Private Citizens Try to Help Homeless By Giving Them Tiny Houses; City of Los Angeles Steals Them


Government is just another name for how we make sure generous attempts to better the lives of the destitute come to naught, as reported in the Los Angeles Times today under the headline: "L.A. seizes tiny houses from homeless people."

Elvis Summers Facebook

A man named Elvis Summers had been building and giving away small wooden houses with solar lights (and American flags!) to the homeless in L.A.; the city has already confiscated three of them on freeway overpasses, and plans to snatch 7 more of them today, according to the city Bureau of Sanitation. Councilman Curren Price ordered the theft.

The city is storing them for now on a lot, but will eventually just destroy them.

Summers has built and given away 37 of them, and says he's now taking some of them back and into storage to avoid the city stealing and wrecking them.

Kenner Jackson, who lives in a tiny house with his wife, Becky, and terrier, Cowboy, said officials were "taking houses from people who need them right now. … Their plan isn't anything."

Jackson said he didn't know where they would go if their house is taken Thursday. "This is our foundation," he said.

Jackson said the city hauled away homeless people's possessions while leaving bulky items like mattresses and chairs that residents dump next to the freeway. 

Johnny Horton, 60, whose heavily bandaged legs were scored with wounds from uncontrolled diabetes, wept silently Wednesday as he contemplated going back to sleeping in the street….

And the city makes sure we know, so you know it's all cool that these people are shelterless by deliberate city action and theft again:

[City sanitation department spokesperson Elana] Stern said authorities destroyed needles, drug setups and a gun seized from one or more of the houses during the earlier cleanup.

Back in October I wrote on the un-musical question: "How Will We Help the Homeless Without Government, Which Just Sent Squads of Cops to Destroy "Microhouses" for Homeless on Government Property in Denver?

Reason TV feature about the unfortunate illegality of "tiny houses":

NEXT: Exchanging Anything of Value for Sex Will Soon Be a Crime in Oregon

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What have we learned here? Never help anyone.

    Liberaltopia removes charity in favor of taxation.

    1. Los Angeles is trying to source money for “permanent supportive housing” to “solve” its homeless problem. The cost? Over $200k per unit in construction costs. Why are they quashing this? Probably, at least in part, because this guy doesn’t give his kickbacks to the politicians, whereas the big dollar developers have deep pockets.

  2. Not to be a jerk, but… what the hell did he think the city was going to do with the houses?

    1. Maybe if he put them somewhere else… A vacant lot, an abandoned parking lot…. Really, anywhere but a freeway overpass.

      1. Private property – they’d have come down on the owner for zoning regulations.

        But, yeah, someplace out of sight on public property would probably have been the best bet.

        The foreseeable consequences don’t detract from the good he was trying to do. And perhaps he knew, but was trying to force the city to come off as bad guys, which seems to have worked rather well.

        1. Yeah – I wonder if Elana Stern has any idea of what an ass she looks like in this case.

          1. I doubt she cares. PR flacks have pretty thick skins.

  3. “the city has already confiscated three of them on freeway overpasses”

    I really appreciate what this guy is trying to do. It’s far more than I’ve done for the homeless.

    That said, no, you can’t fucking live on a freeway overpass, and no, you can’t put a mini-house there.

    1. Where are they supposed to live? Griffith Park? The Huntington Library? The beach? A vacant lot near your house?

      1. “Welcome to our Los Angeles, California Homeless Shelters and Services for the needy page. Below are all of the homeless shelters and services for the needy that provide help to those in need for Los Angeles, CA and surrounding cities.”
        http://www.homelessshelterdire…..i?city=Los Angeles&state=CA

        As below; if you want charity, that’s what you get. If you want a nice address, that costs money.

        1. And if you don’t want to get stabraped by some crazy dude, you have to sleep on the street?

          1. You can always choose to live some place you can afford, or seek medical attention if that’s what is needed.

            1. Why don’t these homeless people just move to a more affordable neighborhood? What are they cheap or something?

              1. Is it beyond the pale to expect people to live within their means? A lot of them are homeless by choice, you know.

                1. “Hmm, I could take one of the many jobs that companies are begging me to do every day, but none of them come with a company car in a color I like, so I guess I’ll sleep on the street and eat garbage instead.”

                  1. Those who are homeless through no fault of their own can rely on charity or a safety net, but that doesn’t mean they have to right to camp in public any more than I do. Those who are homeless by choice don’t have that right either and furthermore they have the ability to live within their means somewhere else.

