My solution for the homeless & high housing costs

Here is a way to provide cheap comfortable housing for the homeless, (or anyone that wants a cheap, small, safe dwelling) Modify those mobile mini metal storage pods so people can live in them. A simple parking space sized metal pod (15 feet X 8 feet X 8'6" high) can be converted into living shelter. All the essensials can easily fit inside (A bed, flat screen tv, small stove or hot plate, computer, LED lighting, small energy effieicient heater/AC.
Thousands of these living "pods" can be put into an energy efficient parking garage like structure, which can be built in a city near the public transportation hub and grocery stores. Many ammenaties can also be built to provide recreation.....A giant field for recreation with a walking track surrounding it, a swimming pool, gardens, internet cafes...etc....I believe these "pod garages" would work best in cities with warm weather, but they could also be modified for colder cities like New York, Chicago etc...
I believe this would be a good, cheap, efficient, comfortable way to house people who were previously homeless, on welfare, etc...Would also be good for people who can afford more expensive housing but just want to save $$ to spend on other things.

The only complications to this plan are...Security guards would need to be on duty 24/7, It might not be possible to put private bathhooms in individual living pods, andnot sure about how difficult it would be for something like this to comply with fire codes. But I think its a good idea and I would not hesitate to live in one of these pods..I think it would be cool!!!

We need more cheap, safe, efficient housing in every major city!!!!

Oh boy, let's put the homeless in storage pods, parked in parking towers, Oh boy, let's just fucking warehouse them:puke:

You know, the homeless want and struggle for the same sort of things you do, safety, security, a chance to get ahead, a respect. Warehousing the homeless in this way is demeaning and insulting to them, especially when you have the privatized guards patrolling.

You want more cheap, safe efficient housing for the homeless, how about taking over a bunch of those houses and apartment complexes that have been shuttered and giving them over to housing the poor and homeless. It would solve two problems at once, housing the poor and sucking up the glut of housing in this country. And it wouldn't require the poor and homeless to check their self respect in at the door.

I can't help but disagree, I would be willing to live in one of these. I just want a simple, cheap, safe place to live in so I can spend my $$ on other things and be out and about. Why would it be demeaning to have security guards patrolling??? I would find it reassuring.

You've never been beaten down into the ground to the point where your self respect is gone, where you do indeed feel like the scum of the earth.

I have, and let me tell you something, when you are homeless you will do anything, ANYTHING to retain some small sliver of self respect.

The reason that homeless shelters are never filled unless it is absolutely dire weather outside is due to self respect. Most homeless would rather fend for themselves than get stuck in a shelter that warehouses them in bunks and such.

The same thing would apply to these storage pods, after all you are proposing that these people living in goddamn storage pods! You think that they are dumb, drunk, drugged enough that they won't notice? Add in the bonus patrolling guards and you might as well say that this complex is a very minimum security prison for warehousing the undesirables of society.

Rather than using such charity to demonize people and drive their self respect even further into the ground, find them jobs, give over some of this great quantity of foreclosed property we have. Give them their dignity back. Don't stick them in pods and treat them like second class citizens. They get enough of that crap already.

I fully disagree with your message. I don't think there is anything demeaning about having your own private dwelling, even if its only 15 X 8 feet.. I would be more than willing to live in one as long as there was sufficient security. Its the way of the future anyway, especially as outer space starts to be cononized. People aren't going to be living in mansions, they'll live in small efficient pods.

You've never been homeless, you've never had your self respect driven into the dirt, in other words you have absolutely no fucking clue about what you're talking about. You just think that warehousing is a good think for either surplus things or surplus people.

Ooo, so you would live in one yourself, that's fine, go do it. But don't presume to impose such denigrating solutions on free and independent people. Again, why do you think that homeless shelters remain empty except for really extreme weather? GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THE HOMELESS DON'T WANT TO BE WAREHOUSED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. If you want to go live in a pod, go for it, but don't presume that your solution works for an entire group of people that you have no clue about.

Next time, before you come up with another asinine idea, go out and volunteer helping out the homeless. Get to know them on a deep level. Then see if your solutions don't change, radically.

a proposal for providing large amounts of affordable housing arranged in a community format. Basically, it sounds like prefab New Urbanism.

