This LA Musician Built $1,200 Tiny Houses for the Homeless

Elvis Summers crowdfunded $100,000 to build dozens of tiny homes. City officials looking to pass a $2 billion housing plan tried to shut him down.

|

Each night, tens of thousands of people sleep in tent cities crowding the palm-lined boulevards of Los Angeles, far more than any other city in the nation. The homeless population in the entertainment capital of the world has hit new record highs in each of the past few years.

But a 39-year-old struggling musician from South LA thought he had a creative fix. Elvis Summers, who went through stretches of homelessness himself in his 20s, raised over $100,000 through crowdfunding campaigns last spring. With the help of professional contractors and others in the community who sign up to volunteer through his nonprofit, Starting Human, he has built dozens of solar-powered, tiny houses to shelter the homeless since.

Summers says that the houses are meant to be a temporary solution that, unlike a tent, provides the secure foundation residents need to improve their lives. "The tiny houses provide immediate shelter," he explains. "People can lock their stuff up and know that when they come back from their drug treatment program or court or finding a job all day, their stuff is where they left it."

Each house features a solar power system, a steel-reinforced door, a camping toilet, a smoke detector, and even window alarms. The tiny structures cost Summers roughly $1,200 apiece to build.

LA city officials, however, had a different plan to address the crisis. A decade after the city's first 10-year plan to end homelessness withered in 2006, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced in February a $1.87 billion proposal to get all LA residents off the streets, once and for all. He and the City Council aim to build 10,000 units of permanent housing with supportive services over the next decade. In the interim, they are shifting funds away from temporary and emergency shelters.

Councilmember Curren Price, who represents the district where Summers's tiny houses were located, does not believe they are beneficial either to the community or to the homeless people housed in them. "I don't really want to call them houses. They're really just boxes," says Price. "They're not safe, and they impose real hazards for neighbors in the community."

Most of Summers's tiny houses are on private land that has been donated to the project. A handful had replaced the tents that have proliferated on freeway overpasses in the city. Summers put them there until he could secure a private lot to create a tiny house village similar to those that already exist in Portland, Seattle, Austin, and elsewhere. "My whole issue and cause is that something needs to be done right now," Summers emphasizes.

But the houses, nestled among dour tent shantytowns, became brightly colored targets early this year for frustrated residents who want the homeless out of their backyards. Councilmember Price was bombarded by complaints from angry constituents.

In February, the City Council responded by amending a sweeps ordinance to allow the tiny houses to be seized without prior notice. On the morning of the ninth, just as the mayor and council gathered at City Hall to announce their new plan to end homelessness, police and garbage trucks descended on the tiny homes, towing three of them to a Bureau of Sanitation lot for disposal. Summers managed to move eight of the threatened houses into storage before they were confiscated, but their residents were left back on the sidewalk.

If the city won't devote any resources to supporting novel solutions, Summers urges officials at least to make it easier for private organizations and individuals like him to pave the way forward. The city owns thousands of vacant lots, many of which have been abandoned for decades, that could provide sites for tiny house villages or other innovative housing concepts that can have an immediate impact.

"Everything that they have been doing doesn't work. It's just years of circles and bureaucratic holds and wait times," says Summers. "10, 20, 30, 40 years—where's all the housing?"

Watch the full video above.

Produced by Justin Monticello. Shot by Alex Manning and Zach Weissmueller. Additional footage courtesy of Elvis Summers. Music by Silent Partner, Riot, Kevin MacLeod, Audionautix, Battle of Wood, Topher Mohr and Alex Elena, The 126ers, and Elettroliti.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Exotic Battle by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100451
Artist: http://incompetech.com/

Feather Waltz by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100658
Artist: http://incompetech.com/

Pilots Of Stone by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Artist: http://audionautix.com/

NEXT: Fake news and the law, from 1798 to now

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. Free Minds, Free Markets, and Government. Pick two.

    1. …and one of them has to be government.

    2. Government, and government.

    3. Another in a long history of evidence demonstrating an almost direct relationship between the state/law enforcement & homelessness in a society of abundance. gotta keep those house prices up no matter what!