                    1. Again – the cry here is ‘regulate them as hard as you do me’ instead of ‘maybe we should remove these regulations altogether’.

                      If your complaint is ‘well, *I’m* not allowed to do it’, the answer shouldn’t be ‘its not fair that they can, so you should stop them from doing it’. It should be another question – ‘*why am I not allowed to do it?’

                    2. maybe we should remove these regulations altogether

                      This isn’t Libertopia we’re talking about here 🙂

                2. So, why are we taking that choice away from them? What is it about *this* choice that libertarians shouldn’t accept?

      2. I’m fine with Griffith Park.

        You know that sign that you see on freeway onramps? “Motor Vehicles Only”. That’s what makes it a freeway. No bikes, no pedestrians.

        1. The tiny shelters I have seen are on the sides of surface street bridges over freeways.

      3. I really can’t comprehend homelessness. We didn’t have much money growing up and we did without on somethings, but having nothing is just so foreign and scary to me. I don’t know what I would do.

        1. Within a square mile of my domicile there are a few hundred homeless. Many seem shizophrenic with a feral look in their eyes and poor ability to communicate. Some just don’t want to deal with the bullshit of life and prefer the camping by the river and getting sandwiches at the kitchen.

          1. Don’t want to or can’t? I know that libertarianism is skeptical of mental illness since that is too often used as an excuse, or as a pretext to expand government control over people, but a lot of the hardcore homeless are seriously mentally ill. So, ask yourself what is worse – a few bums raving at you or higher taxes and involuntary commitments?

            1. I don’t mind the ravings at all. Some of them sound like some kind of crazy talk radio program with different voices for personalities. They do sometimes have vicious dogs that can be scary.

            2. But the point is, not all of them are mentally ill raving lunatics. Some just choose the life they have.

              1. But…there are people who think that choosing that lifestyle is prima facie evidence of mental illness, and feel a need to “help” those people against their will, and with your tax dollars.

        2. Some people are just that way. It’s a combination of factors.

          We have a local homeless dude here. Nice guy. He’s been around for about 30 years. He used to have a house and a good job, but one day, he decided that he was going to do what he wanted, whenever he wanted.

          No substance abuse or mental illness. He’s just content with the way things are.

        3. There are basically three kinds of homeless people in my observations. First are the kind that I was when I was homeless for a while. People who through shit circumstances lose their place to live, but lack the small fortune to pay first month, last month, and deposit required to get into most apartments. So they bounce between friends’ couches and shelters until they save enough for their own place. Second are what PM described. People who want no anchors. They are free. They do what they want, go where they want, and no one tells them what to do. Third are people who are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse problems, and just can’t handle the responsibility.

          1. They do what they want, go where they want, and no one tells them what to do

            I respect their right to make that choice, but it would scare the hell out of me not knowing where I’m sleeping tonight.

            1. I never had to sleep outdoors. I always had a friend with a couch or a shelter I could go to. One time my boss let me sleep in his basement since my shift ended after the shelter closed, and I was coming back the next morning anyway. But yeah, it does suck. What is crazy is how little things become really expensive. Like laundry. Must do it by coin, and buy the soap by the little box. That adds up. Or food. Without a fridge or means to cook it yourself, eating is costly.

              1. I couch-surfed for a summer – and yeah it scared the shit out of me. I wound up at a cheap hotel downtown (Buffalo). Finally found a job and lived on peanuts (literally) for several weeks. Just in time for my senior year of college to begin.

        4. The majority of homeless are mentally ill.

      4. Staples Center. They’d fit right in with the current Lakers.

    2. I had presumed that the “on the overpass” was a typo and that the houses were under the overpasses, and not on a public roadway.

      1. I hope it’s a typo. This guy is doing a lot for the homeless, and I’d hate for it to be THAT misguided.

        1. Nope. I see these tiny shelters on a bridge over the 105.

          1. I have seen a couple of them on Flower St in South LA, parallel to the 110.

    3. They will not let them have mini houses anywhere…. In DC they went after them to even when on private property…

      1. Of course, because once it’s on private property they can use zoning and code enforcement against the property owner. On public property the city is by default the bad guy because they’re coming down on the homeless. They can spin those actions on private property as protecting the homeless from exploitation and unsafe conditions.

