San Jose Leaders Look To Build ‘Pods,’ ‘Microhouses’ To Shelter The Homeless

[CaseyJones]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/san-jose-leaders-look-to-build-pods-microhouses-to-shelter-the-homeless/


A new idea is taking shape in San Jose to help the down and out get out of tents and doorways and into more sturdy shelters. The idea involves building new neighborhoods for the homeless with shed-sized buildings.

The high-end sheds at The Shed Shop in Fremont were never designed to house the homeless

“The most common use is a home office,” said Paul Johnston of The Shed Shop

But with sturdy doors and windows, two-by-four construction, insulation and built-in electrical wiring they could be very livable.

“These are made just like a little house would be made,” Johnston said.

And that’s the idea behind a new idea at San Jose City Hall to help the homeless.

Two councilmembers who are running against each other for mayor have jointly written a memo calling on the city to build new neighborhoods for the homeless using shed-sized “microhouses” or “housing pods.”

It’s already worked in a handful of cities, including Grass Valley and Eugene, Oregon.

“We’re looking at trying to identify public spaces, publicly owned land where we can get a lot of microhousing out there,” said Councilmember Sam Liccardo.

Councilmember Rose Herrera, who also supports the plan, said, “It’s far better to be living in a small home that you can call your own than to be living in a creek in unsafe conditions and unsanitary conditions.”

The dwellings can be built for about $5,000. They are typically under 150 square feet, with no running water. Bathrooms and kitchens would be communal

Homeless advocates said they do have advantages. “When you give somebody a key to their own door, their own house, that they can call their own that’s a victory,” said Jenny Niklaus of HomeFirst.

Niklaus said there are 7,000 homeless people in San Jose, and with rising rents and shortages of housing, more are being added every day.

“Right now to afford an apartment in San Jose, you have to make more than $30 an hour. It’s stunning the gap between what people can afford and what is real. For people who are homeless, living on a subsidy, a place like a little home helps overcome those barriers.”

The councilmembers plan to introduce their proposal next week.

[tod evans]

Where is broke Ca. getting the money for this?

[Ender]

Where is broke Ca. getting the money for this?

It sounds like a local initiative, not state.

[tod evans]

It sounds like a local initiative, not state.

That's admirable!

[Ender]

That's admirable!

I agree.

[helmuth_hubener]

That's admirable!

I wouldn't go that far.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Good Ole Jefferson... who would of thunk, he was correct and warned Americans of exactly whats going on in America today. Everything... Collectivism, Majority Rule, Tyranny, Poor, Homeless...

[brushfire]

Where is broke Ca. getting the money for this?

http://www.disdblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/spare-change.png

[Origanalist]

Niklaus said there are 7,000 homeless people in San Jose, and with rising rents and shortages of housing, more are being added every day.


“When you give somebody a key to their own door, their own house, that they can call their own that’s a victory,”

The Great Society finally a reality!

[JK/SEA]

great...at least i know i have a place to live when i stop making my house payment.

[HOLLYWOOD]

BTW, No problem spending(taxing) $1.3 BILLION on a new stadium for the 49ers.

San Jose Mercury News: 49ers new Santa Clara stadium cost goes up again -- to $1.3 billion
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23414780/49ers-new-stadium-cost-goes-up-again-1

[Origanalist]

Pod people.

[Ender]

I wouldn't go that far.

I would.

Charity begins at home; if local govs want to help the homeless, the hungry, etc, then THAT is where help should come from- not the fed.

Don't like it? Don't move to San Jose.

[Tod]

pods? You mean like these?

http://www.viralsoma.com/over-100000-people-found-living-for-decades-inside-horrifying-ldquocaged-cityrdquo.html


Over 100,000 People Found Living for Decades inside Horrifying “Caged City”

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0908/360_cage_0821.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

There was open space (grass, occasional trees) in the flight path at the San Jose airport that had turned into a huge "homeless" encampment. They cleaned that up, but that probably resulted in a desire for a new, government solution.

Charities are more appropriate to pay for these. They would probably be willing.

The mini-Marxists and tyrants in city government will want full control, with all that entails. And State and Federal grants will be inevitable.

[twomp]

BTW, No problem spending(taxing) $1.3 BILLION on a new stadium for the 49ers.

San Jose Mercury News: 49ers new Santa Clara stadium cost goes up again -- to $1.3 billion
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23414780/49ers-new-stadium-cost-goes-up-again-1

That's in Santa Clara not San Jose...

[donnay]

Agenda 21 sustainable living. :mad:

[Origanalist]

They should then supply them with soylent....http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/the-man-who-would-make-eating-obsolete/361058/

[helmuth_hubener]

I would.

Charity begins at home; if local govs want to help the homeless, the hungry, etc, then THAT is where help should come from- not the fed.

Don't like it? Don't move to San Jose. There is truth to this, but there is also error. If the people doing this had authority to do it, that would be one thing. And that thing would be, as you say, fine (or at least not illegitimate, even though a bad idea). However, they do not. It is not "San Jose" doing this. It is a forcibly-imposed monopoly of rulers who are deciding to use other people's funds to do this, funds over which they have no just authority. They have simply stolen those funds.

