Tiny home village in Los Angeles for the homeless

@Murrmurr The new middle class. Seriously. But I believe it. :( It's just about building to make money.

I'm glad to hear those places are well regulated. While the local housing like this has been on the local news, I didn't see anything mentioned about management. I do think they are allowing pets which is good because it would be cruel not to. I've seen homeless with some well fed and tail waging dogs so I know they are taking good care of them.
 

Remy said:
@Murrmurr The new middle class. Seriously. But I believe it. :( It's just about building to make money.

I'm glad to hear those places are well regulated. While the local housing like this has been on the local news, I didn't see anything mentioned about management. I do think they are allowing pets which is good because it would be cruel not to. I've seen homeless with some well fed and tail waging dogs so I know they are taking good care of them.
Click to expand...
Since the managers and maintenance are paid by the city, I hope the city hasn't decided to save money by letting them go. :mad:
That would be a huge mistake; screw it up for everyone.
 
Murrmurr said:
They got so popular, people were paying up in the 10s of thousands of dollars for them. Originally, you could get one for a few hundred bucks. Even with the cost of materials to make them a home, they were still cheaper. (material costs were, too, tho)
Click to expand...
Yes I remember they were much cheaper but wasn't sure if they still are. That's why I didn't mention that they are more economical.
 

If I travel to LA can I just wander in and take up residence? Seems like a sweet vacation deal!

Just kidding. As nice as places like that are initially it's still a homeless camp and will be an environment inflicted by the homeless dynamics in short order. No place I would want to be.

Very shitty of LA to boot the guy who started the project.
 
Jules said:
In the OP, I didn’t see any washrooms or kitchen facilities. How is this handled.
Click to expand...
The community in the OP seems to have no tiny kitchen or bathroom. I assume it has a community kitchen, a row of showers and bathrooms, and a few laundry rooms. Some communities have microwaves, some have microwaves and/or a single-burner stoves, some also have a shower, sink, and toilet. It depends on the residents. If they have a drug/alcohol problem, they go to ones like in the OP. If they are recently homeless, clean, and/or have a job, they go to ones with en-suite facilities. But all of it is transitional housing. When the people can afford permanent housing, they have to move. There are counseling services to help them get to that level, and various time frames - 6 to 18 months is California's standard.
 
Murrmurr said:
The community in the OP seems to have no tiny kitchen or bathroom. I assume it has a community kitchen, a row of showers and bathrooms, and a few laundry rooms. Some communities have microwaves, some have microwaves and/or a single-burner stoves, some also have a shower, sink, and toilet. It depends on the residents. If they have a drug/alcohol problem, they go to ones like in the OP. If they are recently homeless, clean, and/or have a job, they go to ones with en-suite facilities. But all of it is transitional housing. When the people can afford permanent housing, they have to move. There are counseling services to help them get to that level, and various time frames - 6 to 18 months is California's standard.
Click to expand...
The community facilities are in the units at the rear of the picture
 
hollydolly said:
The community facilities are in the units at the rear of the picture
Click to expand...
That's what I figured. I wasn't sure if they were that or storage, but these places usually make the new residents get rid of all their "shopping cart belongings" before they move in for sanitary/health reasons (and contraband).

Lining up bathrooms like that minimizes plumbing costs and digging.
 
I drove by it while I was on the freeway a couple of weeks ago. Before they built it, that area looked horrible - tents & home-made wooden boxes & trash everywhere. I am wondering how long it will look that nice.
 
This may or may not be the right thread, but

speaking of LA;

This atrocity is pretty unforgivable
.....and the reason we deal directly with homeless folks

 
Last edited:
An organization in this area came up with the idea of building cottages for homeless people. Not sure how far they've come with construction. Each cottage is all-inclusive- its own kitchen, bathroom, etc.

I have the awful feeling that it won't catch on, though. The reason: while they say a person can live in a cottage for up to 2 years, depending on their particular situation, the purpose is to help the individuals get on their feet.
Too many in this area do not want a helping-hand UP, they want long-term or even lifelong handOUTS.

So while this particular organization is somewhat small and not very well-known, I think their sensible approach is doomed to fail when they're up against other places that provide housing without any requirements and no-strings attached.
 
JaniceM said:
An organization in this area came up with the idea of building cottages for homeless people. Not sure how far they've come with construction. Each cottage is all-inclusive- its own kitchen, bathroom, etc.

I have the awful feeling that it won't catch on, though. The reason: while they say a person can live in a cottage for up to 2 years, depending on their particular situation, the purpose is to help the individuals get on their feet.
Too many in this area do not want a helping-hand UP, they want long-term or even lifelong handOUTS.

So while this particular organization is somewhat small and not very well-known, I think their sensible approach is doomed to fail when they're up against other places that provide housing without any requirements and no-strings attached.
Click to expand...
when you say the homeless get handouts, what do you mean ?

In comparision, here in the Uk the homless get no benefits at all.. they don't get dole, or any kind of monetary help whatsoever, so if the same was to happen here with regard the tiny houses, then those who wanted to get off the streets would be given a lifeline of an address for 2 years with which they can then claim benefits, or get a job, and thenceforth start to be able to save the deposit for a rental
 
Cathy Come Home was broadcast on 16 November 1966, in the regular Wednesday Play slot. The drama, written by Jeremy Sandford and directed by Ken Loach, exposed Britain's chronic housing shortage and helped bring post-war homelessness to the public agenda,

Today, homeless people in the UK can claim benefits (usually Universal Credit). If they are rough sleepers they can use the address of a friend, family member, day or job centre. There is also a Government system (Payment Exception Service) for people who have no bank, post office or building society account.