  2. Proud proggies predictably approve this predictable predicament.

    Fuck them and their holier-than-thou attitude. Fuck ’em ass-first in a woodchipper.

    1. They have a PLAN and a budget – what more could you want?

      1. Don’t forget the 50% graft and the 45% kickbacks, leaving $500,000 for the homeless.

      2. I did a spit-take when that elitist ass-hat said. “we have identified some action items.” Thems woodhippin’ words.

        1. CHIPPIN!!!!!! wurz muh ehditz buttonz???

        2. Where do you think the city is going to put the tiny houses?

    2. one of the municipalities in my area wanted to force owners of vacant lots to host these little huts and let the homeless live there………until neighborhood residents gathered their pitchforks and torches.

    3. Elvis has left the tiny building.

  3. The homeless population in the entertainment capital of the world has hit new record highs in each of the past few years.

    Welcome to everywhere. We finally have an actual… dare I say, homelessness crisis. Thankfully Trump is President Elect, so we can finally blame it on something.

    1. I’ve been saying this for years. We actually have homeless families – mothers with their small kids – panhandling at the drive-through during the lunch and dinner rush. Ever since the crash in 2008.

      But you’d be hard pressed to find a news story about the homeless.

      Maybe it is worse in South Florida, but we have homeless guys roaming everywhere. The nice new park and playground in my area is too crowded with homeless dudes for families to use it. They stick to the tiny, older park area because it is fenced in and the homeless don’t hang out there.

      But St. Obama is in the White House, so there are no poor… there are no homeless…. there is no problem with unemployment.

      But you are right… now that Trump is in, we can look forward to an endless parade of stories about how wrecked the economy is and how it has created the worst homeless problem of all time.

      1. Unemployment is not the problem anymore, low wages are. (Contrary to the beliefs of most Trump voters, unemployment has gone down during Obama’s tenure, and is now at or near “full.”)

        You and your ideological brethren in government want to make wages even lower and presumably do away with public efforts to provide housing to boot.

        1. Yeah… that’s right! All those people “not in the workforce” aren’t unemployed!

          See! Definitions have power! If we don’t call them unemployed, it doesn’t matter if they don’t have a job anymore!

          Double-plus ungood!

          All those guys that we serve free meals to down at The Lord’s Gift House (about 300-350 most weekends) are just victims of low wages. It isn’t that there isn’t any work for them. It couldn’t possibly be that….

          The church down the MLK bvd has a big banner advertising meal programs for families … Free! You never saw that around here 10 years ago. But it must be due to greedy government libertarians that are making sure their wages are low. ‘Cause that’s how freedom works…

          1. So you agree that there is absolutely nothing in the libertarian bag of tricks to address any of the issues here.

            1. Yeah, now that’s just trolling. And weak trolling at that.

              If you are going to troll, you have to at least be marginally responsive to the post you are replying to.

              When someone says they are personally involved in privately funded programs to help the homeless, you don’t reply with “so you agree there is nothing libertarians can do to address any of the issues here”. It shows that you just aren’t trying.

              And trillion dollar stimulus spending and trillion dollar quantitative easing are both predicted by free market economists to cause exactly the problems you seem to be worried about. So maybe, just maybe, not doing the things that cause the problems you are worried about is the first place to start when looking for a solution.

              You know, kinda like when the guy goes to the doctor and says “Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this!” So the doctor says, “Then don’t do that.”

            2. So you agree that there is absolutely nothing in the libertarian bag of tricks to address any of the issues here.

              And we find out someone doesn’t read the articles.

            3. Yeah – eliminate the cronyism in homeownership. It is always homeowners who call for crackdowns against the homeless. It is always homeowners who believe that manipulated interest rates which raise their home prices (and drive rental prices up and thus homelessness) are their speculative right rather than an economic distortion given by govt/banks.

              Eliminate all the tax crap that benefits homeowners. Eliminate the monopoly that the Federal Reserve has over the cost of credit/money. And at a local level, eliminate the credit speculation that jacks up land location value by taxing land value instead of sales/income/property.