And stealing isn't right.

[Danke]

Pod people.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQweY2Z3KRzlBOmqyZF0GFA6OLh7YroI HRcX1x8tnk5nhLoSffM6g

[Danke]

I would.

Charity begins at home; if local govs want to help the homeless, the hungry, etc, then THAT is where help should come from- not the fed.

Don't like it? Don't move to San Jose.

Don't like any Federal or local policies that take your money, leave, just leave I say.

[HOLLYWOOD]

That's in Santa Clara not San Jose...The taxes that went up for the stadium are Santa Clara County... which the largest portion of the county is occupied by the City of San Jose. The stadium is about 50ft from the city of San Jose if that means anything on the geopolitical front.

[twomp]

The taxes that went up for the stadium are Santa Clara County... which the largest portion of the county is occupied by the City of San Jose. The stadium is about 50ft from the city of San Jose if that means anything on the geopolitical front.

Umm where does it say that? I live in San Jose and work in Santa Clara. The stadium has always been a City of Santa Clara project. The voters of the CITY of Santa Clara voted to fund the stadium. Not the county.

EDIT: The Stadium is across the street from Great America which is miles away from the San Jose border.

[helmuth_hubener]

Over 100,000 People Found Living for Decades inside Horrifying “Caged City”

http://www.viralsoma.com/over-100000-people-found-living-for-decades-inside-horrifying-ldquocaged-cityrdquo.html

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0908/360_cage_0821.jpg
I do not find the cage cities "horrifying". It's easy when you're living in the super-rich USA to look at anybody living in less than the luxury to which you are accustomed and be "horrified". But actually, it's all relative.

Many people living in the "horrifying conditions" of the USA suburbs have been found to have mold living in their lungs. The residents have all kinds of diseases and termites and pests. Oh, the humanity!

I personally think we should legalize cage housing here. If all you need's a bed, why be forced to pay for more?

[Anti Federalist]

It sounds like a local initiative, not state.

Not government?

Shut down due to numerous building code violations in 3...2...1...

Only government approved Stack-a-Prole units are permitted.

[Ender]

Not government?

Shut down due to numerous building code violations in 3...2...1...

Only government approved Stack-a-Prole units are permitted.

So..... no libertarian "keep power in the local communities" logic is acceptable?

If the CITY of San Jose has a meeting and decides to do this, then it is the CITY who pays the bills. If the people living in the CITY approve this, then what is the gripe?

The council & mayor need to be re-elected and few cities go completely against their constituents desires. The further away the politics are, i.e. state and national, the more they can get away with. This is why LOCAL GOVERNMENTS should be first in anyone's desire for change.

[Anti Federalist]

I forgot /s/


So..... no libertarian "keep power in the local communities" logic is acceptable?

If the CITY of San Jose has a meeting and decides to do this, then it is the CITY who pays the bills. If the people living in the CITY approve this, then what is the gripe?

The council & mayor need to be re-elected and few cities go completely against their constituents desires. The further away the politics are, i.e. state and national, the more they can get away with. This is why LOCAL GOVERNMENTS should be first in anyone's desire for change.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Umm where does it say that? I live in San Jose and work in Santa Clara. The stadium has always been a City of Santa Clara project. The voters of the CITY of Santa Clara voted to fund the stadium. Not the county.

EDIT: The Stadium is across the street from Great America which is miles away from the San Jose border.
I'm well aware of the area... I used to worked right up the road at the Blue Cube(years ago) Today, government uses their so-called "General Fund" to launder taxpayer monies into projects.

It's all right here on how clever financing has become the course, and it's gone up from $1.1 to $1.3 Billion just like the funding monstrosity they call the San Jose City Hall: http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/

(http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/)

The City Loses

The Santa Clara Unified School District gets 38.4 cents of every property tax dollar (http://www.savesantaclara.org/santa_clara_budget.php#property_tax_2009_2010) and the City of Santa Clara General Fund gets 10.2 cents of every property tax dollar. This means that while Denise Debartolo York (and her heirs) save $520 million to $780 million by not owning the stadium, the Santa Clara school system loses $199.68 million to $299.52 million dollars in revenue. In addition, the City of Santa Clara General Fund loses $53.04 million to $79.56 million in property tax revenue due to the San Francisco 49ers not owning the stadium. Other losers include Santa Clara County ($93.6 to $140.4 million), West Valley-Mission College District ($57.72 to $86.58 million), and the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ($82.68 million to $124.02 million).

Income Taxes... The Billionaire Wins

When the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/santa_clara_stadium_authority.php) was only supposed to contribute $330 million to the stadium construction (pre-election term sheet (http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/49ers_term_sheet.php#balance_sheet)), it was said that ALL of that money would be gained from the sale of Stadium Builder Licenses (http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/SBLs.php), Naming Rights, charges for rights to host concession stands (Pouring Rights) and other fees. However, the San Jose Business Journal reports that the 49ers have given a presentation showing SBL revenue will be $500 million (http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/SBLs.php#sbls_half_a_billion). If the San Francisco 49ers were the recipient of those charges, they would be added to their income. And since they are profitable every year (http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/San_Francisco_49ers_LTD.php), that would mean taxes would need to be paid on the $500 million (likely more) received from fees and charges related to the stadium. The current corporate US Income Tax rate for income over $18,333,333 dollars is 35% (for income under $18,333,333 it is essentially the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States)).

