Posted on 03/19/2017 9:22:14 AM PDT by nhwingut
no. I would not .. the government will mandate $hit just like they do with the “section8” housing. eff them.
No forward thinking.
Law of unintended consequences.
NIMBY
Follow the money.
No good deed will go unpunished.
I feel soooo good about somebody else doing this.
Wait until the county starts these “homes” at fair market value. How much, you ask? Another Freeper reconed it up to be about $91,000 per hooch. Aside from some crony libtards getting a purse full from the government for building these places, the government will get the money back from the taxpayer while the homeless are free to roam the backyards and raid the big house when the taxpayers are away. I l;ove it when these bums are playing with other leftists money.
aw they won’t be homeless for long..how long does it take someone to trip and fall on your property and sue?
BUMS
Oh really? Tell us more.
$90,000 for what amounts to a tool shed. Only government can find a way to waste so much money so quickly.
But many people would offer such a place to a family member in need, a temporary shelter for someone referred from their church, a pregnant teenager who needs a temporary place to stay, a family member who a place to recuperate after surgery or illness, a recent widow or widower who wants time away from their home for a few days or weeks.
Families and communities used to provide these things and they didn’t need to be legislated.
If the homeless person is a “tenant” in a city that makes it darn near impossible to evict them, once in, they’ll never have to leave.
Actually, Organic Panic nailed it in Post 27.
Read the post, but this is the money quote: >>They aren’t going to put in the drug addicts. They will be hand selected model “homeless.” <<
The last people on Earth to be helped by this are the dayin, dayout homeless.
I wonder how the neighbors of these 200 homeowners will feel about this if they decide to participate in this program.
Found a listing on Zillow for a 3 br, 2 bath, 2 car garage rambler for $95,000.
I question the greed thing. If you look at the most expensive places to live in America, such as Manhattan, San Francisco, housing prices are what they are based on supply and demand. With some zoning laws and limited land to build in such places thrown in. Yet the wealthiest in places such as the Bay Area or New York want to live in the most exclusive areas, and their behavior pushes prices up.
And then, comparing housing prices to what someone earning minimum wage earns, then, you see that imbalance. However, it’s not really due to greed that lower income people can’t afford the nice parts of SF or Manhattan, is it??
Or look at a different way, we all compete in housing markets wherever we live.
My house is worth over $500K. I bought it for $169K years ago. Am I greedy to sell it for $520K and make a big profit on paper, if I choose to sell now? After all, if I sell and need to buy another place to live, I will need the equity out of my current property to afford the next one.
I think you would come to regret this within weeks. All these freebies from the city come with a non-evictable lunatic. With no job and no prospects for one. The stuff that homeless think is perfectly acceptable is horrifying to most homeowners. And they are homeless for a reason. Put them in a tiny house in your backyard and they will develop a new hobby -- watching you. Want to have dinner on the back porch on a nice summer night? Hungry eyes will follow your every bite. If you buy anything new, they will root through your garbage and see the box, giving them an incentive to come in and "borrow" it.
That "$70k upgrade" comes with an automatic 50% degradation of your property value.
And, what happens if your job is transferred to another city and you want to move with it? Most buyers are not looking for a place that has a shed with a bum in the backyard.
Our home is on 1/3 of an acre. We have RV parking in front of and behind fencing. When our parents started getting older we were going to move a self contained travel trailer into the rv parking for them to live in. A nice used one was $8-10k. A Tuff Shed is a heckuva lot cheaper than $72k and can be outfitted as a tiny home.
Leave it to politicians to waste a ton of money.
“Found a listing on Zillow for a 3 br, 2 bath, 2 car garage rambler for $95,000.”
Where ?
I haven’t seen anything like that for 20 years.
Try again, if your build per the IBC or IRC.
I forget what the minimal sized Single Family Residence SFR requirements mandate, but it is close to 1075 SF with all utilities (Elec, HVAC, Plumbing, Sewer). Figure a min of $40k-$66k on permits alone plus utility hookups.
Least expensive solution is generally on an over 40 Acre parcel where zoning is relaxed, but distances to run utilities creep up on you.
Codes and regulations force everybody to live like 3rd world kings.
It does not have to be that big. It’s not a single family residence. And by the way people used to raise families in 800 sf homes. These, however have a different purpose. They are auxillary spaces to the main home.
You can build one to code for a lot less than that. Yes, regulations and fees cost a lot, which is part of the homelessness problem in the first place.
Yes...oregonE
Yes...oregonE
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.