    4. Are you sure that’s not meant to be underpass?

    5. Why not? Sounds like homesteading unused public space to me.

    6. Is there some reason why not? Other than being an eyesore for the commuters?

  4. I’m gonna guess the city’s move had less to do with the structure than the real-estate.
    In SF right now, the bums have erected a tent city and now force the pedestrian into the street, since the side-walk is taken over.
    Now we can argue about who gets to use ‘the ROADZ!’, but simply moving in and taking semi-permanent possession of them is not gonna work under any system I know.
    Real estate costs money. If you are going to throw yourself on the charity of the people (taxes or donations), fine, but then you get what people chose to deliver. If you simply want to ‘homestead’ part of what the taxpayers have furnished, take a hike.

    1. Yep, in cities with strong “tenant rights” (and you know which cities I’m talking about), this is a non-starter.

      As soon as you lay down a structure and lodge there, you get squatter’s rights. How long does it take to evict someone in SF? 6 months?

      Again, I appreciate what this guy is trying to do, but there’s a system in place that doesn’t allow for it. Hell, if I had property and a shack popped up on it, it would be gone in less than an hour.

      1. If even you built the shack, you’d have to contend with the zoning board.

      2. cities with strong “tenant rights” (and you know which cities I’m talking about)

        But these aren’t “tenants”. And the reason you see tent cities in SF is because the people tolerate it – hell, some of them celebrate it. OTOH you don’t see tent cities in NYC because the people don’t stand for it.

        1. -1 Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park?

          1. I guess the privileged are free to camp on public land as long as they want…

            But yeah that was a unique event.

            1. Rougher winters and cops who just don’t care can cut down on people camping too.

        2. They can become tenants. We had a case of it in my city a few years ago. A lady with a motorhome parked behind the supermarket, and nobody noticed for a couple of weeks. Then they couldn’t get rid of her. Some charity even represented her in court. She was there for over a year before her motorhome burned down from a faulty space heater.

          New law in my city as a result: NO OVERNIGHT PARKING

      3. “Again, I appreciate what this guy is trying to do,”

        I’m not sure I do.
        Does he have any method of finding out whether the ‘new occupant’ can work for a living? Or whether that person heard that LA is now offering little houses for free along with the benefits and moved there from a less-generous locale?
        Suffice to say, one woman we recently helped with some clothes for her kid had just arrived from Atl on a government-supplied bus ticket because with the number of kids she has, ‘she’d be able to get better benefits in SF’.
        Reward what you want, not what you don’t want.

        1. government-supplied bus ticket

          I’d heard tales of that – it’s just fucking disgraceful. And hypocritical.

          1. Yeah, ATL should sue the shit out of wherever is exporting it’s problems to ATL. Commerce clause, anyone?

          2. There was an article about that a while back. I wish I could remember which city it was, but they got sued and settled.

            “Hey, have you heard about Santa Monica?”

          3. I heard Hawaii offered homeless folks 1-way plane tickets to wherever just to get them off the island.

            I imagine being homeless in Hawaii is just amping up the risk/reward. Everything costs more but hey, it’s paradise.

            1. Hawaii has the best benefits of any state, but it’s not so attractive when you factor in the cost of living.

            2. If you have to be homeless, I’d imagine Hawaii is as good as it gets.

              1. I knew a guy who was homeless in Hawaii for years. He and his GF both worked at the hotels. They stayed in cabins on the beach, State Park apparently. He said they had to move to a new cabin like every two weeks or something. He also said there was plenty of food growing on the trees and in the ocean.
                Yeah, if I was going to be homeless, Hawaii would be the place, except I think I’d get claustrophobic on an island.

        2. Some people don’t think that way.

          He sees a guy without a home so he builds him one. It’s more than I do.

          1. It’s more than the city of LA does.

    2. There is a difference between blocking a public thorofare, such as a roadway or a sidewalk, and unauthorized use of other public land.

      I think the homeless have a right to camp in public parks, even though I’m not happy about the implications of that. Permanent structures are more of

      Think of it this way, Sevo. This is a golden opportunity for libertarians to look like good guys, something we rarely get to do, and to stick it to government, something that we generally enjoy. Because until we do away with those regulations which prohibit flophouses and trailer parks, this is our best option for the homeless problem.

      1. Permanent structures are more of a problem…

  5. Start making extra money each week… This is an awesome side work for anybody… The best part about it is that you can do this job from your couch at home and get paid from 100 to 2000 bucks every week… hq Apply now and receive your first check at the end of this week

    ——— http://www.workprospects.com

    1. Can i do it from my tiny house?

      1. *sends x’s name to Norfolk city planners*

      2. The best part about it is that you can do this job from your couch at home

        Can you fit a couch in it?

