L.A. County wants to help build guest houses in backyards — for homeless people

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: underpass61

You make it sound mandatory. These homeowners are volunteers. This idea is genius and I hope it spreads. As long as the tenants have access to toiletries and email, this could be a stepping stone permanent solutions for most of them.

This is the greatest post ever....


All i need is a toilet and the internet.


Many ask what is the difference?

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: underpass61

You make it sound mandatory. These homeowners are volunteers. This idea is genius and I hope it spreads. As long as the tenants have access to toiletries and email, this could be a stepping stone permanent solutions for most of them.

Wait What?? Access to email is a necessity???

LMFAO You can't be serious right? Wait you're left coast right.....Never mind you are serious.

Please continue.

Who's going to want to house people who are trying to get back on their feet if they don't have the basic means to communicate with potential employers?

Ever try to get on your feet in any urban area without internet lately?

It's called two feet and a heart beat maam!! Otherwise known as pounding the pavement or hitting the streets. I assure you people have been landing jobs long before email just by walking into locations and asking about employment.

Instead of figuratively talking about people getting on their feet why don't they literally get on their feet and walk to find a job?? Is that too much to ask from someone really trying to get on their feet and out of the gutter? I think what most people don't realize is a lot of homeless people have mental issues and can't even function in society none the less in a job environment.

And that isn't even mentioning the ones who are homeless by choice. They don't want a job, they just want to beg for money and let others feed them. Do you want that homeless person in your back yard or only the Will Smith homeless guy Hollywood sells you?

I think there is a significant disparity of forced perspectives here. If you live in a rural area, "pounding the pavement" makes sense. You'll cover half the town within a day, facing reasonable competition.

However, if you are living in a place like LA or even here, you will increase your odds 20-fold by using temp agencies (which are more effective if you receive notifications of job openings), Craigslist, and any number of job sites. You will be facing much more competition for even the most menial of jobs and just walking around your neck of the woods isn't going to cut it.

In any case, I mentioned that with access to hygiene and job-hunting tools, a person can really get back on their feet. Why is that such a controversial statement? Are you all really this petty when it comes to iconic rugged individualists pulling themselves up with their bootstraps? Some people just need to get a job after running out of bootstraps and this is a program that provides more of them. Again, this shouldn't be controversial.

So a person with no job, money or even a home is going to have a lap top or a smart phone? Where did they get the money to buy that Mac Air? Where do they plug in that new Android or how do they pay for that $100 a month Verizon plan? Where do they mail the bill? Card board box #7 between Sunset and 7th st?

I think the problem is some people are soooo removed from reality that they think real life happens on them internets. I assure you lack of WIFI access is what some would call white privilege problems or first world problems. Besides what good does it do for a homeless person to seek a job outside of their walking range?? Are they going to drive there in their new Tesla too? I mean they do have that Mac Air and the new iPhone X, I'm sure they are rolling a new Tesla Roadster too right??

This is a bad idea period and it was proposed by brainless half wits who have no idea what struggle is or how to over come it. I assure you if any of my friends were homeless or couldn't provide for their families they would be everywhere looking for a job...And would most likely be canceling that WIFI and Verizon subscription....

Again, you are talking about two different worlds. There are public transit and public wi-fi hotspots in most non-rural places. No, a homeless person probably won't come with a phone but, if you are spending money on a building project to help homeless people transition into permanent jobs and housing, an extra one-time expenditure of 50 bucks will go a long way to assure success. And even that could be provided by people donating their own replaced devices and cost nothing at all. It's not like you need a phone plan to access the internet. I'd rather see a jobless person equipped for success in my guest house for a month than I would a jobless person set up for failure living in my guest house for an indefinent period of time.

Again, why is this so controversial?

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: underpass61

You make it sound mandatory. These homeowners are volunteers. This idea is genius and I hope it spreads.

Did this homeowner's neighbors "volunteer" to have their property values decimated? My home equity is a major chunk of my retirement. I should feel good my neighbor is being so altruistic as I watch a half a million $ drop off the value of my home? Hell, maybe I'll be the one living in his backyard eventually.

Seriously? Screw HOAs. That kind of thinking is what drives gentrification which is a major cause of homelessness in the first place.

Who's talking about HOAs? I have busted my ass for 40+ years to own a single family dwelling in a good neighborhood. Maybe I was trying too hard and expecting too much? "Gentrification", my ass. I guess nobody should try to do better, screw the American Dream.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: underpass61

You make it sound mandatory. These homeowners are volunteers. This idea is genius and I hope it spreads. As long as the tenants have access to toiletries and email, this could be a stepping stone permanent solutions for most of them.

This is the greatest post ever....


All i need is a toilet and the internet.


Many ask what is the difference?

Nothing...They are both full of # posts.

originally posted by: underpass61
Once they have some stability...

That's the problem. You have to have an address. Means of communication and travel. "Stability" is difficult to even start with. Easy for us. We can do it all. Hell without a car we can get around for $80/month on a bus pass. Even that is beyond most of these people.

Oh and BTW, many of these homeless are veterans with problems.

