The homeowner gets the petite outbuilding free in exchange for an agreement to serve as a landlord for an otherwise homeless family for 5 years. After 5 years, the homeowner gets a tiny house that's been lived in for 5 years and they can do what they want with it.
The living quarters, to be used in your — or your neighbors' — backyard, "would be about 200 square feet, with bunkbeds for the kids and water, sanitation and plumbing."
What sort of homeowner would do this? You would have people — with children — living right next to you in a horribly cramped space and you would be the landlord, with the responsibility to maintain habitable conditions. But you are not an experienced landlord. You may have good intentions and think kindly of the homeless in the abstract, but how would that idealism translate into proximity to real people who are your tenants, whose problems with the living conditions are your problems. Do you think these people will love you, their benefactor? You are the landlord!
But maybe you're thinking: If I can deal with this for 5 years, I'll be able to AirBnB it....
(Rethinking buying a house in Portland.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
239 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239Social services does backflips trying to help the homeless, but the fact is these "mentally ill" have rotten credit, terrible rental histories, and are sex offenders or violent offenders to boot. They can't get into govt housing, by law. But we're all supposed to take them in.
Even the church social justice goody-goodies eject whole families when they discover homeless dad is a sex offender. Out by Friday! Ha ha.
I used to have offices at 101 California, but before the shooting.
Now in high rises south of Market. Their favorite money making spots are of course wherever there is high pedestrian traffic and especially tourists.
Homeless people are pervasive. You will find them everywhere, though most frequently in certain areas. You will find them wandering way out in Walnut Creek or Concord or Milbrae, as they often get on BART to sleep or detox from whatever, riding back and forth to the end of the line until the train is out of service. They are very often found on BART cars having seizures or episodes, and several times I've had to help BART drivers carry one out to hand over to the transit cops.
Best I stay out of this.
Ritmo, as usual, is opining free of facts.
Back to my book.
The most dangerous ones I think are those who live in Golden Gate park, which is like NYs Central Park, but bigger. They have their tents in the thicker parts.
I dont recommend walking through there in the dark, and that seems like one of those unspoken rules of this place. Its fine and wonderful for the young women to bravely jog about in the sunshine, but not when the sun goes down.
That did not use to be the case.
Toothless
No. And nimby does not mean what you think it means.
Best I stay out of this.
As usual. What's the matter? Did something happen to your awesome, "stop me from reading comments I don't like!" software?
Ritmo, as usual, is opining free of facts.
And you're opining free of thought.
Back to my book.
Did it come with a set of Crayolas? Are you taking care to color inside the lines, this time?
You make it too easy, KKK. Like a walking, talking comic prop who can't help himself.
No. And nimby does not mean what you think it means.
So which neighborhoods/facilities/institutions/domiciles/programs do you want the homeless in, then?
Look at all this energy you waste calling me names and begging for counter-attack, when you could just clarify what your position is on how to deal with an obvious and ugly problem that the blog hostess just doesn't want the option of becoming a Trump-level landlord in an effort to overcome.
Just lay out your policy. Show the solution. I understand that your interest in it isn't much different from any oligarch's interest: That the homeless should stay out of your way.
But they exist. Where should they go? What policies should reduce their ranks? What should be done?
You know, this is the age of Trump, now. Long gone are the days when a rich right-wing officeholder could just pretend to care about fixing a problem while being asked for a government paycheck to do nothing about it. Trump-style politics demand vigor, and responsiveness. BOLD DECISIVE, CEO-style ACTION!
At least until his contractors demand payment for services rendered.
Toothless
Ah, two months into a Republican administration and the homeless issue rises to the fore. Right on schedule! Fuck off. You dont give one shit about the homelessp
Ritmo, I haven't blocked people who respond to your rants.
Have a nice Saturday night.
One day, and you can see it coming quickly, San Francisco will be a Chinese city. Its had a Chinese mayor for six years and 4/11 Asian supervisors. The population is more asian every year. Its school enrollment has become predominantly asian.
One day it will assert its asian character, and many policies will change.
Ah, two months into a Republican administration and the homeless issue rises to the fore. Right on schedule! Fuck off. You dont give one shit about the homelessp
Lol. And how many shits do YOU give? Two?