              Of course – most people – left, right, and libertarian – will oppose this because America has a massive homeownerboner and has no clue what actual wealth creation looks like anymore.

              1. Of course – most people – left, right, and libertarian – will oppose this

                What libertarians, exactly, are you referring to?

            4. Sure there is Tony. Since progressives are such wonderful giving people, why doesn’t each progressive household open it’s doors to one homeless person each? You live in SF, right? ABC News cites a figure showing 795 homeless per 100k residents in SF. Assuming 100k people conservatively represents something like 20k households, this should be a cinch for you guys. Hell, you should be COMPETING for who gets to be the ones to show their progressive compassion!

              So I guess you’re right. Progressives CAN solve the homeless problem. All by yourselves. So get out and do it.

            5. So you agree that there is absolutely nothing in the libertarian bag of tricks to address any of the issues here.

              Oh, Tony, you got him! The only solution to ANY problem is to hire a bunch of bureaucrats, tax some money from the productive, hire some more bureaucrats to study how to spend the money, hire some more bureaucrats to actually spend the money..

              You are a piece of shit, but you knew that already. Every one of your “solutions” includes paying worthless do nothing bureaucrats with the money intended for the “poor”. So, like almost all of the Leftarded, you only care about pretending to care. Actual results do not matter, only your feelings. You and your ilk are truly pathetic evil.

              1. Now you’re gettin’ it! This is why I want to force the progs out of the country.

            6. The whole point of libertarianism is for gov’t to get out of the way so that people can and must solve their own problems, not to pull some magic solution out of some libertarian bag of tricks.

              Think about it this way: if a schoolteacher hands out a test to the class and then tells the class what the answers are to the questions, do you think the students will walk out of there knowing the course material enough to remember it a week later?

              People don’t grow or improve if they don’t have to solve their own problems. And then they stay stuck in their problems.

        2. Idiot. The unemployment rate is so low because the labor participation is low. If you haven’t had a job in a while, they stop counting you as employable, thus lowering the unemployment rate.

          The 1920 recession started as bad as the 1929 one, but beyond not allowing war inflation to deflate back to pre-war levels, the government took no action because Woodrow WIlson was incapacitated, and the recession was over in 18 months. No such luck in 1929, where Hoover began the great handouts which FDR took credit for, and it took until after WW II to bring the economy back.

          The 2006 bust is no different. It’s been so godawful slow precisely because Bush and Obama have interfered with natural markets so much.

          And then along comes Tony, full of wisdom and compassion, so much compassion that he no longer counts the unemployable and blames the ills on not enough pay. He’d raise the minimum wage just so more poor would be out of a job and not counted any more, and the remainder would look better in the stats.

          Compassionate Tony, always thinking of the poor.

        3. Explain the homeless crisis in the deep blue state of Hawaii. Explain how that can be possible given the majority of democrats in office since forever.

          Booooosh and Trump?
          Evil Republicans in Congress?
          Not enough social programs due to evil coorporatiks lobbying too hard against them?

        4. Unemployment is not the problem anymore

          Correct. The real problem is low labor force participation rate, in large part due to government regulations that make it uneconomical to hire people.

          low wages are.

          That’s another problem, again caused by government regulations: if you force employers to provide all sorts of benefits, wages will remain low.

          You and your ideological brethren in government want to make wages even lower

          No, we want wages to rise, by eliminating many of the regulations that keep wages low.

          and presumably do away with public efforts to provide housing to boot.

          That we certainly do.

        5. Unemployment is not ‘full’. This is an intentional fallacy of using U3 numbers to represent unemployment. Which is bullshit and only Obama has done it. Since the real numbers are shit. So try again.

        6. Force the wages higher and unemployment will be the problem once again.

      2. And presumably there is no provision in the Libertopian constitution for public drug treatment and mental health programs either.

        1. Nope, sorry, your on your own, Tony. Maybe your mum can get you committed.

        2. I’m going to pretend that you are sincere for just a moment.

          I was around for the initiation of the homeless crisis. I know how it came about. I don’t have to consult history books, because I was alive at the time.

          It was not evil conservatives that heartlessly threw the mentally ill out on the street.

