Posted on 03/19/2017 9:22:14 AM PDT by nhwingut
Full Headline: Would YOU let a homeless person live in your backyard? Portland offers residents free tiny homes if they rent it to families who are on the street
....
Faced with an intractable homeless problem, officials in Portland are thinking inside the box.
A handful of homeless families will soon move into tiny, government-constructed modular units in the backyards of willing homeowners.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Why am I even bothering to ask details about an insane idea?
_________________
LOL! No kidding.
This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.
Let those who proposed it be the first to volunteer.
I saw Multnomah county but that didn’t tell me anything either. Poor reporting.
LOL!!! You are so right.
Talk about destroying—self-inflicted—, your peaceful home life.
And, oh yeah...Good luck selling your property in the future, you idiotic liberals. (not talking to you Cowgirl!!:-) )
That’s a tragedy waiting to happen! Many homeless are mentally unstable....not what I want in my backyard. Must be different out there.
$500? You haven’t been in a lumberyard in a LONG time. Price a 10x16 shed.
I was in Portland last Sunday and ate at a Chinese restaurant in Chinatown with four others including an 11-year old boy. While walking back to our accommodations about 9 p.m., we were accosted by a Black homeless person who was incoherent, ranting about nonsensical things. We divided the group with myself and another adult walking faster so he followed us continuing his rant while the others slowed down so his focus was on us. After about four or five blocks he got tired of us and turned down a side street. The others were fine and the group got back together and continued to our destination with no further problem.
This is not an unusual situation. Anyone who walks alone anytime after dark (not speaking about late at night) is likely to be acosted if not by this type of person, but those just panhandling. Portland city downtown is a pleasant place to visit in daytime with lots of small shops and bistros. But at night the ever present homeless become more agressive and even group walking can result in an encounter.
I’m sure the celebrity millionaires, with acres of estates, are signing up to have many such ‘homes’ on their properties. So compassionate and inclusive they are....not! If anyone spots these cubicles on Streisand’s Malibu estate, please post pics.
“Down and Out in Beverly Hills” movie comes close. Dreyfus and Bette Midler and Nick Nolte (playing his later self apparently), comes pretty close to this with a high end hollywood neighborhood instead of socialist Portland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_Beverly_Hills
So now the left is defining a green space as an underutilized space?
How about other underutilized spaces?
Plenty of space in the middle of freeway cloverleaves. All is needed is a little bridge over the exit ramp.
Obviously the "Tent Cities" they are complaining about were underutilized spaces that were utilized, so why not put the little sheds there?
Actually, in Portland those spaces are already utilized and filled with homeless living in tents and under tarps. With the city's incessant rain, being under freeway structures or bridge entrance ramps make those locations prime locations for the homeless.
Under the pilot program taking effect this summer, the homeowners will take over the heated, fully plumbed tiny houses in five years and can use them for rental income.
...
Great opportunity for aspiring slumlords. They’ll be able to fit a dozen illegals in one of those things.
For mush brained liberals it will be free tuition for the school of hard knocks.
The neighbors will love it and the neighborhood will never be the same again.
i wonder what happens when you sell your home and the next owner doesn’t want to do this.
Yes, to break into your house and take what they please. You left the door unlocked. They live on the property so good luck calling it trespass.
This won’t end well; these kinds of programs never do.
No one would even want to buy your house. No decent person anyway.
YES, if he could prove he was here legally and he was willing to carry his share of the work load.
Once this nonsense gets started, it will not be long before Big Brother down at the State House MANDATES THAT YOU MUST permit the state to house the homeless on your property. Remember, you heard the warning here first.
Yeah, and how long before they take over your HOUSE?
I can’t even eat a sammich when my dog is watching and drooling without feeling obligated to share.
Imagine a whole family watching as you cook your steaks exactly right and load them up on the platter, pick up your bourbon and say,., “Good night” and go inside.
Also, I don’t recall seeing anything about laundry facilities. So everyone will be ok with clotheslines in their back yards? Extra garbage bags by the garbage cans? Going in the yard and picking up their trash, cigarette butts and such because your REALLY don’t want to tell an entitled, drugged out homeless person to pick up THEIR trash in YOUR yard.
First, hearkening back to Econ...Whatever, we learned about market makers and market takers. There are so many parties on both the supply and demand side no one person controls the market. They take what the market gives them, period. Sometimes good, sometimes not.
So, just as in the petroleum business, you're stuck with what the market gives for better or worse. We haven't seen a lot of posters complaining about the price of crude, have we?
Used to be that a rental house was a solid if unexciting way to invest. Now (especially in those cities with high housing prices) it's a high risk investment.
In the city of Seattle, for example, evictions take months and are costly. There's an office of consumer protection that regulates everything from allowable deposits to 'discrimination.'
For example, landlords are not allowed to take criminal records into account unless they can prove it has a direct bearing on tenancy. They will be judged, of course, with perfect hindsight. No one knows what kind of liability this creates for owners. Then there's a requirement to pay for moving costs of tenants in many cases.
And the latest...The Seattle City Council requires that owners accept the first "qualified" applicant. Nobody knows what that means, except that it will be administered by a bureaucracy hostile to owners.
Those willing to pronounce judgment upon the investments of others should be willing to put money where their mouth is...Or STFU.
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.