        1. A tiny couch, yeah.

          1. I’m on my way, I’m making it
            I’ve got to make it show, yeah
            So much smaller than life
            I’m going to watch it growing

            The place where I come from is a small town
            They think so small
            They use small words
            But not me
            I’m smarter than that
            I worked it out
            I’ve been cinching my mouth
            To let those tiny words come right out

            I’ve had enough, I’m getting out
            To the city, the tiny tiny city
            I’ll be a tiny noise with all the tiny boys
            There’s so much stuff I will own
            And I will pray to a tiny god
            As I kneel in the tiny church

  6. Why can’t they just live underground, like Manhattan’s mole people?

      1. Can’t they at least keep them fed with The Stuff?

  7. This is not the first case where local government has stomped on any effort to make cheap shelter to give to the homeless.

    The rationale is that once the homeless have semi-permanent shelter, they will just build shanty-towns and inner-cities will turn into 3rd world ghettos.

    This ignores the fact that local governments have already turned inner-cities into 3rd world ghettos, but they are just easier to overlook when it is a collection of cardboard boxes and plastic tarps.

    1. Shanty towns would be a step up. What right does government have to stop people from building or otherwise acquiring shelter?

      1. They have guns?

      2. What right does government have to stop people from building or otherwise acquiring shelter?

        Ha! You know the answer.

  8. Nice article on CNN about Apple case


  9. Barely Related, isn’t the tiny house movement largely hype?

    1. What do you mean by that? What type of numbers would they have to have to qualify as non-hype?

      1. People living in them versus just using them as temporary/vacation homes/just taking pictures of them. I can’t give the ratio, I just know hype when I see it.

    2. They’re normally called “campers.”

      1. These are just cute hipstery versions.

    3. I think it depends on how you define “hype”.

      I believe that tiny houses wouldn’t come anywhere near being a “hipster” thing if the land-use restrictions that prevent them would be lifted.

      There will always be a value for a very small, inexpensive living space for someone that doesn’t have a lot of stuff. Sure, right now, that’s obviously going to appeal to Millennials because like every generation before them (and after them) they’re young, want a cheap living space and don’t have a lot of stuff.

  10. I live near a river where there is a homeless population that varies between 500 and 2500 people, typically more in the summer. When I first moved here the city ripped through all of the camps and threw out all their camps. Then a homeless advocacy group sued the city forcing the city to cut a check between 300 and 1000 dollars to each camper. It is astonishing waste to the taxpayer, but I don’t see a good solution here.

    1. a homeless advocacy group sued the city forcing the city to cut a check between 300 and 1000 dollars to each camper.

      The City shouldn’t be destroying anybody’s property without due process and payment of some kind, so this sounds like the right result to me.

      1. Had the city only left them alone…

      2. The next city over from me does that along the train tracks every few months. There’s due process, but homeless people aren’t typically very good with paperwork, procedure, and planning.

        1. It’s almost like the game is rigged against them.

        2. There’s due process,

          Consisting of what? A fat deputy bellowing through a loudspeaker that they have fifteen minutes to get the fuck out doesn’t count in my book.

  11. Personally, I’d just keep building them and giving them away while reporting this nonsense to every media outlet. Let the city government hang itself in full public view.

  12. the city has already confiscated three of them on freeway overpasses, and plans to snatch 7 more of them today,

    I’m kinda wondering how the City can seize property without any due process or payment of just compensation?

    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    1. Easy. Take it from people who lack the means to fight it in court.

      1. Yeah pretty much this. Rights aren’t protected by the Constitution so much as purchased by lawyers fees.

    2. The structures have been removed. They haven’t been “seized” yet. That’s when they get destroyed.

      1. Moved is seized.

        Take it from people who lack the means to fight it in court.

        Were these people served with any legal process? I seriously doubt it. I’d be surprised if there was even a pretense of due process here.

    3. I’d imagine the same way they’d seize your property if you built a tiny house and set it in the middle of the street.

  13. OT: #BLM vs. #HRC


    As Clinton spoke to the crowd, Williams stood to her side and held a sign quoting controversial statements Clinton made in 1996 in reference to at-risk youth, when she said “we have to bring them to heel.”

    Williams said when Clinton paused and looked at her sign, she asked the former secretary of state to apologize to black people for mass incarceration. The mostly white audience yelled at Williams and told her she was being rude, she said.

    “I wanted to bring her to confront her own words,” Williams told The Huffington Post after the protest, adding, “We did this because we wanted to make sure that black people are paying attention to her record, and we want to know what Hillary we are getting.”

