South LA resident Elvis Summers only got started building tiny homes in 2015, but his work has received a tremendous amount of attention since then. Last year, his colorful little dwellings—built for members of the city's growing homeless population—began popping up on sidewalks and freeway overpasses around the city.
A successful crowdfunding campaign, helped by a feature in People, brought in nearly $100,000 to finance the homes. In February, however, citing health and safety concerns, city officials began confiscating the houses. Eventually, after a run of bad press, the city gave the houses back to Summers.
Since the city tightened its unattended property ordinance, however, Summers has been forced to find private property on which to keep the homes. In spite of this complication, he's continued with his project, and has begun constructing mobile shower units as well. We checked in with him to see how his work is coming along.
...
They're roughly six feet wide by eight feet long and about seven feet tall inside. There's two windows on each side. Every house has a steel reinforced door, American flag and address, smoke detectors, alarms on the windows, solar panel on the roof—which powers two lightbulbs and has a port to charge a cellphone—brand new carpet, and I provide everyone with a compost toilet.
Tiny houses and homelessness are not usual Soylent topics, but DIY (Do It Yourself) projects are. Are DIY projects like this a better way to tackle our challenges as a society than waiting for the government to take care of them?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @09:06PM
This is weird. Clearly giving the homeless a place to sleep is better than not. However, I look at the pictures, and getting images of either 3rd world nation shanty towns, or Hollywood/video game style dystopia ghettos.
Can you imagine the eyesore of having block upon block with tiny-house after tiny-house on the sidewalk, blocking traffic and generally getting in the way? And after a few years and when start to deteriorate, then what? Plus there is sanitation questions when rodents or insects start to infest the area, plus where will they get water, and everything else.
It's strange how such an obviously good thing can lead to such potentially bad results. I can't help but feel the city council or whoever is right to try to stop this. I'll admit that this is a NIMBY statement, but I know I wouldn't want such a thing in my back yard.
Of course, I'd take it one step further and say that there should be some additional funding given to the poor such that they don't need to live in this kind of shanty town. (But then again, housing projects end up a mess, too. Running society is hard!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @09:21PM
I read many of the linked articles and some others. My understanding is not complete yet, but...
It seems the original intent was to build small communities on private properties out of these. They can be moved and maintained easily to allow deployment in different places as needed. They are not intended to be permanent; they are intended to be the first stage to stabilizing a homeless person's return to normal life.
From my reading, apparently this did not go as intended. They were not able to arrange for the small communities on the expected timetable. The houses were instead deployed in other places where it was legal (or rather, not illegal at least) to do so- mostly out of the way places, under bridges, etc. I didn't see a solid reason for this (maybe they were already made, and they were burning to try them out?). Some policemen went confiscated a few, though the police chief said they wouldn't be doing this too aggressively. I didn't see mention of where they were situated- possible they were in less-good positions? Alternatively, some police officers figured this would be a feather in their caps, and did this themselves. The media got ahold of the story and the police returned them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday September 26 2016, @10:16PM
Your objections are all valid and reasonable.
The problem is that they all exist whether or not the homeless live in these tiny houses.
So the question isn't whether or not the homeless are going to block the sidewalks, whether their accommodations will deteriorate, whether there will be sanitation problems, how they'll get access to basic necessities.
Those are already all problems.
The only question, as far as this project is concerned, whether or not we'll have all those problems and also have homeless people without minimal protection from theft and the elements and the other minor amenities these tiny houses provide.
Or, another way to look at it: that smelly homeless dude is going to be living in a box on that vacant lot. Would you rather his box be made of cardboard, or would you rather it be an easily-paintable metal box with an included composting toilet? And when the homeless guy shows up at your construction jobsite looking for temporary make-work, would you rather he did so in the same clothes he slept in in the cardboard box, or that he wore the not-as-raggedy ones he was able to keep folded and out of the mud in his tiny home after he washed them in the gas station bathroom?