What's asinine to me is the knee-jerk behavior of so many so-called homeless advocates here on DU, who enter every related thread with shouting, name-calling, and non sequiturs... :shrug:

And then saying that the homeless should call these abominations "home". Sure, it may not be mandatory at first, but given the way cities are going, it soon will be. God forbid we can't have the homeless out on the street, so let's have them warehoused. And yes, it is warehousing, no matter how much you think otherwise. Warehousing people has a long history, going back to the intellectually disabled who were warehoused in communal dorms and apartments. Now there's this proposal that has people living in a communal parking tower, with individual storage pods, and you don't think it is warehousing?

What's asinine to me is people like yourself and the OP who really don't know the homeless, don't know what their lives are like, what they need and want, yet presume to impose solutions like this that make the situation of the homeless worse in one way or another. I'll say this to you as well, go take a walk in their shoes. If nothing else go get to really know some of these people. Better yet, go live the homeless life for a year or so, then see if your "solutions" don't change.

I am growing increasingly convinced that there are so-called homeless advocates (people like you) here on DU who are more concerned with using homelessness threads as a venue for venting hate, anger, dislike, and bitterness rather than actually discussing homelessness.

We have seen over and over that 'affordable housing' is a/the solution to homelessness. The OP proposes a method for providing affordable housing. Would it work? I don't know - but you don't actually want to talk about that, do you?

Which is patrolled by security guards. My contention is that these sorts of solutions are demeaning to the homeless, robbing them of just a bit more of their last remaining self respect. That is why so many homeless never show up at shelters, they don't want to be warehoused. We had a huge stink in this country about the national practice of not warehousing the intellectually disabled, and over the past couple of decades that has gone the way of the dodo. If the arguments against warehousing the intellectually disabled were valid for that group, why are they no less valid for the homeless?

Yes, affordable homes is the solution for the poor and homeless. The key word here is "home". You don't have a home by living in a sub-code storage container parked in a parking tower patrolled by guards, What you have is warehousing, getting the homeless out of sight and out of mind of the rest of us. We have tens of thousands of homes and apartment complexes that are abandoned, why not use those? Oh, that's right, one of those "nasty homeless people" might be your neighbor. Can't have that, can we. Therefore let's stuff them in storage units in parking garages, who cares how demeaning it is.

Again, let me ask you this. How much hands on experience do you have with homelessness? My guess is little or nothing. Which means you have absolutely no fucking clue about what you're talking about.

grateful for Madhounds willingness to take your disdain in order to speak up for what is right.


Thank you, Madhound!

What if it was recast as a way to develop low-cost housing for any-damn-body that wanted to live there.

I have seen entire, large, comfortable homes built out of re-purposed flatbed containers, Swiss Family Robinson style. I have seen other materials (though not yet the PODs I think the OP is referring to) used in the same way.

Many Japanese now "live" in those weird coffin hotels designed in the 1980s (I remember seeing them first in That's Incredible!) for want of better options. And many "regular" Japanese families live in apartments that aren't much bigger than a couple containers put together. 500 square feet. Maybe less.

Indians live much the same way. The houses rebuilt after the 2004 tsunami are, in many cases, less than 400 square feet. And many, many homes aren't much bigger. Imagine your 3rd grade classroom (for instance). My daughter and I lived in a flat that was smaller than that. With a kitchen, a bath, a tv...all the "comforts."

I have worked with the homeless, though never been myself, so I think I understand your aggressive dislike for this idea. But is a post-modern Scandinavian architect designed an apartment complex using these pods and the stairs and walkways needed to connect them, I can almost guarantee that they would be hailed, at least by some, as a dynamic advance in repurposed materials housing.

So what if just such a complex was designed? Maybe not a single pod/family unit. Maybe 2-3. And what if it was branded as a design achievement? Comfortable, but small, apartments with all the modern amenities at low cost and tight in the center of downtown The City. Close to public transportation, museums, schools, culture, etc. Oh, but they're inexpensive, too! I can be done. It probably has been done, before a bunch of yuppie dinks bought them all up and inflated the property values. Would that be more acceptable?