One lump or two, Mr Grey Poupon!
Who raised this "schedule?" Portland's always done progressive things and has limited space (and sprawl) And Ms Althouse can blog about it or whatever else she wants.
But you're the one who bumbled in here, fresh off your golfcourse martinis or yachting regatta, to tell me I'm just not quite the San Franciscan you think that you are. Which is fine. But who cares? That's just another pissing match, and no one has as much tolerance for (or interest in) pee like Our Dear President does.
So asked you what your solution was? Called your bluff. As usual, you got nuthin'.
In fact you took so much offense to the question that you went vulgar and attacked me as somehow being the one who's not concerned.
Well, at least I'm not so unconcerned as to get offended at simply being asked the question of how I'd prefer to see it handled. Well, well.Tsk tsk tsk, Michael. That does say a lot about you and how much you wish these people would just disappear.
But again, they won't. Is it not an issue? Only an issue because Slumlord Trump's in office? Or an issue for you to find legitimate when your San Francisco "friends" are annoyed by it but not at other times?
Make up your mind/mindlessness, Michael. You're sounding even more incoherent than usual.
Wow, you really do blow your cover easily. You should have owned a plantation 150 years ago. That planter-class response about, "None of your business! You fix my rich people's problems!"... That just says everything about you anyone already knew. And ever needed to know.
Prove me wrong. You can't. So easy to endorse a solution. But that's for people who don't think they're too big for their britches to care about other Americans. So I guess that doesn't apply to you.
Ritmo, I haven't blocked people who respond to your rants.
And you never will.
Have a nice Saturday night.
You too, Buttercup!
This is a bit bizarre, re Trump.
The US President has almost no role in policies regarding the homeless. This is almost entirely a local matter, with some from the states.
Even vs the general economic climate, for those actually homeless directly as a result of hard times (and there certainly have been a great number, 2009-2016), this is much more due to local conditions. And Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc., are definitely non-Republican and havent been for a very long time. If anything, overall this is very much a Democrat governance problem.
As for the economic climate, what we have now is hardly the result of the current administration, as it has barely begun. There are long lead times for any policy changes to have significant effects. One can blather of course, but this is not substance.
Portland, Maine is trying to develop a program that offers city employment to panhandlers at 10.62 per hour. The plan is for the city to pick up the panhandlers and transport them to the job sites in the morning. Here is the article on this program in the Portland Press Herald. I hope the link works.
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/03/05/to-panhandlers-program-may-offer-welcome-change-jobs/
Interesting idea, anyway.
A lot of people believe that the rich "create" the problem of homelessness, so the rich should be taxed to pay for services for the homeless.
I think that people who believe this have got it backwards.
It is the homeless people who create the rich.
The rich are evil.
So screw the homeless people. Payback's a bitch.
buwaya said...
One day, and you can see it coming quickly, San Francisco will be a Chinese city. Its had a Chinese mayor for six years and 4/11 Asian supervisors. The population is more asian every year. Its school enrollment has become predominantly asian.
One day it will assert its asian character, and many policies will change.
3/18/17, 8:33 PM
After nearly 30 years in Hawaii, what I observe about the local culture, especially the political culture, is that you are assigned a position and purpose. This assignment is not necessarily racial. Certain things are expected of you based on the position you have been assigned. It is best for you, your friends and family, and society if you accept this position. The only place society has for you, really, is this position. move out of it at your peril.
In Seattle one of the things local radio folks use against the lib gov folks is asking them if they'd invite some homeless folks to live w/ them, if they're so concerned.
What would happen if ultra lib folks could easily have homeless folks in the backyard? Would they stick w/ their so-called principles? If so, how long would it take before they realized that having losers close to them sucks? And, what about the neighbors? How long before this up-close confrontation w/ losers makes them realize that enough is enough. This could be the best way to make sure Amazon libertarianism evicts the holdouts.
I'd be fine w/ this experiment, especially since my in-town place definitely does not have neighbors who who would be doing this stuff in their yards. I can't lose.