Make no mistrake: it's a really sorry condemnation of our society that we have to resort to such pathetic accommodations as these. But, at the same time, they're a very significant step up from the status quo we're currently in. Which, of course, is another entire level of indictment...
...but, if we've any hope of clawing ourselves out of the mess we're in, it's going to require initial baby steps like this.
And, yes, of course. Let's work on the big-picture social changes we need. We absolutely need a Scandinavian-style social safety net, including solid education and universal health care and unemployment insurance and the rest -- and, yes, that means we all get much wealthier even as the government takes more taxes out of our paychecks, a not-paradox that the archetypal dumb American is far too stupid to understand.
But let's also not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
These tiny homes make the world a better place. Not much of a better place, but it's much better to make things a little bit better than to let them keep getting worse.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @10:25PM
> But let's also not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You must be new here. Bitching is the currency of the realm. Being constructive is for quislings.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday September 26 2016, @10:42PM
Many people do not want those structures because of their essentially permanent status.
The cardboard box may have to be replaced, the local cop tired of the bum behind the transformer, and the local source of food may fail, causing the Undesirable to migrate elsewhere.
A somewhat permanent shelter is both a reason for the poor to settle, and for the people tasked to help them solve their original problems to prematurely dismiss the cases as solved.
I did read great feedback on the effectiveness at improving the homeless' daily lives when a few of these houses are grouped in a legal vacant lot.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @10:55PM
> A somewhat permanent shelter is both a reason for the poor to settle,
More importantly, it is a tool that enables them to start climbing back up into society again. Being homeless is a massive timesink and resource vacuum. A minimum level of safety and consistency is the first step on the ladder to getting their life back in order again. Kicking someone when they are down is not an effective way to help them succeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @01:42AM
well sure. Huge timesink. That's the real problem. Homeless peoples' days are usually jam packed with lying around in alleys and aggressively demanding spare change. Takes it all out of you.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:11AM
You're a fucking idiot. Try spending a day with the homeless in an outreach program and educate your sorry ass.
If you lay around the whole time.... you don't get water. You don't get food. You don't get to go to bathroom anywhere but someplace close by you.
Aggressively demanding? Fuck you. Holding a sign begging for food is hardly aggressive, and they don't do that (by and large), because then they get run off. You don't catch flies with vinegar.
What do they spend their time on? Sitting in government offices for 3 fucking hours waiting for a social worker to talk to. They sit in a community health clinic for 5 fucking hours waiting for somebody to see them. They walk 5 fucking miles to a soup kitchen or food pantry, sometimes pushing a grocery cart.
Have you pushed a solid steel fucking grocery cart a mile? Now push it full of everything you possess.
You have a backasswards perspective on the homeless that only remotely made sense when the homeless seemingly existed because of problems with their character, of pure mental illness. The 65 year old man that was fired from HP after training his H1B replacement was never lazy, and now he works harder than he has in 20 years just to survive.
I fucking dare you to become homeless for a week and just lay around. See how far you get doing that.
Go to hell you piece of shit.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @04:52AM
Thanks for saying that. If you replaced "homeless" with "destitute women" you will find the solutions knocking on your door. A very large number of issues we have in this world is because while women are united as a vote-bank, men are busy putting each other down. "Homeless? Pfft.. he probably deserved it."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:26PM
Same with being poor. The US has by and large lost all compassion. We are a nation run by thieves and its screwing up all kinds of things in our society. We shit on the poor and homeless, and offer very little assistance to get people back on their feet. Tie that together with the bootstrapping American dream and you now have a recipe for callous behavior lacking all compassion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @06:18PM
In my experience working with the homeless, those that are capable of reentering society usually find their way into shelters and government/privately run programs to help them back onto their feet. Unfortunately many are mentally ill, or otherwise disturbed, and have little hope. I applaud this man's efforts, and wonder if this is a solution for some limited situations. That said, the challenges of keeping these clean/in good repair, and finding an appropriate place for them are significant. I would gladly put one in my yard, but where does the resident get clean water, and access to sanitation. Who monitors it to ensure their stay is temporary. Otherwise, is this any different than opening an abandon building?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:17AM
a not-paradox that the archetypal dumb American is far too stupid to understand.