          It was the soft-hearted liberals in Hollywood and NYC. All through the 70’s they did stories about how awful mental health institutions were. And they inserted plotlines about it into evening sitcoms and dramas. And the people responded. They changed the rules and let all of the people who were committed for their own welfare go home and live their lives.

          And a great number of them couldn’t make it on their own.

          So the Homeless Crisis was discovered when Reagan took to the White House.

          Sure, plenty of people warned that there were a lot of seriously mentally ill people that couldn’t care for themselves and would wind up homeless. But those people were evil and heartless and it was safe to ignore their concerns.

          So here we are. Not that my personal opinion backs involuntary commitment…. but you can’t lay this one on the conservatives. Heck, they weren’t really a thing yet. It would be another few years before Reagan managed to pull them together and initiate the conservative takeover of the GOP.

          1. Mental health professionals here blame President Ronald Reagan for throwing people out of mental health institutions in the 1970s.

            And space enthusiasts blame Reagan for making the decision to use solid fueled boosters, a decision that was made in the late 1960s/early 1970s (I think in 1969).

            1. Well, Reagan DID invent the space program after all.

          2. “It was the soft-hearted liberals in Hollywood and NYC. All through the 70’s they did stories about how awful mental health institutions were.”

            They are doing it today with prisons. Scarcely a mention of a prison goes by on TV without a joke about rape, usually by a sexual black man.

            1. Don’t forget how “urban renewal” pulled down much low-cost housing that those who would have otherwise wound up on the street used: SRO hotels , boarding houses, flophouses and the like. The buildings were blamed for the crime in their neighborhoods. Which do you prefer, a Skid Row with low-resource citizens sleeping indoors in a bit of private space, or the same people roughing it in their car, pitching a tent on land where that isn’t allowed, parking oneself in a doorway of a small business or sleeping under a bridge?

              Suburban communities, such as the ones on Long Island I grew up in, have long fought to keep property owners from running “illegal” boarding houses. Even having too many unrelated individuals living under one roof has been made illegal. Belle Terre, NY won a SCOTUS case over such an ordinance in 1974. BT is a tony village on Port Jefferson harbor, near enough to the state university at Stony Brook that owners who only used their summer places between Memorial Day and Labor Day would rent the house out for the school year. This pissed off year-round residents. So much of “homelessness” is an artifact of regulation that it isn’t funny.

        3. There is no provision for the illiberal, oppressive, and coercive form of government action you prefer, but there are certainly provisions for “public” action in the sense of people getting together and addressing problems voluntarily as a community.

        4. No, and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Drug treatment and mental health should be provided by private suppliers, paid for by the families of the afflicted.

          Don’t tax me and my healthy family that I busted my ass to raise right to pay for someone else’s medical bills. I would not want any other taxpayer–including you, Tony–to pay for my family’s healthcare–that’s why I voluntarily buy private medical insurance.

        5. Libertopia places no prohibition on helping people. Lots of people seem concerned. Where’s their cash?

      3. Maybe it is worse in South Florida…

        Yes, and in other warmer places. The homeless are attracted to places where you don’t have to worry about freezing to death in your sleep. Plus, tourist families with their own children perhaps an easier mark.

    2. I expect that there will be a lot of homeless and other stories that have built up over the last 8 years that now will be published when Trump takes over.

  4. “People can lock their stuff up and know that when they come back from their drug treatment program or court or finding a job all day, their stuff is where they left it.”

    I assume he’s not referring to the house itself when he presumes their stuff will be where they left it.

    1. +1 portable number

  5. Government is just a name we give to the things we choose to do together, like making sure the homeless stay that way.

    1. Their mental illness is probably doing the job all on its own.

      1. That’s a delightful non sequitur.

        1. Mental illness is on his mind a lot.

        2. https://reason.com/archives/201…..-homeless#

          “There are a variety of unfixable pathologies that lead some people to become homeless, including mental illness, drug addiction and domestic abuse.”

          Citizen X, Sugarfree hardest hit.