State and Federal Taxpayers Lose

So $500 million dollars in fees taxed at 35% would be $175 million dollars in income taxes, but the San Francisco 49ers are saving all that (and the US Treasury is losing an equivalant amount) by having their stadium charges funneled through the tax free public entity called the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.
California's corporate tax rate is 8.84%. The effective state tax is (lower due to state tax deductibility on federal filing) 5.746%. So the 49ers savings on State of California income taxes are at least 28.7 million dollars. That would make their total income tax savings at least 203.7 million dollars.
In addition to the SBL fees, the San Francisco 49ers will income tax shelter the Naming Rights fees (http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/DDA/Naming_Rights_Agreement.php), and fees levied on the vendors who will be selling food at the stadium ("Pouring Rights"), through the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.


(http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/)

[angelatc]

That's admirable!

Except this:
They are typically under 150 square feet, with no running water. Bathrooms and kitchens would be communal

If we mundanes were to try to simply live like that on private property, we would be in violation of numerous building codes and our children would be seized and handed over to the state.

If we tried to run a compound like that on private property, using private funding sources, the Planners would never agree to waive the requirements of an operating permit.

[trey4sports]

Don't forget to charge them their fair share of property tax!

[Danke]

Housing is a right. Especially for Mexican/Canadian Americans.

[Brian4Liberty]

The taxes that went up for the stadium are Santa Clara County... which the largest portion of the county is occupied by the City of San Jose. The stadium is about 50ft from the city of San Jose if that means anything on the geopolitical front.

Come on now, that's an exaggeration. It's between 1000 and 2000 feet from North San Jose...and from Sunnyvale too. ;)

For those who don't know the geography, all of those cities originally wanted to have access to the SF Bay, so they are all extremely narrow where the stadium is, near the bay.

[twomp]

I'm well aware of the area... I used to worked right up the road at the Blue Cube(years ago) Today, government uses their so-called "General Fund" to launder taxpayer monies into projects.

It's all right here on how clever financing has become the course, and it's gone up from $1.1 to $1.3 Billion just like the funding monstrosity they call the San Jose City Hall: http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/

(http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/)
(http://49ers.savesantaclara.org/)

Again, it's not that the people in the county of Santa Clara are being taxed more, its the 49ers being taxed less. They of course equate being taxed less as everyone else "losing" money. It's hard to lose money that they never earned. Depending on who you ask around here, I believe the general feeling is taxes are bad even if it means billionaires are getting most of the tax savings.

[John F Kennedy III]

BTW, No problem spending(taxing) $1.3 BILLION on a new stadium for the 49ers.

San Jose Mercury News: 49ers new Santa Clara stadium cost goes up again -- to $1.3 billion
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23414780/49ers-new-stadium-cost-goes-up-again-1

Shhhh.

[anaconda]

Moving the corruption increasingly local seems like an overall positive step.

[donnay]

Except this:

If we mundanes were to try to simply live like that on private property, we would be in violation of numerous building codes and our children would be seized and handed over to the state.

If we tried to run a compound like that on private property, using private funding sources, the Planners would never agree to waive the requirements of an operating permit.

In Florida.

Battle escalates over woman living off-grid
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/battle-escalates-over-woman-living-off-grid/

[HOLLYWOOD]

In Florida.

Battle escalates over woman living off-grid
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/battle-escalates-over-woman-living-off-grid/You know why the establishment is fighting her and anyone else across the nation that wants to live off the grid/MATRIX... just look at your utility bill there's like 10 taxes, fees, grantuity charges on it. It's just another way to tax/steal more money from the individual.

[2young2vote]

They'll be really nice when they first get them, then the homeless people will destroy them and turn them into nasty slums. My Great Grandmother had a saying - no matter how poor you are, you can always be clean. It means money isn't what determines whether you live a scummy lifestyle, but your work ethic and self respect are.

[MRK]

Can't afford an apartment without $30/hour?

Wow.

Get out of the United States, Mr. Homeless Person. I pay $125 a month for a 2010-built 800 sq ftapartment with bathroom, shower, kitchen, hot water, air conditioning, desk, bed, couch, lcd flatscreen, and refrigerator, in a quiet, scenic location 3 minutes away from a city center.

No wired internet though. I use a 5 mbps 3g connection @ 3 gigabytes per month for just $5 a month instead.

I'd probably be homeless too if it weren't for residential arbitrage.

[oyarde]

Cool , new Mother In Law quarters ?LOL

[eduardo89]

The Great Society finally a reality!

The War on Poverty has been won!

[eduardo89]

Housing is a right. Especially for Mexican/Canadian Americans.

I'm glad you recognise that.