That's just plain wrong. Many Americans are smart enough to understand it, and call for all the reforms you've mentioned. We're also smart enough to look at other countries with higher standards of living and wonder, "Gee, I wonder what they do different?". Not just that, but we can pull our patriotic heads out of our asses, set our epic sized egos aside, and see that we are lacking and not getting the job done.
The problem is that we have no control whatsoever of the people at the top, and our government was hijacked by the elites (for at least 50 years) alongside incredible manipulations via propaganda and junk science.
It's not as if we have a choice, and anytime something progressive happens in California, a lawsuit at the federal level undoes whatever progressive work was accomplished.
We're quite literally not allowed to have the niceties you mention.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @10:42AM
The problem is that we have no control whatsoever of the people at the top,
I think the real problem is your voters. Seriously the voters do have control. Otherwise Clinton wouldn't be collapsing and getting dragged by her bodyguards into limos and Trump would be too busy ogling his daughter and other women. I mean why else would Trump bother to attend a debate that he clearly wasn't enjoying? It's for the voters.
Just look at the Dictators. That Kim guy in North Korea sure doesn't have to bother to put up with such inconveniences. His people suffer so that he doesn't.
That Trump has even a conceivable chance shows how bad the your voters are. If you really wanted something different and not so evil you'd have gone for Jill Stein (who has weird ideas about WiFi but Stein with nukes sure sounds better to me than Clinton or Trump with nukes).
If Jill Stein actually won she would get mostly shut out by a hostile Congress but that's a feature not a bug - meanwhile both the Republicans and the Democrats would be scrambling to _improve_ for a change, because Stein would be a warning shot.
But as it is, why should those two parties bother changing much? There's no warning shot. Most of the voters who bother voting keep voting for them.
So that's the thing about democracy - you often end up with the Government you deserve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @11:59PM
" However, I look at the pictures, and getting images of either 3rd world nation shanty towns, or Hollywood/video game style dystopia ghettos."
That is because you are privileged and lead a sheltered life. Those sorts of places exist all over america already. There are already communities of homeless people setting up shanty towns.
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=us+shanty+towns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X [google.co.nz]
Yes, its a disgrace. Yes its easily fixed.
No, the government wont support fixing it.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:05AM
The reason housing projects end up the way they do is that they are a half assed minimal approach to the problem. There's a reason it's called the ghetto. Give them just enough to not actually revolt and burn civilization down, but make sure they don't have enough to actually pull themselves up and join the larger society..
So why do so many join a gang? Because that's who's hiring.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:24AM
Not just that. They're paying LIVING WAGES, and in fact, much higher than LIVING WAGES.
Even if Wallmart were hiring, why go work for them knowing you're being exploited by elite bastards for lower than Living Wage pay? Why get a job only to need to walk down the government offices and get your welfare check anyways? Not only that, you can be punished for working by losing benefits you can't afford to live without. You can get off welfare and benefits, but not make enough to survive. There is a very unfortunate portion of the wage spectrum where you're too high to receive the benefits you need from the state, and too low to afford the benefits you need by paying yourself.
Joining a gang and committing crimes is one of the few ways to achieve Living Wages that are afforded to people in the ghettos. You could afford health care as a cash payer, never worry about not eating steak again, and basically pay your fucking bills. On top of that, you get the nice toys.