      2. Then why exacerbate it?

        1. For the same reason you jail drug addicts. You don’t want them to ruin their lives, do you?

        2. Why throw money down a rathole?

          1. That decision belongs to the one with the money, not the government, to make.

    2. There was recently a long expose on a local homeless “advocacy” group that’s so mind boggling and complex, that I haven’t had a chance to post it here. It’s incredibly important and central to libertarian themes, but too short a treatment, it won’t catch people’s eye, too long a treatment, it’ll get passed over as TL;DR.

      But holy hell, there is some seriously nasty corruption going on in the light of day on the local homelessness situation, and no one in the media is interested in it.

      It’s titled “Anatomy of a Swindle” but could have been called The Anatomy of a Homelessness Crisis.

      This could be a print issue, feature length article in Reason.

      http://roominate.com/blog/2016…..a-swindle/

      The group says that “up to 450 people each night find safety, shelter, dignity, and respect” its “self-managed” shelters and camps, but it has never provided any documentation for that figure. The group resists attempts to monitor its numbers or performance as an “invasion of privacy.” SHARE views homelessness as a valid lifestyle ? a lifestyle of choice ? and while it does get a number of people off the street temporarily, it makes no claim of getting them into jobs, permanent housing, or addiction treatment programs. “We are not a social service organization,” they declare. “We are a self-help group.”

      1. Homelessness as choice is not an anti-libertarian position. Don’t fall for the do-gooder fallacy that these people can manage the complexity of permanent housing. But the lack of transparency is troubling.

        1. Don’t fall for the do-gooder fallacy that these people can manage the complexity of permanent housing.

          Do you mean “can’t”?

        2. Homelessness as choice is not an anti-libertarian position.

          That’s not the point here. We have a group that gets money from the city (read: me) to expand a homelessness program by using lobbying methods, including evidence that SHARE gave homeless people space in its camps in exchange for sitting in city council meetings.

          You wanna be homess? Be homeless. Why does it require a government program to help you be homeless?

        3. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Homelessness “crisis” has emboldened a dizzying number of ordinances and legislation, some proposed, some passed, which cover “affordable housing” policies like Rent Control, building regulations and restrictions, increased property taxes, expensive bond measures, rental unit owner restrictions on whom and how they can screen viable renters and jarringly high minimum wage increases.

          These things have had real, measurable impacts on the city’s landscape, all passed while politicians point to a pile of rat-infested human waste underneath an overpass on I5.

          It’s literally believed that the guy living in a tent under the freeway will have a 2 bedroom apartment in a hip part of town… if only we can finally pass rent control and a $15 minimum wage. We got the $15 minimum wage, so rent control is next.

    3. Not in my backyard! /proggy with a house

    4. Item: SHARE does extensive lobbying but does not admit it on Form 990.

      On Part IV, Line 4 of the 990 form, the IRS asks, Did you engage in lobbying activities? ?SHARE’s answer is “no.” Which is odd because, if you’ll recall from the group’s mission statement above, they proclaim that one of the chief goals is to “actively lobby to change policies that oppress homeless people.” And SHARE is as good as their word. They do lobby, both publicly and privately. They lobby both for money and for laws that are favorable to them. Tent camp ordinances passed at the city, county, and state level ALL bear the mark of SHARE’s influence. SHARE regularly rounds up its members to speak to the Seattle and King County Councils in order to ask for more money for SHARE and to get legislation crafted specifically for the benefit of the group.

      [Share’s mission statement]:

      Together, SHARE and WHEEL educate our community about the causes and effects of homelessness, build bridges with homed people to address those issues, and actively lobby to change policies that oppress homeless people.
      ?from the About Us page on SHARE’s Web site (9/10/16)

      1. Dang, what a racket. Doing well by doing good, or at least doing well while pretending to do good. And how dare anybody question these good folks doing the Lord’s work? Reminds me of Al and Jesse doing their race-pimping for big bucks. Very good article, too bad few people are going to read it and half the people who do read it are just going to shrug it off without realizing this sort of crap is going on all over the place with government money.