Because, see, a lot of section 8 housing I've seen is hardly more tasteful than this. Cabrini Green, for example, or that triple highrise just inside the Harlem limits that I cannot remember the name of. How is that NOT warehousing the poor? And the colonies built in south and SE Asia after tsunami, I can guarantee you, are no different, no better, no more tasteful, than the OP's idea.

This probably came off more aggressively than I intended, but I think the idea is sound, if the execution/description leaves a great deal to be desired. But we in the US have very specific ideas about what constitutes appropriate housing. And maybe we should broaden our view a wee bit.

No matter how you gussy up a bunch of pods, parked in a parking tower, no matter what you call them they are still warehousing.

Yes, perhaps we do need to broaden our view of what constitutes appropriate housing, but this needs to be a top down sort of thing, not imposing it upon the homeless and expecting it to work it's way up.

Yes, many Japanese are living in those coffin hotels, and most of them dislike it extremely, namely for the fact that the original intent for these dwellings was to house a businessman for a night or two, not for the long term. Most who are doing long term occupations are rather quite ashamed of it.

And yes, much of the housing we have for the poor right now is abysmal, especially in the larger cities. Again, what is wrong with taking over these foreclosed homes and apartment complexes and turning them over to the homeless and poor? Solves a couple of problems simultaneously.

It *is* about branding. Much urban housing *is* warehousing, with varying degrees of glamour depending on the degree of wealth.

If you look at parts of Brooklyn, for instance, you'll see blocks and blocks of brownstones. In Philadelphia, it's rows and rows of row homes, different designs in different areas (Olney looks one way, Strawberry Mansion another, usw.) These neighborhoods are/were about creating liveable, walkable neighborhoods.

But any highrise apartment, whether in Manhattan or Tampa or Bombay or Tokyo, is about warehousing the greatest number of people in the least amount of space. Sure many of these are luxury, or merely comfortable, flats, but scores of them are shoddy and thin and intended to fit lots of people into a small space. Of course they aren't described that way, but compare the development of NYC with Philadelphia. NYC has limited geographic space and thus building went up and up and up. Stacked, as it were. Philly, on the other hand, had craploads of room surrounding, and so developers moved outwards. It looks like a city squashed flat, with mile upon mile of 2-3 storey row homes. Not the best use of space, in my opinion, but it sure can't be mistaken for warehousing.

My reason for bringing up Japanese coffin motels was not to suggest that it is an appropriate response to housing crises. I realize full well that most folks living in them hate them. But my reasoning stands regarding the 300-500 sq. foot flats found in cities everywhere in the world it seems but the US.

In short, just because it's luxe doesn't mean it isn't about warehousing.

What I have a problem with is the OP's notion that we take storage pods put them in a parking tower patrolled by guards and call them homes.

Three to five hundred sq ft. apartments in a walk up complex would be find. Three to five hundred sq. feet of sub-code housing parking in a garage, not cool.

As the conception is phrased in your first sentence, I agree completely that the idea is abominable.

A good new urbanist designer, however, could take the core of the idea and create something comfortable and economical. Even cool.

I don't object, in theory, to re-purposing materials for pre-fab housing. I think the OP failed only insofar as the idea of design wasn't taken far enough.

One room living for any length of time is NOT right, NOT healthy, and causes many problems.

Since it is not safe on DU to actually talk about personal issues, I won't go into details, but suffice it to say... IF PEOPLE OF THIS NATION WANTED TO HOUSE EVERYONE, IT WOULD BE DONE. ITS NOT ABOUT MONEY... ITS ABOUT THE DESIRE TO TAKE CARE OF CITIZENS, JUST LIKE HEALTH CARE.

Yes, I'm raising my voice. There is NO NEEd to cram people into unliveable spaces.

NONE at all.

The richest country in the world can house all of its citizens in a very healthy and pleasant way, IF IT MAKES UP ITS MIND TO DO SO!

I know this doesn't involve me, but I think that you're being unfair in accusing the other person of assuming to know what a whole group of people wants.


In saying:

"GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THE HOMELESS DON'T WANT TO BE WAREHOUSED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM."

You, yourself, are also presuming to speak for an entire group of people...."THE Homeless".

Maybe some of them would want to live in such a setting. Unless you've spoken to every single homeless person in the US, you have no way of knowing what "The Homeless" want or don't want.