People in the ghetto aren't stupid either. They know that crime pays after watching the government and Wall Street do it, and the only difference between their crimes and the crimes of the elites, is that the elites paid for the government to make their crimes legal, to make their crimes too-big-to-prosecute.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 27 2016, @03:24AM
Yes, exactly. Not to mention they get respect. Perhaps not the good kind of respect, but a lot more respect than they will get from any manager or customer at Walmart. And nobody looking down on them when they buy their groceries with cash.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday September 27 2016, @03:03AM
You NIMBY types... you need to go elsewhere. Far from my neighbourhood.....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @09:30PM
I have a better solution: Change government so it finally represents the governed instead of some greasy sleazebag financier.
Modern governments are factories where slaves are raised for their work and later disposed of. This needs to change now.
A government should do all it can so the whole of society (the individual and the state) benefits instead of the few at the top. A government should introduce currency without interest so the people who own the country live good lives like they are supposed to. A government should be based on an ideology that it stands by and defends and creates an environment of trust and mutual respect with other peoples.
If all that is being spent fighting global wars (we're always at war with xxxx) to enrich someone was spent on the common man, there wouldn't be tent villages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @10:55PM
the few at the top
I wish that folks who are talking about The Rich would say "The Rich"[1] and when talking about everybody else would say "The Non-Rich".
Saying "the top" or "the bottom" infers that those people are innately better/worse than the other portion.
(It bugs me when Bernie uses those terms.)
Words have power. Use them wisely.
[1] ...and "The Idle Rich" has a certain ring to it.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:20AM
> I have a better solution: Change government
You first. This guy has single-handedly done 1000x more than you have to fix the problem. Your response is to suggest some pie in the sky fantasy about how the world ought to work without any talk about how to accomplish that, while he is getting results. Maybe his approach won't scale. But your approach of utopianism isn't scaling either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:48AM
My dad has always tinkered with cheap housing (one of his best ideas is molding insulating foam), and the problem is always the same- zoning and NIMBYism.
The same class that declares there should be a bajillion governmental regs to save people from themselves also drive up the cost for those on the fringes who are just looking for a warm place to stay.
And you have people who oppose new housing development (or mandate x% of affordable housing [future ghettos]), which ends up driving up the rent.
You'd honestly be better off just giving them the money and removing restrictions on building housing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @01:49AM
That's true to a significant degree. It worked in Tokyo [ft.com] which is basically the only mega metroplex in the world not to see sky-rocketing housing costs.
But taking away local zoning control is practically impossible, especially in the USA. One of the big problems with it is that property owners have the vote today and they want their property values to go up so they can vote out any politician that wants to change zoning to make housing more affordable. Meanwhile all the potential new residents that would move in after new construction are only future votes, so they can't protect that politician from the angry property owners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:11AM
But taking away local zoning control is practically impossible
But it can be ameliorated.
Land value tax, besides all of its other benefits, mediates how zoning is approached and tends to maximize land use.
Otherwise rent-seeking (in the economic sense) becomes problematic, which okay, but those people should bear the burden of it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @10:10PM
Every house has a steel reinforced door, American flag and address, smoke detectors, alarms on the windows, solar panel on the roof—which powers two lightbulbs and has a port to charge a cellphone—brand new carpet, and I provide everyone with a compost toilet.
The USA PATRIOT assholes just have to impose their blind idiot patriotism on everything. Here's a question for you fuckwit: what if you're homeless precisely because you hate America and everything America stands for?
Could it have been too much to ask for this stupid flag waving motherfucker to keep his evangelical politics out of his alleged generosity?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday September 26 2016, @10:15PM
I read it as a reminder to anyone with shitty intentions (professional or otherwise) that the inhabitant is considered a human being.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @10:21PM
Seems like the set of people with a callous disregard for the lives of the underclass is mostly a subset of those with hyperpatroitism. I think the flag is an attempt to crash their brains with cognitive dissonance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:08AM
So where are the house you built for the homeless?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:22AM
Who touche'd this?
I was agreeing and elaborating with the previous poster. There is no touche.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @03:06AM
You whinge about a mod boost because of the kind of boost?