        1. If you read that whole thing, it gets awful in ways you never imagined. And it also highlights a problem that I casually coined “ideological capture”. It’s what happens when everyone in city government, the electorate and the local media are on the same ideological page. You can show them the corrupt system, and literally no one cares because “helping the homeless is a Good Thing(tm)”.

          The City Attorney finally agreed to send a weak-tea letter asking that they comply with the barest of financial requirements when you’re taking public money– and his office acted like it was an annoyance. And nothing else happened. No compliance, nothing.

    5. And making sure 3 generations of imbeciles is enough.

    6. That house is too tiny and doesn’t have running water.
      So back to the cardboard box for you.

  6. The city says “they are not safe”, “they impose real hazards”
    What they mean is “how can we justify $1.87 billion if we let this clown do it for $1,200??
    “In February, the City Council responded by amending a sweeps ordinance to allow the tiny houses to be seized without prior notice.”
    Speaking of amendments, how about this one? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    1. Homelessness has become a racket. Seriously. Click the link I posted above.

      1. Thanks for the link, Paul.

        I’m still reading the very beginning yet wanted to post this sentence from it: “There seems to be a contradiction there, but it goes away when you understand that politics is the art not of doing but of seeming.”

        The emphasis is mine.

        1. It’s a long read, but it’s illuminating as to how entrenched an ideal can become, and how far-reaching the consequences of that ideal can be.

  7. If the city won’t devote any resources to supporting novel solutions, Summers urges officials at least to make it easier for private organizations and individuals like him to pave the way forward.

    Like if McDonalds doesn’t offer people cheap hamburgers they should at least support Wendy’s efforts to offer people cheap hamburgers? Yeah, no, government ain’t about helping people so much as they are about making sure well-paid government employees have jobs helping people. Why in the world would you want to allow people to teach people how to fish when your monopoly on the fish distribution business is so lucrative?

  8. I think the whole premise of this article is on a shaky foundation.

    1. [LA sanitation truck drives off with premise]

      1. Whatever you do, just don’t take my dogma!

        1. My karma ran over your dogma!

          1. *Revives Jimbo’s Dogma*

            Here you are, Jimbo.

            1. *tears of joy*
              Thanks, Chuck! At least someone around here is nice.

  9. Did this guy ask permission? Was he obeying orders? No? Then how can anyone be sure that it was a good solution? Our rulers didn’t say it was OK! So it can’t possibly be OK! Besides that, it’s too simple! Only simple people come up with simple solutions! Good solutions must be so complicated that nobody but experts can understand them! That’s how you know they’re good! You can’t understand! This shit is too simple! Only a stupid person would come up with that! And he didn’t as permission or obey orders! So it must be wrong!

    1. No, it says it right in the article.

      But recently, city sanitation workers confiscated three of the houses from a sidewalk in South Los Angeles and tagged others for removal.

      “Unfortunately, these structures are a safety hazard,” says Connie Llanos, a spokeswoman for LA Mayor Eric Garcetti. “These structures, some of the materials that were found in some of them, just the thought of folks having some of these things in a space so small, so confined, without the proper insulation, it really does put their lives in danger.”

      Clearly it is much safer to live in a rolled up blanket in the gutter.

      Because no insulation is obviously safer than some insulation. And having your stuff in a shed is much more dangerous than having it in a trash bag on the street.

    2. ^^^THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES REALLY BELIEVE^^^

    3. Your name is sarcasmic and you endorse the Oakland fire as a burning testament to freedom from regulation.

      1. The village called. They are missing their idiot.

      2. Oakland: a city devoid of regulations

        … said no one

        1. Tony is a great straw man slayer. The best in the land. All bow to his abilities.

        2. That warehouse certainly was. Chock full of freedom combustibles.

          1. That has got to be one of the weirdest trolls of all time.

            An artist colony full of alternative lifestyle hippies living in a warehouse in the most progressive city in the most progressive state in America, but somehow it is a symbol of libertarian ideals.

            That’s A-list bonkers right there.

            1. “That’s A-list bonkers right there.”

              I think you might be on to something.