    Williams said the Secret Service threw her out out of the event.

    1. Making a politician face their own words is not appropriate as Hillary ‘operates within accepted limits on dishonesty” as Chapman put it this morning. Trump on the other hand…

      1. And the evidence Hillary operates within accepted limits of dishonesty is that Politifact’s cherry-picked statements that they then ‘fact checked’ with no independent oversight found that she tells the truth more than half the time!

        I have a rule that anyone who cites Politifact as evidence of a politician’s honesty is not worth paying attention to.

    2. “Williams said when Clinton paused and looked at her sign, she asked the former secretary of state to apologize to black people for mass incarceration.”

      There’s something incredibly funny about left-wing, democratic voters complaining about mass incarceration when the Democrats’ mission statement is to pass more and more laws that people can then be imprisoned under.

      How many poor blacks and immigrants get fucked over every year by licensing laws and regulations supported by the party that claims to care about them?

      1. One day, when the obstructionist Republicans stop getting in their way, they’ll direct all those laws at the rich, and the corporations, and the banks. You know, their donor base.

        And that will be better, somehow…

      2. There’s something incredibly funny about left-wing, democratic voters complaining about mass incarceration when the Democrats’ mission statement is to pass more and more laws that people can then be imprisoned under.

        To be fair, they’re trying to get you, not the poor black folks. The latter are just unintended consequences which can be fixed if you’ll eat their farina and vote them in a second term.

        1. The latter are just unintended consequences which can be fixed if you’ll eat their farina and vote them in a second term.

          Second, twelfth, thirtieth.

          Someday, they’ll get around to it. Honest.

          1. To answer myself (hey, isn’t this fitting, pulling an Eddie in a discussion about the Bible), there is such an epistle, it’s Galatians. However, like everything, no two sects will agree on what it actually means.

            1. … wrong thread

    3. Yikes. Talk about poor optics.

      Anyway – I thought Trump was in the race in order to throw it to Hillary, not the other way around.

  14. This guy’s heart is in the right place but his execution leaves a bit to be desired. Call me overly cautious but having a home on a freeway overpass seems just a tad, well, dangerous.

    1. Assuming that was a typo and he meant underneath the overpass, ie not on a public roadway or high up on a structure.

      1. According to comments above….not a typo, they’re actually on the overpasses.

        I really can’t say I’m in favor of simply dropping off these houses on roads, but is forcibly evicting the occupants and destroying everything really the best way they can handle it? Other cities have found unused public land where such improvised housing can be located. I read an Michael Totten piece on this in the LA Times just recently – Portland created a sort of Hooverville on a vacant city-owned property.


      2. For sure. These people were living under the overpass anyway. He just spruced the place up a bit with his hipster campers.

  15. Why don’t they just make it illegal to be like homeless and stuff. Being that laws are like magic and stuff, that should like *poof* fix the problem and stuff? You know?

    1. It is pretty much illegal to be homeless. Camping in my city is illegal. So the river-livers can be scooped up at any time.

  16. Just try to get any low-cost housing development past the Planning Commission in almost any city or town. I’ve seen it in action in one Penna. suburb. Citizens shoot down the plan, based on traffic density and safety, when what they really mean is they want no riff-raff living anywhere near their homes. Some decent percentage of the homeless (not crazy drugged up dude) are low skill single mothers who can’t afford the rent for the kinds of apartments that are allowed to exist. I haven’t seen any right wing or left wing movement to get rid of zoning and who cares what the 1% Libertarians think.

    1. Sometimes when I watch old movies of what was considered normal life at the time, and I think to myself “It would be illegal to live like that today.”

      Between zoning and building codes and health codes and everything else driving up the price of a domicile, legal housing has become too costly for many poor people to afford.

      1. Dick Proenneke is one of the most amazing stories of a man heading back out to nature and not only surviving, but surviving well, living off the land, organically and with an incredibly small… ‘carbon footprint’.

        Nearly everything he did is illegal today.

  17. Tulpa approves.

    Havent read article or thread yet. But I know.

  18. Tiny American Flags for everyone!

  19. I’m having trouble getting my worked-up meter into the red.

    I mean, I love the fact this guy was building tiny houses for the homeless, but this wouldn’t be much different than putting tiny houses in The Jungle, Seattle’s notorious (and dangerous) homeless encampment. The city has declared a straight-up-bona-fide public health crisis which, in this one rare case is the health department doing what they’re supposed to do– shutting down the Broad Street Pump– instead of bitching about my salt intake.