I personally would take a survey before issuing such a blanket statement and being snotty to someone who only expressed an opinion and certainly wasn't being rude about it.

:shrug:

What sophistry is this? Do you demand the same of people who speak about conservatives, Democrats, the rich, the poor, Southerners, Northerners, etc. etc. Somehow I doubt it.

Let me ask you this, what experience do you have with the homeless? Or with being homeless? Do you have anything in your background that would give you such an insight? I do, thus I can speak with authority, an authority that the OP, and I suspect you as well, lack.

I think you are being somewhat unreasonable.

You say you have experience with the homeless, or being homeless yourself.

That doesn't give you the right to speak on behalf of ALL homeless people.


No more than my experiences with some other things gives me the right to speak on behalf of everyone else who has shared similar experiences.


To do that is the very height of arrogance.


Oh, and I would like to point out that not everyone who disagrees with you lacks "authority" or experience.

I've had this same idea for a couple of years because I ran across someone who is using these storage containers for offices just down the street (if you use the slightly longer ones you can plumb them and build in a kitchenette and bath).

My main criticism of the plan is that you don't want to concentrate poor people in one place. If you provided shelters like this spread out, say two or three in a parking garage or per block, you'd avoid many of the problems of slums.

One of the main advantages to this plan is that the structure takes very little maintenance and is essentially fireproof (a serious safety issue). Fabricate everything in it of metal (table, counters, sinks, shower, bed) and you have a shelter that can be renovated in one day - strip all of the previous occupants detritus, power wash it and paint it white.

The issue of dignity is important, yes. When you are homeless you are treated as less than dirt. But that may be a separate issue from necessary shelter. Also, isn't PRIVACY one of the biggest elements of dignity, and the main reason why many homeless people see the shelter as less desirable than a cardboard box? These shelters would provide that element. It's also very secure - if you use a tool steel quality padlock you would have to have a cutting torch or grinder to break in. One of the main obstacle to homeless people that aren't disabled getting employed is that they can't keep anything - everything from you birth certificate to your clothes and medications gets stolen. Jesus, how many homeless people have I worked with that are INSULIN DEPENDENT? That's right, a person that must inject themselves with insulin two to three times a day walking around on the street and sleeping in a car or a ditch and keeping their medicine in their pocket! If they stay in a shelter they must keep their medicine in a locked common refrigerator and you should see the looks when the needle comes out. A safe and secure shelter would solve so many of this person's problems.

The simple fact is that a significant proportion of the homeless are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. Many of these people are simply NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK. So, the idea that we can build their self esteem by providing them with housing and jobs may not be realistic. My primary concern is KEEPING THEM ALIVE. It's difficult to be empowered when you ain't suckin' air anymore. (Google Maslow's hierarchy of human needs)

As the recession drags on, the proportion of the homeless that are disabled will decline. But wouldn't it be helpful to be able to provide safe, decent housing to "abled" people until they can get re-employed and mainstreamed?

Yes, in a better world we would provide shelter and employment of more or less equal quality to everyone, but I don't think it's going to happen. We could provide employment for many of those currently disabled, but that would require a major investment in social services that I don't foresee. Until that time, I'd be a lot happier knowing that my clients had a safe and secure place to sleep and keep their possessions.

And, yes. I've been homeless before. I've slept on cardboard, in a tent, and lived out of my car. Your points are valid. But there are solutions that are good even though less-than-perfect.

PS - I'm with you on the security guards. Not concentrating these shelters would alleviate the necessity of security guards

"Fabricate everything in it of metal (table, counters, sinks, shower, bed) and you have a shelter that can be renovated in one day - strip all of the previous occupants detritus, power wash it and paint it white."

You've never been inside a prison cell have you, because otherwise you would know that what you're describing is a prison cell. What a welcoming home environment that would be.

And the vast majority of today's homeless aren't drug addicts or drunks, they are people like you and me, working, raising kids and trying to get ahead. They had some bad luck, a lost job, a medical problem, etc., and whoops, there they go, through the cracks, onto the street.

The problem of the homeless isn't going to be cured by any sort of problem. It is a manifestation of a serious societal disorder in this country. We need to look at the entire problem, not just the housing one.