            2. No, no, it isn’t. No progressive will ever hold themselves or another progressive accountable for anything, ever. Just as the Shadowman will never harm the person under whose bed it sleeps. So clearly……something, something……..ergo…….it’s all the fault of libertarians.

              1. Very true.

                Notice that when the anti-Trump rioters started breaking and smashing and burning things in various progressive-run cities, the news media called them “anarchists.”

                ANARCHISTS. Anarchists don’t believe in having any government at all! These DEMOCRAT rioters wanted DEMOCRAT Hillary Rodham Clinton forcibly installed as POTUS, to install the largest DEMOCRAT-run Big Gov’t in US history, and they called them ANARCHISTS. Un-fucking-believable.

                “Libertarian” is the same kind of catch-all phrase to these progressive fucktards. To them it’s some kind of general insult against people who don’t cry in anguish, “Won’t SOMEBODY think of the CHILDREN?!,” at every available opportunity to expand gov’t.

          2. And it caught fire, burned down, and people died. The regulations didn’t save anyone’s lives and a lack of regulations wouldn’t have changed the situation.

            WTF is your point?

            1. Tony has no point. It’s all self-righteous virtue-signalling.

              There are several investigations going on now into the Oakland city gov’t as to why the many complaints about the Ghost Ship from neighbors, former tenants, and visitors were ignored.

              Why hadn’t there been a fire inspection in 30 years? Why was the property not on the list of buildings subject to annual fire inspections? Why is the bureaucracy so incompetent that it cannot complete its mandated task of annual fire inspections?

              Of course, the answer is: we gotta give more taxpayer dollars to incompetent city bureaucrats to enforce ever more regulations, or we can all be heartless, uncaring libertarians…

              1. this is also the same city where the entire police force passed around a young call girl. Criminal city government rom top to bottom.

      3. If only stealing electricity had been illegal, the fire never would have happened!

      4. Huh? Housing in Oakland is highly regulated. Doesn’t seem to have prevented the fire.

        1. But there are WRITTEN RULES! And they clearly work. Like posting a sign announcing a ‘gun free zone’ creates a magic force field which no firearm may pass.

  10. Outside of town here there’s an old trailer park where the Mexicans* live 6 or 8 to a trailer. By the time they split the rent and utilities I’m guessing they’re paying about 25 bucks a week for a place to live. You can’t get much cheaper than a trailer park.

    *Yeah, I know – half of ’em are Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan…

    1. This is what bugs me the most about the “living wage” crap. If you’re not making enough money to make ends meet by yourself, then get a fucking roommate (or two).

      Yes, roommates suck a lot of times, but putting up with an asshole roommate beats being evicted.

      1. It also will motivate you to advance in your career.

      2. On the plus side, with a little chloroform, and quiet shoes, roommates make excellent receptacles for one’s lust.

  11. The city owns thousands of vacant lots, many of which have been abandoned for decades, that could provide sites for tiny house villages or other innovative housing concepts that can have an immediate impact.

    Well there’s your problem. Isn’t property ridiculous expensive there. Maybe increase the supply a little? Then it might be cheaper to rent/own a home.

    1. If most decaying cities are any indication, they’d rather have an empty lot that is theoretically capable of generating lots of tax revenue than an occupied lot that isn’t practically generating much tax revenue.

    2. We need to keep housing prices up.

      1. I know. It is many peoples retirement plan. It’s a bad plan, but damn it, it’s the one they have.

        1. Inflating home prices so that non-working people can take out second mortgages to pay their living expenses… that sounds like a sound plan for long-term economic success to me!

        2. Yes, Yes I do.

          Signed,
          They

    3. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You can’t just sell vacant lots to any jerk off the streets. They need to wine and dine you, donate to your reelection campaign and present fancy proposals for DEVELOPMENT.

      1. I know right? It’s like some people don’t even know how to gentrify.

    4. one question is; why does the CITY own so many vacant lots,lots “long vacant”? They should be holding those properties only temporarily.
      Perhaps their city regulations prevent developers from taking an interest in developing them.

      one problem with “tiny house villages” for the homeless is that they soon turn into crime-ridden ghettos. They do drugs in them,they do prostitution,and the garbage piles up,and the tiny homes become unlivable or firetraps. A smoke detector isn’t going to stop a fire. the occupants make fires to cook or keep warm,or smoke,then nod off (from booze or drugs),and their cig starts the bedding on fire.

