1,000s Of "Micro-Homes" Sprout Up All Over Bay Area To House The Growing Homeless Population | Zero Hedge

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-26/1000s-micro-homes-sprout-all-over-bay-area-house-growing-homeless-population

1,000s Of "Micro-Homes" Sprout Up All Over Bay Area To House The Growing Homeless Population
Roughly one year ago we shared the plans of a billionaire real estate developer in San Francisco who wanted to build communities for the homeless in Bay Area neighborhoods using stackable steel shipping containers (see: San Fran Billionaire Luanches Plan To House Homeless In Shipping Containers). Not surprisingly, the efforts were met with some resistance from the liberal elites of Santa Clara who, despite their vocal support of any number of federal subsidy programs for low-income families, would prefer that those low-income families, and their subsidies, stay far away from their posh, suburban, "safe places."

Alas, as the San Francisco Chronicle points out today, like it or not, the boom in "micro-houses" is just getting started in the Bay Area with nearly 1,000 tiny homes, with less than 200 square feet of living space, currently being planned in San Francisco, San Jose, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland and Santa Rosa.

Planners say that’s just the beginning. “We’re very excited about micro-homes,” said Lavonna Martin, director of Contra Costa County’s homeless programs. “They could be a big help. They have a lot of promise, and our county is happy to be on the cutting edge of this one. We’re ready.”

Contra Costa has a $750,000 federal homelessness grant to pay for 50 stackable micro-units of supportive housing, and Richmond Mayor Tom Butt would like to see them in his city. Developer Patrick Kennedy brought a prototype of his MicroPad unit to Richmond in November, and county and city leaders say they are leaning toward choosing it.

“They’re very fine, and they make a nice-looking building,” Butt said. “They’d be good for anybody looking for housing.”

The beauty of the tiny units is that they can be built in a fraction of the time it takes to construct typical affordable housing, and at a sliver of the cost, which means a lot of homeless folks can be housed quickly.

Related Video

Are You Lying to Yourself?

X

The homes have also caught on in San Jose where the City Council just approved $2.4 million to build a village of 40 units to help house the homeless. Of course, just like in Santa Clara, San Jose residents are lashing out at city officials over plans that they say will only serve to increase neighborhood crime.

San Jose resident Sue Halloway told the council she was afraid putting the village near residences would increase “neighborhood crime, neighborhood blight (and) poor sanitation,” and predicted that it would be “a magnet for more homeless.”

City Councilman Raul Peralez said he understands such concerns, but that “there are no facts surrounding these tiny homes and whatever blight or crime they might bring, because we haven’t done them yet.”

“I tell people you really have two options,” said Peralez, who said he wants the village in his downtown district. “You can allow the homeless to live on the streets, or you can provide not only shelter but services in a confined area — with security. In my mind, that’s a way better option for managing this community in an organized way.”

So, what do the stackable units look like? As seen in the video below, prototypes from one manufacturer, MicroPad, come complete with full bathrooms and kitchens and have up to 160-180 square feet of living space...

“These micro-homes may seem small at 160 to 180 square feet, but they’re actually pretty spacious when you’re in them,” she said. “And they go up very fast.”

Kennedy’s MicroPads have showers, beds and kitchens. Individually they resemble shipping containers, but once they’re bolted together with siding and utilities, they look like a regular building.

...which is more or less considered a mansion by struggling New York artist standards...

These micro-homes represent a much more humane and fiscally responsible option than the never-ending subsidies to well-paid government and non-profit employees currently providing "services" to thousands of people living on the streets.

  But vigilance will be needed to ensure that they do not become a new type of government housing project, or worse, a new form of incarceration. Note the San Jose councilman's ominous quote about them providing, "not only shelter but services in a confined area — with security".

  The best way to avoid such scenarios is for micro-homes to be broadly dispersed across many different neighborhoods without too many in any one place. Governments, big developers, and NIMBYs, however, may seek – each for their own reasons – to concentrate them in large-scale managed projects located in poor areas, which could spell disaster.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

As long as I am not taxed to pay for yet another welfare program, great. However, I see that although the article mentions a "billionaire developer" it's tax money (the LPSF used to call it "theft") that will pay. Cui Bono? Who benefits? Who always benefits behind welfare? And who becomes further enchained - the recipients and the taxpayers of course.

Marcy

Marcy,

  Where in the article do you see that they are only talking about taxpayer-financed tiny homes?

  As for who benefits from people being housed in such accommodations, I would say people who are now homeless first and foremost; also people like you who don't like seeing homeless people on the street, taxpayers if we can cut back on the amount being spent for homeless programs and "services", all the builders and workers who would be involved in constructing the homes, and last but not least the environment and public health as more people come to live in conditions with better sanitation.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

San Jose $2.4 million, Contra Costa $750,000. It does not really matter if a private party puts in some money as you are intimating.

Regarding my benefit from welfare for the homeless, I would benefit much more if all welfare were eliminated and the obvious occurred-- no more homeless coming to receive the welfare.

True story: I was seated at a dinner recently with a supervisor at SF General Hospital who said she has made it her "life's work" to ask the sizable number oh homeless occupying SFG beds where they are from and why they came. She said 90% say they are from somewhere else and came for the benefits.