But until we do, if we do, we need to look at housing. Why do you think that so many homeless risk their security by living in camps under bridges and out on the edges of towns. Because they want to hang on to their last shred of self respect, of dignity. You should know as well as I do just how very important this is.

So rather than housing people in pods parked in a garage ("And what is an address we can reach you at sir?" "Oh the parking tower at the corner of Cherry and 8th"), why not put all this foreclosed abandoned housing in this country to good use? Not only are these houses up to code (at least most of them), but they will also become a home, something adding to these people's self respect.

But we're not going to do this, because god forbid that means the homeless might be our neighbors. Instead we'll keep coming up with crackpot ideas to put them into metal bins and such.

comes from the idea that merely housing someone in a real home will somehow "add to these people's self respect"

Like it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone who lives in a cardboard box or under a bridge, or in a tent along the side of the road to even have self respect.


Self respect doesn't come from the outside. It comes from the inside. I know plenty of people who live in beautiful homes who don't have a shred of self respect, just like I know people who live in shacks...and, yes, tents on the side of the road...who have more self respect than one would think.


Also, this statement:

But we're not going to do this, because god forbid that means the homeless might be our neighbors. Instead we'll keep coming up with crackpot ideas to put them into metal bins and such.

is quite illogical.

Because the homeless already ARE our neighbors.


They live under the bridge near our house...in a cellar...they sleep in alleys outside our apartment buildings...on park benches.

Why would giving the homeless places to live make them any LESS acceptable to us...especially if, by giving them homes, they are no longer homeless?


Again, you are making assumptions about what other people would, or would not, want without even a shred of proof.

I boldfaced the "we" in the statement above. Please...I ask this respectfully...do not presume to speak for me (or others) by saying "we".

the outside, and someone else has the key. A home is a place that you call your own. You have the key to the door. No one else tells you how to decorate it or who can come in. This defines a home. Not the type of structure.

If you didn't want to be in one of these and someone forced you, it would be a prison cell. But no one is proposing that.

The shelter can be decorated to the occupants likes once it is occupied.

The vast majority of today's homeless may not be mentally ill and/or have a substance abuse problem, but brother, a very significant proportion (maybe as many as half) are. As the recession wears on, this proportion will change (lower proportion of mentally ill) but being homeless promotes substance abuse and mental illness. Most of us have some chinks in our armor. Given optimal conditions these weaknesses never become issues. But under severe stress these weakness can become disabling illnesses. The most stressful thing in the world is simply "being poor."

I agree that we need to look at the entire problem, and that it's system-wide and systematic - a symptom of problems in our culture, political/economic system.

I believe, with reason based on experience of working with the homeless, that homeless people would rather live under bridges and in camps than in "shelters" primarily because the lack of freedom and privacy in shelters robs them of dignity. I attempted to address some of these issues in my post. What if we situate these shelters under bridges, and in small camps (small enough to avoid the issue of needing "security")?

I'm all for seizing all of the empty real estate I see in my community (hell, half of the store fronts in the strip malls around here are empty, but the developers won't rent them for "what the market will bear" (which would be a pretty low price) because the tax laws are written so that it's more beneficial for them to "write off" the loss of empty buildings than really charge "what the market will bear" (more welfare for the rich).). But, as you point out, I don't think it's going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.

I'm with you, comrade. The idea of a multi-story concrete parking garage turned into a storage unit full of metal cells patrolled by heavily armed thugs is a good description of "the wilderness of the future." But let's take from the idea what is good, and discard what is bad. I can foresee that if someone did this in the city, pretty soon some of the boxes would be occupied by students and artists. Slowly the parking structure would develop as a community, with a shared public space like a theater. Iron bars and access gates would be added to the exterior. Within five years it would become fashionable and the yuppies and trust fund babies would all be wanting one. And then, like Greenwich Village, what had once been cheap and bohemian would now be fashionable and expensive and the "poor" would be forced out. I've seen this happen in what had once been abandoned warehouse districts in almost every city in the country. What had been created by poor people, the homeless, and artists is taken over by rich assholes that want "the lifestyle" but can afford to pay $500 or $2000 a month for rent and don't want to live around any poor people. Santa Fe, NM is a good example of this. So is the French Quarter in New Orleans.

