Brickbat: Tiny Homes, Big Problems

In March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the state would spend $30 million to build 1,200 prefabricated tiny houses across the state, including 350 in Sacramento, in an effort to ease the state's housing shortage. He promised the houses would be ready this fall. But local media in Sacramento report the state still has not hired contractors for the project in that city, much less broken ground on any of the houses. Hafsa Kaka, Newsom's senior adviser on homelessness, refused to say when the Sacramento houses would be available and declined to comment when asked about the homes promised to other cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kaka holds bachelor's degrees in psychology and social behavior, and criminology, law and society from UC Irvine. She also holds a master's degree in social work from the University of Minnesota.
An immigrant and woman of color, Kaka said she hopes to address homelessness through an equity lens and with a collaborative perspective. "Over the past 15 years, I've been able to see the devastation of the homelessness crisis in Southern California firsthand and understand the diverse types of policies and programs we need to collectively create in order to find effective solutions."
And that's why the answer to "When?" is "No comment."
Not to mention, there's still $30 million to spend. It's important to spend that money well. It would be unwise to build housing before everyone is clear on what the ideal of the housing is intended to accomplish.
Indeed, it's possible that $30 million isn't sufficient to even scope out the agenda for this housing plan.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website… Just open the link——————————————>>> http://Www.SalaryOption1.Com
Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Kaka has been doing a crappy job.
Who knew that a lady named Havesome Kaka would not solve the sidewalk shitting problem.
In other words, Kaka is a representative of the post-modern (i.e. post-reality) wave that is intentionally(?) sinking modern material society. Even if she has good intentions, I doubt she and her comrades are capable of achieving their stated goals.
This reminds me of the cargo cults in the South Pacific, who built childish recreations of actual airstrips and military bases expecting that would somehow induce the universe to deliver their desired "cargo".
Ha, and those were probably more realistic and efficiently built than anything these bureaucrats are doing.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website…
More infor…. http://Www.Smartwork1.Com
Immigrant?
This is the same administration which insisted through at least 6 months of Covid "lockdowns" that the restrictive policies wouldn't be lifted until there was sufficient "equity" in the demographics of infections and deaths. Completely oblivious to the reality on the ground that while relatively affluent white collar and tech workers (areas where whites and asian "whites" are relatively over-represented) were very able to keep themselves isolated, the "working class" of the service sector and gig workers (where "brown and black" people are probably over-represented) were left running around being exposed to the other service/food industry/gig workers and spreading the virus amongst themselves at higher rates. So the lockdowns which "wouldn't end until greater equity is reached" were a major, if not sole, reason for the inequity in the first place; especially combined with the fact that the poorer families are both also more likely to be living in multi-generational homes and to have higher rates of conditions like obesity and type 2 diabetes among their older relatives (who were then unable to avoid exposure to their children/grandchildren who were still working outside the house to serve the needs of the rich white shut-ins.
If you know of a better, more efficient way to address homelessness, the bureaucrats are all ears... once you fill out the better-more-efficient forms in triplicate and attend a 12-month, $5,000 mandatory class on efficiency betterment.
You need to have your Efficiency License first though - don't be doing any unlicensed efficiencing. That's a $50k class that requires 1,200 hours of classroom instruction, 120 hours apprenticeship, and a letter of reccommendation from a Licensed Efficiencer in good standing with the Efficiencier's Union.
And that's only available after you get your Masters of Efficiency Improvement, from an accredited university, of course.
Don't forget your DEI statements, as requirements for entry and graduation.
Since so many of the "permanent" homeless are people who would have been getting treatment in "State Hospitals" if JFK hadn't banned them right before getting killed, there may not be a meaningful way to help that portion of them; there's an actual federal law which prohibits state/local governments from operating the kind of facilities a lot of that portion need (at least for a while) to be committed to.
For most of the car/van/RV homeless and maybe some of the "urban campers" in CA, it might be enough to simply get the available housing supply more in line with local needs, and maybe crack down on enforcing long-term parking restrictions in some areas. There's enough people in RVs along PCH who have to be accustomed to having an unobstructed ocean view and sand for a yard (rent free, as well, unless they're renting the RV itself, which many likely are) that they might be harder to dislodge and re-locate into 900 sq ft over the hill in Sherman Oaks for $2k/month; a lot of them are stationed in areas marked as no-stopping zones though (something which local law enforcement is under orders to let slide currently), and could probably be persuaded when their RV ends up in a county impound yard rather than on the beach.