Touche indeed, sir. Touche.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @05:00PM
People keep using that word...
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday September 27 2016, @01:35AM
NIMBYs come in all political denominations.
We ought to ask why apartments must be of a certain size, and why the density outside of city cores has been lowered.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @10:58PM
If there is a contract with which a tenant must comply that says the flag can't be messed with, I would agree with you and your criticism of flag waving.
If, however, the flag can be taken down or replaced or flown upside down (a traditional sign of distress), I'm fine with its inclusion.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 26 2016, @11:58PM
Simple- don't take the house then.
To whine that an act of charity doesn't conform with your ideological aspirations just marks you as an entitled bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @10:03AM
> To whine that an act of charity doesn't conform with your ideological aspirations just marks you as an entitled bitch.
Using an act of charity to promote an ideology is not an act of charity.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Tuesday September 27 2016, @09:17PM
I guess that is similar to why Facebook didn't get their plans into motion in India, either... and plenty of people there whined that the act of charity didn't conform with the net neutrality ideology.
The FB plans for India seem less charitable under such illumination than this house building by LA Man...
Donating time or money in order to gain influence is not charitble; it is a cost of doing business and in no way a donation nor charity.
(Score: 2) by bryan on Monday September 26 2016, @11:54PM
They should get a government grant and make them out of terrafoam [marshallbrain.com].
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:10AM
In oldtown Portland and I expect every inner city, the only nutritious thing to eat is microwave burritos.
I shop at a regular grocery store and am able to - just barely - feed myself on $195 in SNAP benefits each month. That money would be better spent were it to pay for groceries at a food pantry.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:53AM
The meal must be hot.
All that is purchased must be finished off in 1 sitting.
Others limitations?
...and that burrito lacks the nutrients in green veggies, so it's hardly a balanced meal.
Is that place a "food desert" where fresh produce is not available?
(Most of what I buy these days is fresh food.)
I shop at a regular grocery store
So do I.
Your place has ridiculous prices or you have very expensive tastes.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @01:44AM
How about eggs, potatoes, and chicken leg quarters/thighs (~$1/12; ~$.40/pound; ~$1/pound)?
Cans of corn/peas are usually $.50 each, bananas are about $.70/pound, and carrots are less than a dollar/pound.
Cracked wheat is more nutritious than rice and similarly priced. Other better grains include oats, flaxseed, and barley.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Uncle_Al on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:28AM
who wins?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @07:15PM
Oblig. TMBG:
Person man, person man
Hit on the head with a frying pan
Lives his life in a garbage can
Person man
Is he depressed or is he a mess?
Does he feel totally worthless?
Who came up with person man?
Degraded man, person man
Triangle man, triangle man
Triangle man hates person man
They have a fight, triangle wins
Triangle man
Florida is kinda shaped like a triangle...
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 27 2016, @01:12AM
https://www.facebook.com/simplyhomecommunity [facebook.com]
I was perfectly happy in my tent, with the exception that some right chap slashed it up with a knife.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 27 2016, @12:16PM
The other place I saw this recently was in India. They deployed thousands of these things in the homes of villagers all over India, and of course the villagers mostly refuse to use them. I would too!
You don't put a compost toilet in your home, that's crazy. You use it once and your home will stink like shit forever after. Compost toilets are not the same as flush toilets. Before we used flush toilets in this country, we used compost toilets, and they were uniformly placed as I suggest - in "outhouses" - for exactly this reason.
That's doubly true when the home in question is so tiny to begin with. What are these people thinking?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by joshuajon on Tuesday September 27 2016, @01:38PM
Have you actually used one? A friend's household (of ~6 adults) has had a single compost toilet for 3 or 4 years. It doesn't smell if used properly.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday September 27 2016, @02:14PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @03:52PM
LA Man builds houses. Florida Man, that hapless superhero, destroys houses in meth explosions.