Like most countries, the UK has a very limited stock of social housing so, any scheme which can offer a homeless person a home, must surely be a good thing. I believe Finland has quite a successful approach in that they offer the stability of housing first and then they deal with other issues the person may have second (mental health, addiction etc).
 
Trish said:
Cathy Come Home was broadcast on 16 November 1966, in the regular Wednesday Play slot. The drama, written by Jeremy Sandford and directed by Ken Loach, exposed Britain's chronic housing shortage and helped bring post-war homelessness to the public agenda,

Today, homeless people in the UK can claim benefits (usually Universal Credit). If they are rough sleepers they can use the address of a friend, family member, day or job centre. There is also a Government system (Payment Exception Service) for people who have no bank, post office or building society account.

Like most countries, the UK has a very limited stock of social housing so, any scheme which can offer a homeless person a home, must surely be a good thing. I believe Finland has quite a successful approach in that they offer the stability of housing first and then they deal with other issues the person may have second (mental health, addiction etc).
Click to expand...
They cannot claim benefits if they have no address, and most don't...
 
hollydolly said:
...so they still need an address ^^^^^ someone else's address which most homeless people wouldn't have access to...
Click to expand...
I have both worked and volunteered in the homeless sector and it was my experience that many do seek and receive help. They are entitled to and most do receive financial help. Whilst some do not have a supportive friend or family member, it does not prohibit them from claiming and receiving benefits as they can use the address of their advice or job centre.
 
Hahaha.. what on earth ?... you posted your own link showing that homeless people need some type of address.. which is what I've been saying all along.. !! Shakes head !!:rolleyes:
 
hollydolly said:
when you say the homeless get handouts, what do you mean ?

In comparision, here in the Uk the homless get no benefits at all.. they don't get dole, or any kind of monetary help whatsoever, so if the same was to happen here with regard the tiny houses, then those who wanted to get off the streets would be given a lifeline of an address for 2 years with which they can then claim benefits, or get a job, and thenceforth start to be able to save the deposit for a rental
Click to expand...

🤷‍♀️
 
hollydolly said:
when you say the homeless get handouts, what do you mean ?

In comparision, here in the Uk the homless get no benefits at all.. they don't get dole, or any kind of monetary help whatsoever, so if the same was to happen here with regard the tiny houses, then those who wanted to get off the streets would be given a lifeline of an address for 2 years with which they can then claim benefits, or get a job, and thenceforth start to be able to save the deposit for a rental
Click to expand...
The way the housing program has been used in recent years, individuals are expected to contribute a little something toward rent if they have income (legitimate income, that is, like SSDI), and if they don't, they don't; they can get food stamps, medical services, etc.

However, the problem is while there's no time limit, individuals are not required to do anything whatsoever.. they're offered various programs and services, such as drug/alcohol rehab, job assistance, education, etc., but are not obligated to participate in anything.. and in the 5+ years I've known about this, not one single person has done anything in their own behalf.
As they're also not required to stop using drugs, it's basically a matter of giving people full private apartments where they can use drugs without interference.
While all the free time in the world to do whatever they choose, and unrestricted drug use can lead to big problems, individuals are not held accountable for their behaviors no matter what they do, and are allowed to violate the supportive housing policy by moving other people into their apartments including large numbers of street people.

One example of how this housing approach is not working: https://who13.com/news/metro-news/d...bused-teen-injected-her-with-meth-police-say/
The news writer made a mistake- this actually occurred more than a year ago. He should have been evicted when he threatened one of the neighbors with a gun, but he wasn't. And he had his "housing" (apartment) for two years or longer.
 
JaniceM said:
The way the housing program has been used in recent years, individuals are expected to contribute a little something toward rent if they have income (legitimate income, that is, like SSDI), and if they don't, they don't; they can get food stamps, medical services, etc.

However, the problem is while there's no time limit, individuals are not required to do anything whatsoever.. they're offered various programs and services, such as drug/alcohol rehab, job assistance, education, etc., but are not obligated to participate in anything.. and in the 5+ years I've known about this, not one single person has done anything in their own behalf.
As they're also not required to stop using drugs, it's basically a matter of giving people full private apartments where they can use drugs without interference.
While all the free time in the world to do whatever they choose, and unrestricted drug use can lead to big problems, individuals are not held accountable for their behaviors no matter what they do, and are allowed to violate the supportive housing policy by moving other people into their apartments including large numbers of street people.

One example of how this housing approach is not working: https://who13.com/news/metro-news/d...bused-teen-injected-her-with-meth-police-say/
The news writer made a mistake- this actually occurred more than a year ago. He should have been evicted when he threatened one of the neighbors with a gun, but he wasn't. And he had his "housing" (apartment) for two years or longer.
Click to expand...
Thank you Janice, That's Very similar to what happens here.. but of course many people who are homeless are not drug users.. and even more nowadays are the Silver surfer homeless.. the people our ages who are finding themselves through divorce or circumstance now homeless in the 60's and 70's...
 
hollydolly said:
Thank you Janice, That's Very similar to what happens here.. but of course many people who are homeless are not drug users.. and even more nowadays are the Silver surfer homeless.. the people our ages who are finding themselves through divorce or circumstance now homeless in the 60's and 70's...
Click to expand...
Well, the local organization I mentioned that's building cottages is also building different cottages for people in special circumstances such as seniors.

Not sure if this would be considered an interesting point or not, but the place that has the purpose of helping people get on their feet is a religious organization, whereas the "housing" program that expects nothing of the individuals is a government program.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top