[helmuth_hubener]

Moving the corruption increasingly local seems like an overall positive step.

Except for this is not "moving" corruption. It isn't eliminating some higher-up corruption at a higher level of government and replacing it with corruption at a lower level. It isn't parallel to, for instance, the Department of Education being disbanded and things now being up to the states. That kind of thing is a move in the right direction -- away from centralization, and towards decentralization.

But this? No. It's not as if the State of California disbanded its Department of Homelessness in exchange for cities taking over their own situations. It's not as if there's some kind of deal or voucher system that the same amount of money is being spent, but now it's being spent locally by San Jose rather than bureaucrats in Sacramento.

No, this is just a new government program. It will work as well as all the previous government programs. That is: It Won't! Surprise, surprise, surprise! I know this is a shock to everyone here that this program will not work, and I'm sorry to come bearing bad tidings, but I don't make the rules, I just report them. Government Doesn't Work! Sorry, Ender, but it doesn't. Sometimes we wish it would. I know that for me, often I wish it would work at least a little bit better to stop wasting large amounts of my time and resources in really, really stupid ways. Even just the little, silly things you notice driving along on the way to work. But, alas!, it is a vain wish. Best to try not to think about how many millions of man-hours are wasted per year by the idiotic traffic light that no one has ever bothered to tune nor time. Best not to think about how stupid it is to completely rip up and re-build a 4-lane interstate every 2-3 years when you could do a deep-lay below the frost line and have it last 50 years or more, just drive a milling machine on it to grind out the ripples every couple years. Anyway... I digress. Government doesn't work, government doesn't work, government doesn't work. Even local government doesn't work. This will just be another failed, pathetic project. As 2young2vote pointed out: the homeless will utterly trash these things in two weeks.

[helmuth_hubener]

Looks like this is a nationwide wave of idiocy:

Madison, WI Council OKs 'tiny houses' Project (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/city-council-approves-tiny-houses-proposal/article_685220db-9fdd-5809-8ec0-143d50050e1d.html)


Despite concerns from many neighbors, Madison City Council members Tuesday approved Occupy Madison’s plan to create a village of “tiny houses” on the East Side for people who are homeless.

The vote was unanimous among the 18 council members present. Alds. Paul Skidmore and Steve King were absent.

Supporters cheered and hugged.

“I’m just so shocked and happy and excited,” said Betty Ybarra, who has lived in a tiny house for about five months. Hers was the first one built.

Forty-seven people registered to speak at the public hearing on the topic. Supporters outnumbered opponents by about four to one.

Occupy needed council approval to rezone property at 2046-50 E. Johnson St. The 0.3-acre site, currently home to Sanchez Motors, is at the northwest corner of East Johnson and North Third streets.

Occupy’s plans call for expansion of the 1,305-square-foot repair garage into a headquarters for its organization, construction of tiny houses in two former auto repair bays, and an additional 1,100 square feet of floor area for offices, storage, retail space and amenities for the houses that would be parked on the site. The residential part of the project will have access to four bathrooms, two showers, a kitchen and a lounge in the main building.

Due to protest petitions from residents and landowners near the site, the vote to rezone needed approval by three-fourths of those council members present. Opponents spoke of noise concerns and the potential for declining property values.

Evan Weir, a neighbor who signed the petition against the project, said that everyone deserves a safe place to live but that the tiny houses will set “a dangerous precedent for future developments” because the houses won’t meet building codes. He mentioned a lack of foundations, plumbing and sanitary connections.


Although Occupy Madison does appear to be a non-government group. So that's a plus, maybe. Now "non-profits" are usually tied up in the government in one way or another, but this particular one seems to have a long history of conflict with the local government.

It's still a dumb idea. Evils of the dole.

[pcosmar]

That's admirable!

But dumb.

Most folks are homeless because the simply do not want a home. They don't want to live in a shelter.

Now,, something that would be worthwhile,, and would be a benefit to all (if someone wants to raise and spend money) is public bathrooms and showers.

Finding a place to take a piss is one of the biggest problems in urban areas. Whether you are homeless or not.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The War on Poverty has been won!

The thought is correct for the condition, but the "American lifestyle" and upbringing of media created the mentality. What was also created was fraudulent mental health care to pretend to deal with the problems the upbringing nurtured.

Also, corporatism requires a certain myopia, in itself a social perceptual disorder, which those on top promote to prevent unity at lower levels from ever occurring. This forum of activists is effected by advanced aspects of that through cognitive infiltration preventing unification upon the principles of the constitution which can then apply the force of law.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445586-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

We can be sure that org's like ALEC are behind some of it. But people are ignorant of even that and refuse to tangibly oppose such corporate malfeasance.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444929-Do-COS-and-ALEC-Really-Want-An-Article-V-Convention-with-Constitutional-Intent&p=5431250#post5431250

With these behaviors the status quo will simply continue into NWO oblivion where nobody matters except those in power.

[kcchiefs6465]

Except for this is not "moving" corruption. It isn't eliminating some higher-up corruption at a higher level of government and replacing it with corruption at a lower level. It isn't parallel to, for instance, the Department of Education being disbanded and things now being up to the states. That kind of thing is a move in the right direction -- away from centralization, and towards decentralization.