    They have no plumbing, no toilets, no services in that area and what are “piles of human waste”, used needles, open fires, propane tanks etc and the whole place is crawling with rats. It’s essentially 17th century London, without the charming accents. If someone put those tiny houses in the Jungle, you’d have the same thing, but with tiny houses.

    At least Kshama Sawant, Seattle’s own Pol Pot has asked the city to put plumbing in the jungle.

    The problem in this particular case as I see it, is the city could have moved the small houses to a new place with toilets and plumbing, and allowed the charitable people to keep building them.

    1. What page of the beauracracy handbook was that on?

    2. Right. So once the tents and cardboard boxes are replaced with tiny houses, then the Jungle becomes a permanent shanty town operating outside the rule of law. If government leaves it there, then government is evil for allowing a “separate and very unequal” world to exist (probably in violation of some federal law, rule, or regulation). And if the government tears it down, the government is evil for destroying what little the poor have.

      There are some people that will never desire or never have the ability to pay for anything beyond a tin shack. And modern progressives have tried to regulate tin shacks out of existence.

      1. They haven’t merely tried, kinnath, they have succeeded.

        1. 99% success. but if I said succeeded, some pendant would have called me out.

          1. Pedant.

            I can’t help myself.

      2. If government leaves it there, then government is evil for allowing a “separate and very unequal” world to exist (probably in violation of some federal law, rule, or regulation).


        No one wants to “criminalize” homelessness. But if I build a mother-in-law house on my backyard without permits or zoning, how fast do you think the zillion lb hammer of government will come down on me?

        If I own a piece of land in rural King County, and I do something– anything with the “other 65%” of my property, I’m talking to you through iron bars.

        We’ve built layers upon layers of self-contradictory laws. From where I sit, it appears to be pedal-to-the-metal on that front.

      3. Actually, the shacks are still legal provided they are used as garden sheds; it’s the occupancy that is the zoning issue. You can’t live in a structure that doesn’t have a gubmint-issued certificate of occupancy. The minimum requirements for those have minimum square footage and require running water.

  20. The LEFT is all about destroying with no plans for replacing or building….. It is true here and in the flop house4s in other cities.

    Same is true about destroying businesses and jobs. They do so with glee and never worry about what the the people loosing their jobs will do to put food on the table….

    Destroyers is all they are.

    1. The bigger story here, which requires an entire 300 page blogpost and thread of its own is the municipalities have essentially created this homelessness situation through their progressive carpet bombing campaigns of urban property restrictions and regulations. Then when they’re faced with the inevitable fallout, their own crushing bureaucracy does shit like this.

      1. You’re right. This article spurred me to look into my city. There are many angles to this story. Of note, a private landowner wanted to build a bunch of tiny structures for the homeless on his property. He was shutdown by the city spurred on by homeless advocacy groups because these domiciles wouldn’t have running water. I mean, fuck.

        1. Well, piles of feces are a problem. But as long as there was a central bathouse facility, no problem.

        2. Most homelessa are mental basket cases. They’re not homeless because they can’t find housing. They’re homeless because they’re too crazy to deal with the responsibility that housing requires. I’d lose my shit if my next door neighbor decided to build a homeless shantytown right next to me.

          1. It aint your property. Deal with it.

            If you dont want X next door, buy the lot next door.

            1. ^This

              Also, he has the option to have bought in an area with an HOA.

              Note the slippery “most”; got actual, sourced figures for that, Buster?

              And the classic NIMBY fear-mongering that everyone’s next door neighbor is itching, just itching, to turn their properties into a shantytown (or whatever the bogeyman du jour is).

  21. If not for the govermnent, no one would help the less fortunate.

  22. If it’s OK for this guy to just plop his tiny houses anywhere he wants on public property, then it’s OK if I just build a McMansion (or heck, plop down a double-wide) on public property if I want, to, right? Cause it’s sure cheaper than buying/leasing land!

    1. Fine with me. Go do that and get back to us how that works out for you.

  23. Strong feelings cannot take the place of constructive political behavior. Even strong feelings that lead to futile, feel-good actual real-world work cannot take the place of constructive political behavior. You cannot influence a waterfall into becoming a meandering brook halfway down its drop.

    I blame a century of progressive indoctrination having passed as “education” in the USA for having created a population that is largely addicted to political and social self-centered pantomime and **very** strong feelings. Pitiful but this is our reality. The people in this story have no clue that their efforts are merely a symptom of their inability to grasp the nature of the problems they blame for their strong, futile feelings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.