Posted on 12/20/2020 7:47:11 AM PST by rktman
When, last week, we wrote about 56% of Americans stating they would be OK living in a "tiny home", this isn't what we had in mind.
But apparently, in L.A., being homeless has its perks. What better way for California to help get its budget crisis under control than to pay for minimalist structures, known as “tiny homes”, to the total cost of $130,000 each, for its homeless. What was once an idea to house the homeless in "emergency shelters" has now - as things do in liberal states - turned into "expensive development projects with access roads, underground utilities and concrete foundations," according to the LA Times.
LA has opened one "village" and has planned five more. Mayor Eric Garcetti has championed the program as a way for the city to stop neglecting its homeless - an issue that was brought up in a recent federal lawsuit against the city.
The total cost of the first village is now about $5.2 million. Additional projects that are set to open in April are "projected" to cost less, but we'll believe it when we see it. The city says for those villages, it expects to spend "at least $82,000 per shelter". The contract attracted only one bid, which came in more than $400,000 over expectations.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
How the heck does it cost 130K to build a house the size of my shed? Somebody is making bank
What decent person in their right mind would voluntarily live in LA, San Francisco, Portland or Seattle?
You can buy a 3BR/2B house in NC for that!
The “Tiny House” fantasy is the least effective way of housing people, and it is (still, incredibly) being promoted by those who have zero experience in the field.
Sometimes the answers to our questions are found merely in the asking of them.
The idiots running San Jose built these, 30 or so by the new BART station.
Construction was finished LAST JANUARY and there are still NO PEOPLE THERE...it just sits empty.
Across the street there are homeless camps on the river.
Government is stupid & wasteful, even more so when it’s run by democrats.
That makes sense. Living in small quarters would drive someone mad.
This is the biggest frikkin racket in LA, ALL of them should ROT in Prison for this FRAUD. You can get a BRAND NEW Single Wide, 3bd 2bath for 50K-75K.
https://www.claytonhomes.com/homes/97TRS14663AH
You know, in some parts of Tennessee, $80k buys you a full-up house, with AC unit, built in the past 60 years, and a two-car garage.
Ironically, California can’t even do Potemkin Villages correctly
What’s the square footage per “home”?
The trailers themselves cost about $8,600 each - but other costs included “$122,000 for underground utilities, $253,000 for concrete pads (one for each shelter), $312,000 for an administrative office and staff restroom, $1.1 million for mechanical, electrical and fire alarms and $280,000 for permits and fees.”
***to the total cost of $130,000 each,***
Say what? You can build a nice brick three bedroom house on a foundation for that!
Why not just build open bay barracks for the homeless! They worked for military!
130k must include the daily delivery of booze and drugs.
Or perhaps kerchunk!
The motivating and driving force behind most of their plots and plans.
It is WHY they spend boatloads of cash to become elected into an office that pays relatively little.
'Tis not for thee that they toil so hard, after all.
Even the dominion sales persons are in on this capitalistic endeavor, selling the machines that rig the votes!
They probably had to go with underground utilities to prevent the “residents” from stealing the utility wires!
Do these have their own crapper, or do they use portajohns?
I ‘volunteered’ once for Habitat for the Homeless (Jimmy Carter’s project), through work. Some observations:
1) Only the ‘adults’ were allowed to use power tools (probably not a bad idea, since I doubt many of the volunteers knew which end of a screwdriver to hold).
2) The houses were tiny, with a small concrete slab for parking (probably around 800 square feet, if that).
3) There were really nice houses across the street.
The last one sickened me so much that I left very quickly, knowing that the people across the street didn’t buy the land and build their houses just to have the Third World show up. Needless to say, the other volunteers there thought the project was the best thing in the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.