But this? No. It's not as if the State of California disbanded its Department of Homelessness in exchange for cities taking over their own situations. It's not as if there's some kind of deal or voucher system that the same amount of money is being spent, but now it's being spent locally by San Jose rather than bureaucrats in Sacramento.

No, this is just a new government program. It will work as well as all the previous government programs. That is: It Won't! Surprise, surprise, surprise! I know this is a shock to everyone here that this program will not work, and I'm sorry to come bearing bad tidings, but I don't make the rules, I just report them. Government Doesn't Work! Sorry, Ender, but it doesn't. Sometimes we wish it would. I know that for me, often I wish it would work at least a little bit better to stop wasting large amounts of my time and resources in really, really stupid ways. Even just the little, silly things you notice driving along on the way to work. But, alas!, it is a vain wish. Best to try not to think about how many millions of man-hours are wasted per year by the idiotic traffic light that no one has ever bothered to tune nor time. Best not to think about how stupid it is to completely rip up and re-build a 4-lane interstate every 2-3 years when you could do a deep-lay below the frost line and have it last 50 years or more, just drive a milling machine on it to grind out the ripples every couple years. Anyway... I digress. Government doesn't work, government doesn't work, government doesn't work. Even local government doesn't work. This will just be another failed, pathetic project. As 2young2vote pointed out: the homeless will utterly trash these things in two weeks.
Why do you assume this?

We had a porch, when I was 'homeless.' Kept the place clean. Threw out the riff raff who wanted to break bottles and smoke crack. Pretty nice spot (a cabin, really). Can't have nice things though; someone burnt it down. A few trees fell crisscrossed over it so I guess it was for the best. You should have seen it.

In any case, I can only assume you have not been homeless. Many people keep their area clean. Often times they were put in a cage and the routine carried on. They kept their area well maintained and respected other's property. Some of the cities were raped by politicians and gangsters. And as well, when thrown in a cage for a non-crime some group elected to be a crime, your life being impeded multiple years of training, as well as being branded 'leprous,' well you could imagine how some have had a shit draw.

[Paulbot99]

Scumbag California...

Destroy job sector and make housing unaffordable, then give people shacks and say they've helped them.

[amy31416]

Except this:

If we mundanes were to try to simply live like that on private property, we would be in violation of numerous building codes and our children would be seized and handed over to the state.

If we tried to run a compound like that on private property, using private funding sources, the Planners would never agree to waive the requirements of an operating permit.

I agree, but that's no reason to stop it because it could potentially be used as justification for private property owners to do the same...if you had a good lawyer.

[devil21]

I bet I can name two local politicians there that have invested in the shed business recently.

Who is going to maintain these places once the 'homeless' people trash them in quick order?

[Occam's Banana]

This has "tragedy of the commons" written all over it.

[insert scary housing project picture here]

[kcchiefs6465]

I bet I can name two local politicians there that have invested in the shed business recently.

Who is going to maintain these places once the 'homeless' people trash them in quick order?
First, apparently it is one person building these pods with pieces of trash wood. As far as I am aware, he is only recently asking for voluntary donations.

Second, no one.

They could go back to sleeping on park benches or next to fast food dumpsters.

Why anyone would try to disparage a voluntary solution to a real problem is beyond me. The laws that (probably, as I am unaware of your generation) your generation cheered and triumphed could very well be what put many of these people in the street. Yet here are some pontificating when truth be told, I could probably ascribe the broken lives to the fucked up, immoral way the most of you (in a general sense) have established and maintained a monstrosity.

[devil21]

Let's dissect.


First, apparently it is one person building these pods with pieces of trash wood. As far as I am aware, he is only recently asking for voluntary donations.

This matters how exactly? Article says they cost $5000 a piece and the city is to provide them, if it passes. It does not say it is a resolution calling on people to donate money to the shed business.


Two councilmembers who are running against each other for mayor have jointly written a memo calling on the city to build new neighborhoods for the homeless using shed-sized “microhouses” or “housing pods.”



Second, no one.

They could go back to sleeping on park benches or next to fast food dumpsters.

So then why do it? Why make taxpayers of that city pay for sheds that will almost certainly be trashed in short order and turn the area into a shanty town? Three reasons come to mind. Money for the shed business, try to keep the homeless away from the "nice" parts of town, looks altruistic to voters.

Or hey maybe you're right and they're just altruistic California politicians....<snort>



Why anyone would try to disparage a voluntary solution to a real problem is beyond me. The laws that (probably, as I am unaware of your generation) your generation cheered and triumphed could very well be what put many of these people in the street. Yet here are some pontificating when truth be told, I could probably ascribe the broken lives to the fucked up, immoral way the most of you (in a general sense) have established and maintained a monstrosity.