Outside of Taos about five miles is a community of earth-sheltered buildings. The easiest way to construct an earth-sheltered building is to take a prefab unit (a metal storage/shipping container) that's been plumbed and furnished to be immediately occupied but lends itself to individualization, berm the earth up three sides of it and bingo, instant housing. Put a couple of skylights in the roof and a good exhaust fan to draw air from the front door and window when desired, and you have a shelter that could be reasonably pleasant, safe (fireproof, tornado proof, earthquake proof) require very little in the way of heating and cooling (the earth bermming would keep the interior temperature relatively constant) and both quick and cheap to build. It's essentially a super duper trailer. A safe trailer. A trailer that requires almost no maintenance. A trailer that will still be around and offer good shelter one hundred years from now. And it can be dug out of the ground, put on a flat bed truck, and relocated in a hurry.

Exactly.

I simply cannot believe the lack of human compassion so many people here show for those of us they consider as less than human, and just a "problem".

It makes me ill.

I would rather be dead, thankyouverymuch.

to empathize, and therefore no compassion/understanding. We are just pawns to move around.

However, I will correct you on one thing... PLEASE don't ask them to "volunteer to help"---these are the people who come in, looking down their nose at those they consider inferior and in need of their "steering", and denigrate.

THAT we don't need more of!

:yourock:

if it were not mandatory.

Maybe the "residents" could even "pay" for these pods...rental, sort of...by doing various things around the communities. Taking care of public gardens, sweeping, picking up cans/trash, etc. I see nothing wrong with people getting self-respect however they can (legally) get it.

And, on the other side of the coin, there are homeless people who actually prefer NOT to be tied down to things like addresses and mortgages and bills that have to be paid. In fact, there's a guy who lives in my little rural town who has, for years, lived off the land. He doesn't have to, but he does because he wants to. And he's perfectly sane. He just prefers his freedom.



Maybe the real solution would be to actually ASK a bunch of homeless people what they would want instead of just assuming they'd all be giving up their freedom and self respect by living in one of those pods?

:shrug:

how about taking over a bunch of those houses and apartment complexes that have been shuttered and giving them over to housing the poor and homeless.

I think someone already owns them...

Toilet, schoilet.

Goddammit.....

Oh what the hell... it's useless to try to make a dent in the density of these people.

But I thank you tremendously for trying! :yourock:

from a homeless person who demands DIGNITY.

Problem solved.

We'll split them up into apartments.

God what tripe.

?

Its easily possible to modify a storage pod so people could live in it. Even a luxury condo with no A/C in the summer would be hell. Whats your point?

I don't know if this should be directed to you or Earth_First. Probably the former, since you acknowledge that pods can be modified.

However, having lived in India for a long-ass time (as an American who grew up with a/c), A/C is not not NOT a requirement for life, or even for comfort. Air circulation might be, but that can be achieved with a breeze or a fan.

Has anyone been in the Rann of Kutch in May? Fucking christ it's hot! And yet, somehow, almost magically, people have survived there for millennia without air-fucking-conditioning.

:rant:

...sorry 'bout that. The whole "ooh, it's hot" things sets me off a bit.

but man alive, the jungles of Mexico are brutal in the summer too. That's why hammocks were invented.
I can't handle people who bitch and moan about A/C.

same concept but tightened over a bed-like frame. Supposed to discourage the snakes from snake-murdering you in your sleep.

I don't mind snakes...but apparently, the hammocks keep the spiders away. I hate spiders. Gross.

You mention flat screen TV as an essential, but how are you going to wire the place for electricity, and what about running water for cooking and handwashing?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

i've had several large storage 'lockers' over the years- and they've all had a light in them.

however- that doesn't mean that the wiring would support a lot of modern-day convienences.

NO THANKS. They would just be herding pens with draconian rules and regulations much like our homeless shelters are today.

If they are self governing communities with collective political power which enables them to advocate for themselves, maybe.

the government sweeps in and nails them for building codes, permits and other infractions of the laws. Travel trailers can be used in the same way and they do have bathrooms and cooking areas but again you need a place to park them and hook them up to sewers and utilities. What we need are laws stating that shelter is part of the commons and if people can't afford rent or to purchase a home, we the people as a government, are obligated to provide them with shelter. I believe housing vouchers could accomplish this so that the homeless could rent rooms or apartments, according to their needs in approved and participating housing like hotels or apartment buildings. We would have to pass laws of course that obligates those businesses like hotels and apartment buildings to provide ten percent of their rentals for housing vouchers. This would eliminate the first and last month rents and security deposit road blocks.