  12. The one thing government does not want is a solution to any problem. That goes double if they can’t take credit for it.

    What, letting people solve problems on their own? You know what that leads to! Drinking beer!

  13. All creative solutions to homelessness aside, I’m guessing that parking tiny houses on city-owned vacant lots would create a magnet for more customers. In speaking with homeless folk in my area, it becomes apparent that some of them are quite adept at venue-shopping.

  14. “This LA Musician Built $1,200 Tiny Houses for the Homeless”

    Terrific.
    Now he needs to find a place to put ’em. Get back to me after that’s solved and the taxpayers ‘donating’ empty lots ain’t the solution.

    1. If some generous private citizens at the edges of the Greater Los Angeles region donated their land for this use, the city of Los Angeles would probably be totally okay with it.

      Aside from the cronyism/corporate welfare, the other driving force is NIMBYism. Both could be sidestepped by moving the homeless away.

      The only problem is that the homeless may choose to stay in LA, where handouts are more plentiful than out in the less-populated inland cities.

  15. Statists hate it when uppity proles make them look bad by trying to solve problems without their “help,” especially when they do it for a fraction of the cost.

  16. Does it matter anyway? If LA actually let these things exist, they’d slap a 10K a year property tax on them and then they’d be taken away when the formerly homeless couldn’t pay the tax. Government does not care about people, get it through you thick skulls, progtards.

  17. Americans are rich because being poor is a crime.

  18. We might be better off without government. Period.
    We certainly would be better off without scumbags like the politicians in this video.

  19. That shed looks similar enough to this shed kit (the kit is not all the parts, so a complete one is more than $60). What do you get for the extra $500 to $600?

    1. Residential windows, insulation, more complex framing, solar electricity, toilet, light fixtures, front door, probably a few other items. $1200 is actually a pretty good price.

    2. Soundproofing, secured shackles, conduit wiring and a small fuse box to set up the electrified nipple clamps. That sort of thing.

      1. Ah, that clars it up well. Thank you.

  20. like Dawn replied I’m shocked that someone able to profit $8730 in a few weeks on the
    As Harold said I am startled that a student can get paid $7187 in four weeks on the internet .
    hop over to this site
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  21. like Dawn replied I’m shocked that someone able to profit $8730 in a few weeks on the
    As Harold said I am startled that a student can get paid $7187 in four weeks on the internet .
    hop over to this site
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  22. Good to know he abandoned the wasteland and the evil tyranny of the Lord Humungus.

  23. Folks, all the griping about the gov’t zoning ignores the unstated (but absolute) requirement for ‘free land’ in an urban area with high land values.
    I don’t care about his cheapo ‘single-wide’; where’s he gonna put it?

    1. Some neighborhood he and his pals don’t reside.

  24. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  25. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  26. 28,000 homeless on the street there and 1.87 billion to fix the problem. That is 66,786 bucks a person and would build small home for all of them that are comfortable but they would rather have government eat up a large portion of it and do very little. Outside the city like trailer parks would be better than making the city nasty. My bet is nothing much gets done.

  27. government doesn’t like competition and they don’t want to solve the homeless problem because they like blaming republicans for all of it.

  28. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    Still the scariest words in the English language.

  29. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  30. Liam. I agree that Carl`s bl0g is cool… I just got a great new Honda since getting a cheque for $9458 thiss month and just a little over 10/k this past-munth. without a doubt its the most financially rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost immediately started earning at least $75, per hour. go now

    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. Literally amazing. America is so wealthy, and Americans have become so enititled, that the poor have their shanty towns built for them. So what if it makes a homeless person permanently homeless? So what if it reinforces a system where the city attracts the indigent because of it’s unsustainable economic policies. So what if it ruins the neighborhoods of the working class who pay for all of this. So what if they are erecting privately held structures on other people’s public and private land. It feels good to see the homeless in homes right?

    They’re doghouses.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.