Opportunity Village has 30-units. I love the idea but the danger of grouping any type of safety-net properties together in one bunch (such as section-8 housing, micro housing for the homeless, etc.) tends to ghettoize a desperate community. This has negative effects within that struggling community (drugs, Alcohol, psychosis) and the broader community at large.
I don't have a solution (who does) but 30-40 units is probably manageable for the police, fire departments, and mental health services but to prevent fires they really should include solar or something.
Do you feel the idea is a net negative, or that other ideas work better? I guess the optimist in me would like to see _something_ work. The tiny homes would mean fewer homeless folks pushing overflowing shopping carts around.
Reading the website, residents must pay $200/mo, contribute to the village, and follow 5 rules. Not sure who enforces the rules. And $200/mo means it's not for the poorest of the homeless. http://www.squareonevillages.org/#!opportunity/c959
I am not qualified to say if it is a net negative or positive. I just presume that if you are homeless and you have a roof over your head that is definitely a net positive.
I would actually consider donating. Ho much does it cost to build a "shed?"
This fails at a number of levels. In terms of efficient density small houses are terrible land use. Modest four unit buildings could do the same work with less land, material, and more efficient services. Socially, allocating a particular housing type to a specific demographic group always causes problems even with large high end homes and always with low end housing.
The need to house the homeless must somehow be met with standard housing units provided through the marketplace. It may be more important to examine in more detail why we have a sudden explosion in the population of homeless, particularly with homeless families and children which have in the past always been rare, even during the great depression. Factors not directly related to housing may have more influence over this problem and addressing them might provide greater benefit to society.
5 comments
[ 101 ms ] story [ 1235 ms ] threadI don't have a solution (who does) but 30-40 units is probably manageable for the police, fire departments, and mental health services but to prevent fires they really should include solar or something.
The location appears to be mixed residential and industrial, with a trailer park and a few small homes nearby. It might be the same type of area where the homeless already reside. https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Garfield+St,+Eugene,+OR+...
Reading the website, residents must pay $200/mo, contribute to the village, and follow 5 rules. Not sure who enforces the rules. And $200/mo means it's not for the poorest of the homeless. http://www.squareonevillages.org/#!opportunity/c959
I know that San Jose recently relocated a "few hundred" people from "The Jungle". It was a success, they say. But there are still thousands of homeless in San Jose alone. http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2015/03/30/city-to-use-jungle-c...
I would actually consider donating. Ho much does it cost to build a "shed?"
The need to house the homeless must somehow be met with standard housing units provided through the marketplace. It may be more important to examine in more detail why we have a sudden explosion in the population of homeless, particularly with homeless families and children which have in the past always been rare, even during the great depression. Factors not directly related to housing may have more influence over this problem and addressing them might provide greater benefit to society.