Now really, I am seriously asking the question, who is really benefitting from this massive welfare? Who is benefitting sufficiently to prevent the obvious real solution?

Marcy

Okay Marcy, let's get rid of ALL welfare. Shall we start with your dinner companion who's a supervisor at the government hospital? Probably she didn't start out working there, but had been somewhere else and came for the benefits. Without people like her willing to work for the government at SF General Hospital, how would they have justified the $888 million bond measure put before voters in 2008* (and passed, naturally) to build a new hospital building on the site? Sure, Mark Zuckerberg recently donated $75 million, but it does not really matter if a private party puts in some money, just as it does not really matter if your dinner companion puts in some labor – right? Cui bono, indeed.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_General_Hospital

Of course you are 100% correct and Libertarians would prefer private charity hospitals. And of course my dinner companion is part of the welfare system. And yes let's get rid of all welfare. But I say let's start by not expanding the system further by building homes for homeless at taxpayers expense (and again it doesn't matter if those who benefit from donations contribute to the cost also).

Marcy

Again. We need to be focused on eliminating all theft-based welfare. And not expanding any part of it at all. No amount of arguments can change that fact.

Marcy

Possibly I've lived in the Bay Area too long and am not being a good radical*, but I am somewhat averse to demanding that the poor folks give up their standing-room-only space on the gravy train before we empty out the first-class compartment. Humanitarian concerns aside, the latter passengers are a lot more expensive to transport, and there's something particularly perverse about preserving welfare for the well-to-do while cutting off those most in need. I'll vote against government subsidies for tiny homes if there's a ballot measure that would appear to cost taxpayers more than it saves, but I don't think seeking to prevent those on the bottom from getting any undeserved crumbs should be our focus right now.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

*See LP Radical Caucus point #4http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/points

Marcy,

Why not strike at the root and privatize all property?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp://ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <http://www.threeminutetherapy.com/>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

Again. We need to be focused on eliminating all theft-based welfare. And not expanding any part of it at all. No amount of arguments can change that fact.

Marcy

Possibly I've lived in the Bay Area too long and am not being a good radical*, but I am somewhat averse to demanding that the poor folks give up their standing-room-only space on the gravy train before we empty out the first-class compartment. Humanitarian concerns aside, the latter passengers are a lot more expensive to transport, and there's something particularly perverse about preserving welfare for the well-to-do while cutting off those most in need. I'll vote against government subsidies for tiny homes if there's a ballot measure that would appear to cost taxpayers more than it saves, but I don't think seeking to prevent those on the bottom from getting any undeserved crumbs should be our focus right now.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

*See LP Radical Caucus point #4http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/points <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lpradicalcaucus.org%2Fpoints&data=02|01||c66591847b094cbf778808d54d57fe68|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|636499962679144817&sdata=xS5NXFB%2FEdJVuhaL%2F75YBZzw8NIc5VqxmgyDl8RJRw4%3D&reserved=0>

It's a deal, Michael! I'm in! Starchild can start donating to house the homeless. And I can start funding Laguna Honda Home!

Marcy

Very generous of you, Marcy!

To do my share, I can start creating million dollar charities to replace all theft-based welfare.

It's a deal, Michael! I'm in! Starchild can start donating to house the homeless. And I can start funding Laguna Honda Home!

Marcy

Marcy,

Why not strike at the root and privatize all property?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
415-673-2848 (24/7)
htttp://ThreeMinuteTherapy.com <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.threeminutetherapy.com%2F&data=02|01||8d2dfa2fb8ff4a8794fb08d54d59fb9b|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|636499971222013940&sdata=MmCFgwbLezTDjd73h2Vmsmriw2a3%2BlRGLnOfLy%2BMOd4%3D&reserved=0>

Author of Three Minute Therapy <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.threeminutetherapy.com%2F&data=02|01||8d2dfa2fb8ff4a8794fb08d54d59fb9b|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|636499971222013940&sdata=MmCFgwbLezTDjd73h2Vmsmriw2a3%2BlRGLnOfLy%2BMOd4%3D&reserved=0>
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

Again. We need to be focused on eliminating all theft-based welfare. And not expanding any part of it at all. No amount of arguments can change that fact.

Marcy

Possibly I've lived in the Bay Area too long and am not being a good radical*, but I am somewhat averse to demanding that the poor folks give up their standing-room-only space on the gravy train before we empty out the first-class compartment. Humanitarian concerns aside, the latter passengers are a lot more expensive to transport, and there's something particularly perverse about preserving welfare for the well-to-do while cutting off those most in need. I'll vote against government subsidies for tiny homes if there's a ballot measure that would appear to cost taxpayers more than it saves, but I don't think seeking to prevent those on the bottom from getting any undeserved crumbs should be our focus right now.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

*See LP Radical Caucus point #4http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/points <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lpradicalcaucus.org%2Fpoints&data=02|01||c66591847b094cbf778808d54d57fe68|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|636499962679144817&sdata=xS5NXFB%2FEdJVuhaL%2F75YBZzw8NIc5VqxmgyDl8RJRw4%3D&reserved=0>