One of the funniest (or it would be if it weren't also so sad) ironies of life in CA these days is that it's actually somewhat difficult to legally go tent camping for recreation anywhere outside of a major urban center; meanwhile, there's probably at least 20-40k people living full time in tents around the state.
Unless my math skills fail me $30M for 1200 houses is $25,000 per house. Where exactly can you get a plot of land and build anything with plumbing and electricity for just $25K in California? You couldn't build a public one seater toilet for that amount of money.
A lot of the "tiny homes" I have seen are actually over built travel trailers. Maybe giant RV parks (slums)?
Yeah, when I read "1,200 prefabricated tiny houses across the state" my mind's eye translated it to "FEMA Temporary Housing".
And, IDK that I'd say "overbuilt" as much as "stylized" or "fashionable". I've seen plenty of tiny homes that are better described as sheds, shanties, or duck blinds with power.
And you know what? I could deal with sheds. These are for the homeless and the poor as a better alternative to sleeping on the street, and if they genuinely could build them for $25K each, then it's a solution that is actually on the right order of magnitude for once.
So long as they have a place to sleep and a way to clean up, it gives them the ability to get a job and get on their feet.
25K is at the low end of what I figure it will cost me to buy a prefab shed that I can fit out as a OTG camp, after I have a piece of land.
IF CA can do it for 25K for real, with power, running water, heat/AC and minimal kitchen, it will be some sort of a miracle.
Good luck....
a way to clean up
And a willingness to clean up.
it gives them the ability to get a job and get on their feet.
For some of them. Most of the chronically homeless suffer from addiction, severe behavior problems, very low intelligence, or other problems that make getting "on their feet" very unlikely.
Just plain shiftlessness among them.
Some of them.
A lot of people build them on trailers because of building code and zoning rules that don't allow them to be built as permanent structures.
That's true - the building code generally doesn't cover mobile structures like trailers, and also doesn't generally allow for residences under 400 square feet or so.
We ran into this weird grey area recently when we were asked to design a food truck.
Some states do have safety rules, licensing, or inspections for trailers.
Which is why I never understood the 'tiny home' craze - that's just a shittier trailer park design. At least with mobile homes, when yours is finally clapped out you can have it towed away and plop another one in place, easy.
It’s yet another one of those fads that’s heavily sprinkled with a bunch of disparate ideas, rolled into one ‘movement’ burrito.
Sustainability! Recycling! Eco-friendly! Affordable! Equitable!
I remember some years ago, during the “repurposed shipping container home” craze, a young woman who was an architect did a youtube video and did a very… VERY detailed breakdown of why shipping container homes were not: A: Cheaper per sq ft. 2: More Sustainable and III: Simple and easy to set up.
She, unfortunately, blundered into the eco fascist, hipster movement (which, to the best of my estimation has morphed into the mask-wearing Trans movement) and was savaged to the point where she was in tears, yet no one was able to refute a single thing she said…
Specifically, she pointed out that the shipping container, by itself was a poor shelter. Metal structures sweat and get condensation on the inside when it gets cold outside- especially if warm bodies are inside. When people start cutting holes in them for things like windows, plumping, electrical etc, the ‘innate structure’ becomes weak, forcing the homeowner the need to reinforce it. Adding insulation, a ceiling etc, shrinks the internal dimensions considerably, and going back to the condensation issues, the materials required to mitigate the effects of that so things don’t mold and rot from the outside in are expensive.
Her conclusion was that it was literally cheaper to build a tiny house from scratch using traditional materials, than it was to bring in a bunch of shipping containers and then retrofit them into a proper living space.
But holy shit were the hipsters pissed off at her.
Hipsters always get mad when reality tells them "No". Or when anyone or anything else does, for that matter.
Yeah, as obliquely indicated, my experience with the movement is with people who want the prestige of owning a home and the uniqueness of saying it's tiny/weird without having to think too hard about or pay for water/sewage hookups.
People who solved the problem of shitting in their own pool by making their own pool smaller and shitting at the nearest publicly-available pool.
People who solved the problem of shitting in their own pool by making their own pool smaller and shitting at the nearest publicly-available pool.
Like that guy in New York City who went without gas, electricity etc.