I remember years ago when the county I lived in did just this. Families usually single mothers with children were provided with apartments that the county welfare office paid for. Single men and women who were substance abusers, or just down and out got rooms rented for them in hotels and motels paid for by the county. Mentally ill and dysfunctional people were sent to institutions that could care for their needs. Of course when proposition 13 cut all the funding that paid for this, we started seeing homeless on the streets.

I remember years ago when the county I lived in did just this. Families usually single mothers with children were provided with apartments that the county welfare office paid for. Single men and women who were substance abusers, or just down and out got rooms rented for them in hotels and motels paid for by the county. Mentally ill and dysfunctional people were sent to institutions that could care for their needs. Of course when proposition 13 cut all the funding that paid for this, we started seeing homeless on the streets.

Is there anyway that Proposition 13 can be repealed?

especially one that gives the legislature the mandate that it has to have two-thirds vote to change anything. However that portion of it needs to go as well. I think getting a Democratic governor and Democratic majority in Sacramento and then a lot of angry people demanding it could happen. The big problem would be property owners who wouldn't want their property taxes raised so they would have to be accommodated some how and convinced that this would be the right thing to do.

That may not be a bad idea for some people. But has to be mix of solutions to end homelessness. I, for one, would like to live in one. Especially in Japan, where the cost of living in some cities are sky high. The protagonist in the Chaos;Head anime actually lives in one and is quite confortable living, when you consider the space.

Good for you for at least trying to solve some problems.

Here's a company trying to set up affordable housing in Mexico: http://www.pfnc.net/

And here are some amazing shipping container structures -- some look very luxurious! http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/8/twelve-amazing-shipping-container-houses.html

You gotta be fucking kidding me

:banghead:

This crap makes DU look stupid

laughable proposition

Shipping containers....brilliant. Stupid homeless people will never know what hit em. HA! Best of all, because of global warming, they can't just walk back over the ice.

Plus, no more starving polar bears.

Nobel prize material here folks.

other solutions can you all offer instead?


It's real easy to sit here and rag on someone for their "stupid idea" but what about other suggestions?


anybody who opposes this idea want to enlighten the rest of us?

We already have one suggestion...turn over foreclosures to homeless people to live in, but the person who thought of that one said it would never work because we wouldn't want homeless people living in our neighborhoods.

Even though homeless people already DO live amongst us, but apparently they're invisible until they no longer become homeless, in which case, homeless people WITH a home would somehow become even less desirable than homeless people without homes, but whatever... :silly:


What other suggestions are there for the homeless problem?

does that mean you will give me my house back? :wtf:

And that's not the issue.

The issue about foreclosed homes going to the homeless was that the person who suggested it said it would never work because nobody would want to have those no-longer-homeless homeless people living next door to them.

For what reason, I don't know.

But that was the accusation.

And I'm saying, look...there are some here who are saying the whole shipping container idea is stupid, but not offering up any alternate ideas, or if they do, they're conditional...it won't work because ___________ (fill in the blank).

So does it all boil down to:

"Sorry, homeless people...we want to help you, really we do, but some of us have decided that none of you will like the ideas we come up with, so we're not going to do anything at all. Better luck next time."


???

One outfit doing this is in New Mexico, not exactly a major port:

http://www.pfnc.net

There are enormous piles of empty containers in places that need housing -- like New Orleans.

My latest "Ralph Kramden scheme" is to load a bunch of them up with relief supplies for Haiti and then house survivors in the containers.

subsidized units. And build them all around the city/town, not just in the poor neighbourhoods. I works best when people are all mixed in together.

IMO that's the best way.

Do you realize that you are talking about human beings??

A metal storage pod so they can put in their flat screen TV...hot plate...walking track....internet cafes??
WTF world do YOU live in???

You think it would be "cool" to live like that??


Unbelievable...you've got to be absolutely clueless.

"We need more cheap, safe, efficient housing in every major city!!!!"
Very true, but what you propose above is not that.

Being in such a small space would make me feel like I was in jail.