BTW, is it just me or do other folks really enjoy it when Doc Mike tells us why he's not going to be participating?
Sometimes it's a book. Sometimes it's past his bedtime. Sometimes he's too smart for the conversation. And so on.
Imagine if everyone was so delusional as to think there was a greater than zero value associated w/ their proclamations re not commenting.
Is that some sorta Asperger spectrum thingy?
He's so funny. W/o even trying!
In Seattle we can call the bum in your backyard program the Trojan Homeless Corrective.
But, we'll just use the acronym to keep things on the DL.
BTW, is it just me or do other folks really enjoy it when Doc Mike tells us why he's not going to be participating?
He seems to understand that, unless he declares it, people won't notice.
PB&J and R&B-
You being forced to read comments Althouse?
Is there a pixel shortage?
Not sure what you two contribute. Trolling and snark is bipartisan, change the name and the party and it reads the same.
Tom-in-VA said...
"I can't think of a faster way to convert progs into right wingers than to make them Section 8 landlords."
This is gods honest truth. People have no idea until they do it.
Renters in general are ridiculous. Just had one today that said he wouldn't pay the garbage bill because he didn't get enough notice. He's been in there 5 months.
Will the homeless camps in Portland have as much child sex trafficking as the homeless camps in Seattle?
The hardest and most expensive part of being a landlord is not acquiring property. It is the taxes, liability insurance, and fixing the shit your tenants break.
I have several examples of having all the copper torn out of houses. Thank god for pex. One guy left a 55 gallon garbage can full of his dogs poop in the back yard as well as trashing the house. He actually called to ask when he was getting his deposit back.
Michael K said: "Mental hospitals that were closed in the 1960s. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" did it."
Many of the liberals I know blame Ronald Reagan who was POTUS in ... the 1980's.
Jim Thompson, Illinois Governor in the 1970's, started closing mental hospitals after the movie came out and the state budget began to show strains. State laws changed to reflect the belief among liberal MH professionals that the mentally ill should be treated with the "least restrictive alternative."
Since that time, we have been unable to treat the dangerously mentally ill with medication or hospitalization. Maybe Portland has a brilliant idea. Put them in everyone's backyard and we will hears calls for humane treatment with ... mental health hospitals.
In five years, a homeless advocate will go to court and demand that the residence be permanent. More they'll demand the house be deeded to the former tenants including half of the backyard. You, of course, will still have to pay all the taxes... And utilities...
The high cost of living and housing in particular is a very serious issue -- and it will get worse for the younger generations who are spending so much of their income just on living expenses.
Yes, it is serious. And it deserves a serious discussion with consideration for causes and possible solutions.
But we cannot have such a serious discussion here because we have the usual suspects coming in spewing their rage and irrationality and hijacking any fruitful discussion that is going on.
What do education, health care, and housing all have in common?
And what do progressive/Democrat-run cities all have in common?
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Most people think the homeless are that way because no one ever tried to help them, but a segment of the homeless (primarily addicts) have exhausted the good will of friends and family and everyone around them over the years.
See, this is what is annoying. You take "a segment" and act like that is the primary issue with homelessness. Other industrialized democracies don't have our levels of homelessness,
Just how much fake news can liberals spread? This article in Wikipedia puts the U.S. homeless rate below that of Germany, the UK, and France. And homeless advocates in the U.S. along with social workers do their best to exaggerate the number of U.S. homeless, especially during a Republican administration. I don't recall any great worry about the homeless in my local paper during the last administration. Already a few this month. The Asian percentages for homelessness are much less then the West. I've been to Hong Kong. It's been a while. But some of those places people are living in wouldn't count as homes here. Same with South Korea. The homeless rates in Scandinavian countries appears to be just a little lower then the U.S. rate. I imagine their winters reduce the homeless numbers each year. It's much harder to survive a homeless winter in Finland then in San Francisco.
Just how much fake news can liberals spread?
Whoa whoa whoa! Just hold on a second there with that fancy accusatory phrase! People here comment and their leaders "tweet" and their newsreaders speculate based on subjective impressions all the time. So if the rates there are indeed lower you wouldn't know it by a walk through their cities as opposed to ours. So what are they doing for them and/or how are they measuring it are good questions to ask. If their homeless rates are higher while those who are identified as such are somehow kept off the streets, I'd say that's not necessarily a failing stat - especially now that our Slumlord-in-Chief has gotten his completely unqualified "political payback" nomination to lead HUD.