I'll grant that I thought the "shipping container house" idea was pretty cool... until I looked into the actual engineering.
I don't know about a craze, but I support the idea because people should be allowed to live in whatever kind of house they want, and should be able to build whatever they want if they have property or someone with property wants to allow them to.
There are legitimate health and safety reasons to impose some minimum standards in urban areas.
Yo, put that sewer pipe below the fresh water lines, thank you very much.
Hey man, bummer head trip with all the regulatoriations!
Maybe that's why they haven't been able to get any contractors yet.
Damned kulaks refuse to deliver the goods, even if they have to take a loss on each unit. Profit over people, right?
Why not just deliver raw materials and have the homeless build their own tiny houses?
Complete lack of craftsmanship. Also not in possession of the proper tools.
Plus labor is like slavery. Who are you to force these people to work for their own shelter?
This would be best in Greenland or Puerto Rico. If you don't want to contribute to society, fine, but I should not have to pay for it. Send the homeless away with a small truckload of building materials and drop off some basic foodstuffs so they don't starve
I was... yeah, OK, I should have specified that the suggestion was tongue in cheek. 😉
It would probably help if they put the project out to bid.
Church and mall parking lots.
You don't need it. We have already invented solutions to this kind of thing. For example:
A) Capsule Hotels.
B) Shipping Container Apartments
Make them all share restroom and cooking space.
You could easily ring a city block (facing inward, of course) with concentric stacks of them. Wide open central area for cooking, dedicated space for toilets/showers/lockers (think high school locker room), up to four street access points (though only one is really necessary).
And you can just keep stacking them vertically.
The process is the product.
Exactly. They've made the announcement they're going to help a lot of homeless people. What else do you need?
You're a hater if you want follow through. Nazi.
The freaking government approvals are gonna cost more than $30 million.
When do I get my $25,000 house? I have been working, paying taxes, and living cleanly for many years. Maybe the homeless should be after me
Hey,
"Tiny Homes, Big Problems" encapsulates the challenges associated with the tiny house movement. While tiny homes offer advantages such as affordability, minimalism, and eco-friendliness, they come with their own set of issues. Some of the problems associated with tiny homes include zoning restrictions, lack of space, limited storage, and difficulties in securing financing or finding suitable locations for placement.
Potential solutions to address these challenges:
Zoning Regulations: Encouraging local governments to revise zoning laws and building codes can help legitimize tiny homes. Advocacy for more flexible regulations or creating specific zones for tiny homes could enable their legal placement in more areas.
Community Development: Building tiny home communities where like-minded individuals can reside can address zoning restrictions. These communities might have shared resources and communal spaces, which could mitigate the issues related to finding suitable locations.
Financing and Insurance Options: Working with financial institutions to create specialized loan products tailored for tiny home buyers can ease the financial burden. Additionally, working with insurance companies to offer appropriate coverage for tiny homes can provide security to owners.
Innovative Design Solutions: Design improvements in tiny homes could address issues related to limited space and storage. Utilizing multi-functional furniture, creative storage solutions, and space-saving designs can enhance the livability of these small dwellings.
Education and Advocacy: Educating the public, policymakers, and local communities about the benefits of tiny homes and advocating for their acceptance and support can pave the way for more widespread acceptance and understanding.
Sustainable Infrastructure Development: Developing infrastructure to support tiny homes, such as adequate waste management, utilities, and access to basic services, will make them more viable as permanent living options.
Research and Innovation: Continued research and innovation in construction materials, technology, and energy-efficient solutions can make tiny homes more sustainable and affordable, addressing concerns about durability and cost-effectiveness.
By addressing these challenges through a combination of policy changes, innovative design solutions, community development, and a shift in perception, the issues surrounding tiny homes can potentially be alleviated, making them a more viable and widely accepted housing option.
Thanks, bot.
And Biden wants to put a pause on AI.
"Why don't we put her in charge?"
Obviously what CA needs is a byzantine licensing process for the homeless, so they can ensure that onlu authorized homelessness is taking place, and not being taken up by some so-and-so who is not experiencing state sanctioned desheltering.
I think you've hit the nail right on the head.
What we have here is a 'tragedy of the commons'. So many people experiencing de-sheltering that they're destroying the common de-sheltering assets. Its unsustainable de-sheltering.