Im not sure what this paragraph even means. Where are you getting that this is voluntary? The article says clearly that it will be the city (aka taxpayers) footing the bill. Voluntary for who exactly? If you have info stating otherwise then please post so we can all be enlightened. Otherwise, it looks like the same old political money-making scheme of: Step 1. Politicians invest personal money into a company. Step 2. Introduce a bill that feeds taxpayer cash of much greater proportions to that company, which on the surface appears altruistic and helps election efforts. Step 3. PROFIT.

[helmuth_hubener]

Why do you assume this?

Reason 1: Because it is true. This is the most important reason.

Reason 2: Because they will not earn them nor own them. People don't generally respect and care for things they don't own and are given as a dole as much as those they work for and own.


We had a porch, when I was 'homeless.' Kept the place clean.


In any case, I can only assume you have not been homeless. Many people keep their area clean.

I am talking about rules, not exceptions. And it's not about being without a home, the technical definition of homeless, it's about being Homeless with a capital H, one of the class of people who follow a certain lifestyle and are known as The Homeless. A decent, self-respecting man who happens to be less a home but is not Homeless would not accept this free handout of a house anyway, so my comments don't apply to him.

It's not even about income. There's a certain percentage of people who will trash their hotel rooms, just leave them absolutely disgusting, steal things, etc., and you just have to plan for it as a hotel owner. Believe it or not, this is true not just at the Motel 6 but also at the Hilton! Some people may be upper-class in income, but they are still low-class in behavior.

Anyway, whether governmental or private, the idea of the dole, of giving strangers something for nothing, is a total failure of an idea. It ruins lives. It helps no one. It is an evil, not a good. It takes a virtue, generosity, and turns it into a vice.

[Ender]

Reason 1: Because it is true. This is the most important reason.

Reason 2: Because they will not earn them nor own them. People don't generally respect and care for things they don't own and are given as a dole as much as those they work for and own.





I am talking about rules, not exceptions. And it's not about being without a home, the technical definition of homeless, it's about being Homeless with a capital H, one of the class of people who follow a certain lifestyle and are known as The Homeless. A decent, self-respecting man who happens to be less a home but is not Homeless would not accept this free handout of a house anyway, so my comments don't apply to him.

It's not even about income. There's a certain percentage of people who will trash their hotel rooms, just leave them absolutely disgusting, steal things, etc., and you just have to plan for it as a hotel owner. Believe it or not, this is true not just at the Motel 6 but also at the Hilton! Some people may be upper-class in income, but they are still low-class in behavior.

Anyway, whether governmental or private, the idea of the dole, of giving strangers something for nothing, is a total failure of an idea. It ruins lives. It helps no one. It is an evil, not a good. It takes a virtue, generosity, and turns it into a vice.

Luke 10:25-37
New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

[helmuth_hubener]

Don't recall Jesus doling out houses to strangers. Did I miss it?

Nope, the dole is evil. Nothing good comes from the dole. It's totally delusional.

[Ender]

Don't recall Jesus doling out houses to strangers. Did I miss it?

Nope, the dole is evil. Nothing good comes from the dole. It's totally delusional.

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

It's not rocket science- you take care of others as you would yourself.

AND- this is a greater blessing for the Giver than it is for the Receiver.

[amy31416]

I know that the city has to be involved, but in order to be truly moral, it can't be forced. If it must be done by the local gov't using tax money, those who are interested in the project should be able to opt-in, those who can't, don't want to or think there's a better way should not be bothered.

Personally, I think that this should be almost 100% private charity, with the exception of the land provided and things like sewer/plumbing. The charity and the city could agree to certain standards for the formerly homeless to uphold, with the charity being the "enforcers." I do think it's even in the best interests of the scroogiest types, good luck with the NIMBY types though--but they should be heavily involved in this since they have higher stakes. Some people's property values will go up, while others will go down, it's just the nature of this sort of project and the city won't care that much about it, so long as their property isn't effected* adversely.

*I am unsure if I should have used "affected," I sorta think so but am unwilling at this time to figure it out.

[kcchiefs6465]

Let's dissect.
Let's.



This matters how exactly? Article says they cost $5000 a piece and the city is to provide them, if it passes. It does not say it is a resolution calling on people to donate money to the shed business.
I apologize for the confusion. I mistook this story for another I had read that is apparently voluntary in nature. I typed quite a detailed response that was deleted after it logged me out, me attempting to post it, it prompting me for my username and password, and then prompting me that a response must be at least two characters. Fucking annoying, to say the least.

In any case, there was a story in California about a gentleman recycling wood, plastic, etc. from the garbage and building 'houses' on castors for the homeless. Eliminate their shopping cart for a roll-able shelter, if you will.

Where I originally saw it was here (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/84064630/), in a picture gallery.

After searching the name I found this article which is apparently what the person who posted that was going by.


Artist Gregory Kloehn is using his sculptural and recycling skills to help California's homeless population. The Oakland-based artist has been scavenging piles of trash he’s found around the Bay Area in search of usable building materials. With sheets of plywood, old pallets, blankets and tarps, Kloehn makes portable one room shelters for around $30 to $50 in additional hardware that he then donates to homeless men and women in the area.