Not to mention our homeless veteran rate...
TTR, if they are brutally suppressing visible evidence of the problem in Europe, I don't think that would be praiseworthy to you.
I do think it's typical that after 8 years of shtum, that the problem of homelessness, and of veterans' homelessness, is now getting visibility. Obviously, because Republican. I'd like to think you're not being used so, but then I have to believe you're in on it.
The Toothless Revolutionary (if he's a statist pseudo-liberal I would call him "the Toothless Reactionary," statism being reactionary by its nature) challenges conservatives to come up with a solution to homelessness. I'm a libertarian, so I decline the challenge, remembering Mencken's statement (this is from memory so may not be verbatim), "Just because I don't have a solution to a problem is no reason for me to accept yours. In fact, it makes me more inclined to believe yours is probably wrong."
My modest proposal is called "liberty." It's a word you can look up in a dictionary some time. That is, let anyone who wants to help the homeless do so. And it isn't like the statist gang doesn't have the bucks. The Hollywood Left, the Park Avenue Pinkos, Darth Soros, the Clintons, the Obamas, etc.--we're not exactly talking about the Wretched of the Earth here. If they took the money they currently donate to political candidates and causes, with the purpose of expanding State power and diminishing individual liberty, they could easily house and feed every bum currently stinking up our subways and public libraries.
"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with your own money."--Will Rogers
TTR, if they are brutally suppressing visible evidence of the problem in Europe,
That's not the only (or even likely) possibility. The more likely explanation for why you see much less of it in their cities is that even before their status changes from "homeless" to "homeowner," there are programs that house and shelter them temporarily much more effectively than in the states, where outdoor panhandlers living in blankets and holding cardboard signs are dime-a-dozen.
statism being reactionary by its nature
Yes! As everyone knows, stateless anarchy is the conservative and longstanding "natural" condition of man - obviously. Before empire and before that tribalism - which even chimpanzees have. But convincing 192 UN members in the modern world that they should relinquish their mechanisms for organizing defense and currency and all that goes with it is a harder (and more utopian, theoretical) sell when nuclear weapons, large industries, public health and an ability to achieve enough to be socially sufficient (without basic education!) are at stake.
Thank you for the rest of your stale, predictable and utopian screed. It was as divorced from reality and stuffed with stereotypes and cultural tropes as anyone would come to expect from someone who identifies as you do.
What happens when the Portland program is so successful they begin to run out of backyards for the tiny houses?
Three words.
"Even tinier houses."
That's not the only (or even likely) possibility.
Pretty sure that's what happened in Brazil and Russia preparatory to their respective Olympics. Pretty sure that's kind of what happens in Europe if the problem achieves inconvenient visibility. I mean they may have more social lipstick to put on the pig, but they also have options we don't have here.
In any case, back to the original point, it's intriguing to contemplate this concept but I do have high confidence that it would eventually all turn to crap. I say that without claiming to have a solution for homelessness in Portland or anywhere else. But I could possibly fund a solution if I had first choice in the pools for time to First murder in the tiny house, and time to First murder in the landlord's house. I would pick under 90 days for each.
Actually I could propose a solution but you wouldn't like it.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Not to mention our homeless veteran rate..."
Perhaps if you quit inviting every loser from overseas and across boarders to become a member of your liberal party we could do something about that.
But, you know, veterans don't vote democrat.
"if only one out of 25 homes in your neighborhood adopts this dumb idea."
Of course, you build the highest, most opaque fence zoning allows, and as far away from your house and as close to the tiny house as zoning permits. Then you build another fence to provide a corridor to/from the tiny house, soemplace along the very edge of your lot.
BUT one thing you'll notice if you ever live near Section 8 tenants is, they have a tendency to sleep all day and then party all night. Which may be a problem for you (and your neighbors) if for some reason you work during the day and expect to be able to sleep at night.
Post a Comment