If we set up a commission to regulate de-sheltering, sort of on the same lines that we have 'Fish and Game' to regulate hunting, we can keep the number of de-sheltered to within the capabilities of the urban ecosystem to sustain.
With a modest licensing fee along with a tag lottery, we can self-fund the Department of De-Sheltering too!
"If we set up a commission to regulate de-sheltering, sort of on the same lines that we have ‘Fish and Game’ to regulate hunting, we can keep the number of de-sheltered to within the capabilities of the urban ecosystem to sustain."
Set up WMA's and special hunt zones and tag requirements, and you can solve the border problem too. Probably make a few bucks for the government that way.
Let's have a war! Give guns to the homeless!
Let's have a war! We need the space!
Gvain Newsome, our next President, is innumerate.
You can’t buy a prefab for $25k, let alone the 1/10th acre lot you would put it on. Indeed, even if you could, you couldn’t get planning permission for it even out in the middle of no-fucking-where.
Its like he knows nothing about the state he is ostensibly Governor of.
The 30 million is just for his friends to study the problem, no actual shelters required. The study will prove the need for another, larger, study by friends of the friends, to establish the fact that this won't work.
" . . . out in the middle of no-fucking-where."
Lodi or Bakersfield?
Hey, Bakersfield is a major high-speed rail hub now. You know, that 33 billion dollar project (now estimated to cost 128 billion dollars) the voters approved in 2008 (15 years ago)... Oh wait.
From Wikipedia, on the "Interim Initial Operating Segment":
IOS (Merced to Bakersfield) operational commencement date is the end of 2030. Current construction work is indicated (119-mile (192 km)) in the IOS.
Its like he knows nothing about the state he is ostensibly Governor of.
He's busying schooling Floridians on all that freedom they're not having.
You can’t buy a prefab for $25k,
Amazon says you're wrong.
Is Newsom claiming that it’s just the kit in the box that costs $25,000, or the construction, land, permitting, plumbing, regulatory oversight, inspections, environmental review, sewage hookup– you know, all that costy stuff that transfers to the homeowner will cost less than $25k?
Because it’s one thing to say, “here’s your $8,000 house” as the delivery driver dumps 12 pallets on your driveway, but it’s another to say it cost “$8,000” to actually get it to a place where you’re living in it.
When you live in a political district (as I do) where a you spend $450,000 on a tear down, that tells you that a tiny house is more than the four walls , the doormat and the keys.
I wasn't addressing Newsom, merely noting that Agammamon said you couldn't buy a prefab for $25,000 (excluding everything else) and that this is factually incorrect, though I doubt the error was intentional.
https://news.yahoo.com/california-just-legalized-affordable-housing-103801997.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGysoTKzAwds2PKQRZUArpuMA-UWngIvVzkqcHcLkc7Dsk4q8qWT43kFW34pZzn_FINzOgspPq582kYVa4BWVI0OmHTiSrkC0IOCFmiV3ZwGetpVHkcDJ6nHomKJFzA1GoM9SucAJqYwTgpWMZNeZ5DeykdQQ1SNBxLvkqVjmoom
Another law that's gotten a lot of attention — SB 4 — is set to make it easier for nonprofit colleges and universities and faith-based organizations to build affordable housing on land they already own. The bill, also known as "Yes in God's Backyard," would allow organizations to bypass certain environmental regulations and permitting rules to build homes in church parking lots and other underutilized or surplus land. UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation found there were more than 170,000 acres of land that could be put to use under SB 4.
Tiny houses are just a Gen Z fad, and cost much more in reality than either mass-market camping trailers (with the same qualities) or basic apartments (with more space). I am sure any government program that promises tiny houses as a solution is just emotional marketing.
Eh, not to nitpick, but it was kind of a millennial hipster fad.
And boy, does this 2014 piece from Reason take me back. The DC housing authority which oversees the regulations for home building said they were worried that if they just allowed tiny houses anywhere, they might end up with squatter camps in alleyways.
Think about that for a minute... they were worried... about squatter camps, in alleyways... in 2014. Wow, what a difference a decade makes, amirite?
Good thing they didn't allow that, and managed to avoid the squatter camps!
In the olden-days of Reason, this topic would have gotten a 3000 word deep-dive article.
want to mock the name but might even be too juvenile for me.
Newsom: The turd of the CA government.
Now ask yourself where the $30M went.
(It's probably with the money spent to plant Trudeau's two billion trees.)