Kloehn builds his shelters for area homeless almost entirely from found, and free, objects. Scouring illegal dump sites, he searches for usable elements like wood, cushions, tables, chairs and pieces that can be used for windows. After loading up his truck, he spends a little extra of his own money on hardware like screws, hinges and casters to keep the homes together.

Generally, the shelters begin with disused shipping pallets made from plywood that seems to populate any dump site. The pallets are then transformed into the tiny homes’ foundations and structural frame. Discarded planks of wood and sheets of plywood are used for most of the exterior to make the homes structurally sound, and to protect residents from the elements. Roofs are always pitched at an angle so that rain runs right off without fear of leaking inside. The homes are set on wheels so they can be easily moved from place to place.

The sculptor decided to dedicate his craft to helping the homeless, rather than making work that would be seen by the upper classes in galleries, inspiring creativity and social change.


hxxp://inhabitat.com/artist-gregory-kloehn-upcycles-found-materials-as-tiny-homes-for-californias-homeless/



So then why do it? Why make taxpayers of that city pay for sheds that will almost certainly be trashed in short order and turn the area into a shanty town? Three reasons come to mind. Money for the shed business, try to keep the homeless away from the "nice" parts of town, looks altruistic to voters.
First, why have taxpayers?

As to the rest of your post you are correct. Their motivations are hardly ever 'humanitarian' and when they are, it is more of a state of ignorant humanitarianism.



Or hey maybe you're right and they're just altruistic California politicians....<snort>

You know, I somewhat do find this section funny. The majority of the people here think it is legitimate to gather round a plurality of people, whether that be done through propaganda techniques, fabrications or even noble means and that said group has the right to vote for their idea of governance. Some want the police, some want 'free' healthcare, some want a goddamn Obama phone... but you do realize, that while I'm stolen from by all three and perhaps 'they' (generically) are stolen from by only two, they'll pontificate and offer versions of their own morality. All the while being three peas in a pod.

They can't be 'statists', no. They are 'realists.' The rest are welfare whores, but I repeat myself.



Im not sure what this paragraph even means. Where are you getting that this is voluntary?
My mistake, and I apologize for the confusion.



The article says clearly that it will be the city (aka taxpayers) footing the bill. Voluntary for who exactly? If you have info stating otherwise then please post so we can all be enlightened. Otherwise, it looks like the same old political money-making scheme of: Step 1. Politicians invest personal money into a company. Step 2. Introduce a bill that feeds taxpayer cash of much greater proportions to that company, which on the surface appears altruistic and helps election efforts. Step 3. PROFIT.
Indeed it does. I still find myself rather unamused with the general notion that their whims are less petty than the rest. They want me to pay for their border defense or ship me across the globe. Do I really find myself sympathetic that someone is robbing them (when their only inclination FOR government is to rob me)? This is the difference between an understanding of the non-aggression principle, morality, and individualism or collectivism, Progressivism, and authoritarianism.

It is my fault for the mistake. You are correct in what you said. My other post said about the same but was perhaps more nuanced.

[kcchiefs6465]

Reason 1: Because it is true. This is the most important reason.
I had asked why you'd assume they would "trash them in two weeks" and you've responded 'because it is true.' What makes it true? I assume you are referring, as other posts made me draw this conclusion, to the general lack of community, disrespect of property, and shear ignorance that is commonly elicited of public housing in the news stream, documented in videos, etc. (they aren't that far off, often). What I'd offer you to consider is the policies that have utterly ruined many of these neighborhoods. The gangsters, politicians (and again, I repeat myself), ignorant collectivists; the drugging, public indoctrination schools (I repeat myself); the laws disparately applied, robbing fathers (black fathers, largely) of their time.. we are talking many centuries of constant injustice. Not limited to a group or skin tone.

The projects (government housing) weren't always as they are now. Not that it is right to take from some to house others, all interaction (absent criminal coercion being dealt with) should be voluntary.



Reason 2: Because they will not earn them nor own them. People don't generally respect and care for things they don't own and are given as a dole as much as those they work for and own.

You don't own what you think you own, either, to be clear. Wait for the day expedience is given a sacrifice of your property (and possibly the majority here will say, 'welp'). And as well, you are certainly taxed. And a few here will say, "Who will educate the children otherwise?"

And I use the "here" to illustrate that "there" these sorts of people unabashedly give no fucks about rights. You've surely met some of who fall into that category though some states are better than others in that regard.



I am talking about rules, not exceptions.
Of the people I met, the majority of the people who destroy your property, or their's were bat shit crazy. Either they smoked far too much crack cocaine, inhaled much too much airplane glue, or were pimped drugs and extended stay visits where they were locked in a 'closet', of sorts. This is the majority of the homeless, aside from those who just got off of parole, and 'fugitives' in general (of which often times they'd committed no crime). Sure, you're always going to have assholes who respect nothing. The kind to piss on the side of your house, or what have you. Many of the people had their shantys kept cleaner than I keep my home (my current home). But they swept, washed, or otherwise cleaned their cell for six hours a day, some 1 to -- years straight.



