sleeping. Dont think they have banned feeding the homeless yet though. Things seem to be accelerating and changing quicker and quicker in america. The UK isnt too far behind you i dont think.

Oh so you have to look at his tiny little house when you wake up? what about him, he has to see yours, as well as your neighbors. What makes you so special that makes you think that you should corral these guys up and putim in a camp. Oh I get it now. Your better than this guy because you have more sq ft than him. Maybe you as a home owner should be forced to move your house somewhere else, taking up all that space and land that could be utilized by more than what is living there. And if you think its all gravy, I wana see you try to get a job while you have to sleep on a park bench at night.
I swear people are just not happy without trying to impose their will on them. reply to: opethPA

An Act without a Victim should not a crime. These guys have done nothing more than try to improve their standard of living. Me personally would rather see his tiny house evryday than see him just rolled up on the curb in a sleeping bag on top of cardboard.

originally posted by: MidKnight
Oh so you have to look at his tiny little house when you wake up? what about him, he has to see yours, as well as your neighbors. What makes you so special that makes you think that you should corral these guys up and putim in a camp. Oh I get it now. Your better than this guy because you have more sq ft than him. Maybe you as a home owner should be forced to move your house somewhere else, taking up all that space and land that could be utilized by more than what is living there. And if you think its all gravy, I wana see you try to get a job while you have to sleep on a park bench at night.
I swear people are just not happy without trying to impose their will on them. reply to: opethPA

An Act without a Victim should not a crime. These guys have done nothing more than try to improve their standard of living. Me personally would rather see his tiny house evryday than see him just rolled up on the curb in a sleeping bag on top of cardboard.

It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm better than anyone and more me wanting to solve the problem of homeless rather than throwing band-aids on it and allowing it to continue.

The idea that tiny homes should be able to be placed anywhere that a homeless person desires just isn't realistic. Go to any major city , find a congregation of homeless people and see what type of sanitation, health and safety issues persist.

If you created a settlement of tiny homes in an established location then you could centralize sanitation handling, health care, security, training, addiction treatment and a multitude of other things. If you think that is a worse choice then homeless people being able to randomly decide where they want their tiny home to go then no amount of logic will make sense to you and you fall into the ATS group that thinks being homeless = innocent and noble.