Socialism at its finest! You go California (and Bloomberg, et. al.), keep showing the rest of the US what you’re really shooting for...maybe then enough will vote to keep Democrats from destroying this great Nation!

a reply to: underpass61

Well, people are always saying that people need to put their money where their mouths are and invite these people in to their homes. So it appears they are doing so.

Also, it's a voluntary program, so no one is forced.

a reply to: Abysha

I think that you're misusing the word "genius," here. Even the order in which they gone about doing it is backwards (they should study the concept first, THEN set aside money and start a pilot program).

So, you claim that this could be a permanent solution...but who owns the property rights? What if the property owner wants to sell and the incoming buyers don't want to volunteer to house a homeless person or people? What if, as is noted in the article, the homeowners decide to stop participating after the 10-year lease forgiveness, when the owners can "do as they wish with the housing?"

The L.A. County pilot program will lend homeowners $75,000 to build a backyard house or $50,000 for a bootleg renovation for up to six units. The loan principal will be reduced each year the unit is occupied by a formerly homeless person and forgiven after 10 years, at which point homeowners can do as they wish with the housing.

That doesn't seem very permanent to me.

While the heart seems to be in the right place, the execution and proposed method seems very flawed to me, and destined to fail. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and time will call me an idiot. We shall see.

a reply to: intrepid

Oh and BTW, many of these homeless are veterans with problems.

I find that many people do not care about the veterans, until they become a useful tool in their political side's propaganda.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: underpass61

You make it sound mandatory. These homeowners are volunteers. This idea is genius and I hope it spreads. As long as the tenants have access to toiletries and email, this could be a stepping stone permanent solutions for most of them.

This is the greatest post ever....


All i need is a toilet and the internet.


Many ask what is the difference?

I can land a job, pay my bills, and apartment hunt; all from my bathtub.

If I didn't have clean clothes, internet, or access to basic hygiene; I couldn't do any of that no matter where I was at.

originally posted by: howtonhawky




All i need is a toilet and the internet.

I think that's a quote from Ben Franklin. A great man.

A great man.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

While the heart seems to be in the right place, the execution and proposed method seems very flawed to me, and destined to fail. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and time will call me an idiot. We shall see.

It's a pilot program. It's not meant to be permanent, unless they review the program after a certain time period and it is found to be beneficial, so they extend the program.

I would merely confiscate empty residences and house the homeless there. This isn’t a bad idea though. Hope it takes off in other parts of the world.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: xuenchen
Must be an old dug-up Obama era FHA/HUD program
😀😁😀

Well, that didn't take long...lol!

Make fun all you want, this plan has “Community Organizer” written all over it. If you can’t see that, don’t know how to help you.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: underpass61

You make it sound mandatory. These homeowners are volunteers. This idea is genius and I hope it spreads.

Did this homeowner's neighbors "volunteer" to have their property values decimated? My home equity is a major chunk of my retirement. I should feel good my neighbor is being so altruistic as I watch a half a million $ drop off the value of my home? Hell, maybe I'll be the one living in his backyard eventually.

Seriously? Screw HOAs. That kind of thinking is what drives gentrification which is a major cause of homelessness in the first place.

Who's talking about HOAs? I have busted my ass for 40+ years to own a single family dwelling in a good neighborhood. Maybe I was trying too hard and expecting too much? "Gentrification", my ass. I guess nobody should try to do better, screw the American Dream.

"I guess nobody should try to do better" says the guy complaining about people "trying to do better".

People do all kinds of things that affect property prices. If your neighbors built something on their property that improved your home's value, do you think you should be billed for it? If not, your neighbors who reduce your home's value just for existing next to you owe you nothing.

Your fight is with the predatory housing market, not job seekers and those trying to help them.

How come Hollywood celebs haven't come out and embraced this idea?

They have the largest backyards after all. Could house hundreds of homeless.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: xuenchen
Must be an old dug-up Obama era FHA/HUD program
😀😁😀

Well, that didn't take long...lol!

Make fun all you want, this plan has “Community Organizer” written all over it. If you can’t see that, don’t know how to help you.

I think it is a good thing but what about the homesteaders laws and squatting laws?

I mean i can see many court battles when people get an unruley person in their treehouse in the backyard and the law comes and says that not only can you not remove them but you have to feed and clothe them and provide the best basics for someone that is just there to jack with you.

Those good intentions always get hijacked.

So they need some clause like said resident has to have a job or some type of daily functionality in order to remain.

From my experience if a person has a positive daily routine then it leaves not much time to jack with folks.

I think it is a good thing but what about the homesteaders laws and squatting laws?

I mean i can see many court battles when people get an unruley person in their treehouse in the backyard and the law comes and says that not only can you not remove them but you have to feed and clothe them and provide the best basics for someone that is just there to jack with you.

Those good intentions always get hijacked.

So they need some clause like said resident has to have a job or some type of daily functionality in order to remain.

From my expierence if a person has a positive daily routine then it leaves not much time to jack with folks.

Voluntary today, eminent domain tomorrow! Anybody here who doesn’t think the politicians on California WON’T thin thats a great idea?