And it's not about being without a home, the technical definition of homeless, it's about being Homeless with a capital H, one of the class of people who follow a certain lifestyle and are known as The Homeless. A decent, self-respecting man who happens to be less a home but is not Homeless would not accept this free handout of a house anyway, so my comments don't apply to him.
He probably would not. If the state the home"owners" vote for yearly didn't come to possibly murder them. Though more likely than that is simply rousting, sliced tents, your "heater" pushed into the river, detainment etc.... and let us not forgot taxes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ0y3vD5P8Y



It's not even about income. There's a certain percentage of people who will trash their hotel rooms, just leave them absolutely disgusting, steal things, etc., and you just have to plan for it as a hotel owner. Believe it or not, this is true not just at the Motel 6 but also at the Hilton! Some people may be upper-class in income, but they are still low-class in behavior.
Some people ought to be sued, beaten (yes, if someone destroys another's property they ought to be beaten, in certain flagrant instances), ostracized or otherwise dealt with.



Anyway, whether governmental or private, the idea of the dole, of giving strangers something for nothing, is a total failure of an idea. It ruins lives. It helps no one. It is an evil, not a good. It takes a virtue, generosity, and turns it into a vice.
What are you referring to here, specifically? I think a lot of the issue is that perhaps you have forgotten that this is one large failure of ideas (pretty much one idea manifesting itself as multiplied as need be by crooks, tyrants, et al.).

I've been using the instance of those institutionalized as an example.

While it should not be socialized, their help, (individuals stepping forth and attempting to re-acclimate them with society ought to be welcomed) and what truly ought to be welcomed, but the people are so goddamned 'enlightened,' would be that they shouldn't have been caged in the first place.

These people vote for their brand of tyranny year in year out and consider themselves 'informed' or humanitarian. 83% of people in prison have committed no crime.

What happens to a person when they are forcibly uprooted from that which they were cultivating (their life) and placed in a cage where absent an hour they can do little but clean or read allowed materials? Nothing good.

[PRB]

Agenda 21 sustainable living. :mad:

nobody is forcing them to live in them

[VIDEODROME]

Can't afford an apartment without $30/hour?

Wow.

Get out of the United States, Mr. Homeless Person. I pay $125 a month for a 2010-built 800 sq ftapartment with bathroom, shower, kitchen, hot water, air conditioning, desk, bed, couch, lcd flatscreen, and refrigerator, in a quiet, scenic location 3 minutes away from a city center.

No wired internet though. I use a 5 mbps 3g connection @ 3 gigabytes per month for just $5 a month instead.

I'd probably be homeless too if it weren't for residential arbitrage.

So which country is this?

[helmuth_hubener]

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

It's not rocket science- you take care of others as you would yourself.
Good.

I would never want someone to give me a free house out of charity or pity or as an entitlement or anything else of the sort. I deal with men as equals, or at least as men, not as an ATM nor a dependent. So I will treat them likewise.

Good advice from Jesus.

Also, Jesus never did anything of the sort. So I will go and do thou likewise.

Good example from Jesus.

You seem skeptical of the idea that the dole is evil. Here's some quotes from others who agree with me explaining why they think so, and come at it from a religious perpective, just like you do. Perhaps they will be more eloquent and clear than I:

“The Lord has taught us the need to promote self-reliance. Even if we are able to help, we should not give or provide what they can and should do for themselves. Everywhere it is tried, the world learns the evils of the dole. Truly God knows best.”

"Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership."

"Work is the law of life; it is the ruling principle in the lives of the Saints. We cannot, while physically able, voluntarily shift the burden of our own support to others. Doles abound in evils. Industry, thrift, and self-respect are essential to salvation.

"It is the aim of the Church to help the Saints to care for themselves and, where need be, to make food and clothing and other necessities available, lest the Saints turn to the doles and evils of Babylon"

"Work brings happiness, self-esteem, and prosperity. It is the means of all accomplishment; it is the opposite of idleness. We are commanded to work. (See Gen. 3:19.) Attempts to obtain our temporal, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being by means of a dole violate the divine mandate that we should work for what we receive. Work should be the ruling principle in the lives of our Church membership."

"to seek and accept direct public relief all too often invites the curse of idleness and fosters the other evils of dole. It destroys one’s independence, industry, thrift, and self-respect."

"The obligation to sustain one's self was divinely imposed upon the human race at its beginning. 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.' (Genesis 3:19)."

"to care for people on any other basis is to do them more harm than good. The purpose of Church welfare is not to relieve a Church member from taking care of himself"

"The dispensing of these great quantities of gratuities has produced in the minds of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of people in the United States a love for idleness, a feeling that the world owes them a living. It has made a breeding ground for some of the most destructive political doctrines that have ever found any hold in this country of ours, and I think it may lead us into serious political trouble. I fear we need not be surprised if some blood shall run before we of this nation finally find ourselves."

"no man is politically free who depends upon the state for his sustenance"

"Recently a letter came to my office... The query of the letter was: 'What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?' The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference: 'The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.'

When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them.... You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation... to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for 'something for nothing' may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, 'I am a contributing taxpayer too.' By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.

Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbath-breaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?"

[devil21]

nm