
San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless - prostoalex
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/07/san-jose-new-law-would-make-city-first-to-allow-tiny-homes-for-homeless/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1475889656
======
unethical_ban
There are a lot of building codes that are incredibly stupid.

For things like this (homebuilding) where the competition is heavy and
consumers have a choice (within a spending limit), I feel only the most bare
of safety requirements should be law. All other standards related to
efficiency, "above-and-beyond" safety and design considerations should be met
and advertised via certifications.

Almost every zoning law probably has a good reason behind it, ostensibly.
Someone died in a fire because there wasn't a window, so every room needs a
window, for example. But if we legislated like that for every accident, we'd
be suffocated by regulations.

~~~
wolfgke
> But if we legislated like that for every accident, we'd be suffocated by
> regulations.

We are already suffocated by regulations.

~~~
paulddraper
> Because we legislated like that for every accident, we're suffocated by
> regulations.

FTFY

------
hiou
_> the former accountant ended up outdoors after a divorce and a brain tumor._

Sounds like our current resource allocation system here in the US is working
great! Seems like a totally sensible reason for a human being to be forced to
live without basic shelter. They obviously have no useful skills to provide
society so let's just throw them away. What a time to be alive!

~~~
grecy
It is truly sad that in by far the richest country in the world, and
ostensibly the best, millions of people are living this way.

Why on earth Americans are not fixing America, I have no idea.

~~~
ljf
As a Brit and a left leaning type, it baffles me to see America. From talking
to friends who live there (I won't pretend I know fully) but it seems between
income, state and property taxes you guys pay a lot. Add in health care and it
seems you pay in line with or above many European countries. Yet with your
society's wealth there seems a resistance to supporting your own people, and
almost actively seeking to add to the poverty through the prison and court
system. It seems crazy, when getting these people up and productive, would not
only be the moral (Christian?) thing to do, but would ultimately also add to
the wealth of the nation.

Is it because in America who are 'your own people'?

~~~
mmmBacon
We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in
Europe. The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it
either evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35.
Our states do a better job generally and provide the bulk of the services.
However in many cities and states the budgets are consumed by pensions leaving
less for services each year. A person who works in government can retire with
80% pay at 55 after 20 years with their pension based on last 2 years. As
people live longer, many people are collecting pensions for more years than
they worked.

The problem is that we already pay a lot in taxes and we get poor returns on
this money as it is. I think there would be more people willing to pay more if
they thought money was the answer and it would help people. Most people think
the money would just be wasted.

At the same time we also have large numbers of people who pay no taxes, 51%.
So as our population grows, the demand for services increases but the
percentage of tax paying citizens is not increasing.

We have a real mess here.

~~~
kahirsch
> We pay almost 50% in taxes which I think is close to what you guys pay in
> Europe.

Total tax burden in the US is about 30%, slightly higher for the top half of
the income scale.
[http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_...](http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2015.php)

> The lions share goes to Washington where as far as I can tell it either
> evaporates or gets spent on very expensive jobs programs like the F-35.

About 2/3 of taxes go to the federal government. Half of federal spending is
on Social Security and medical spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). About 16%
is defense and international security assistance.

[http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-
wh...](http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-
federal-tax-dollars-go)

> At the same time we also have large numbers of people who pay no taxes, 51%.

About 45% of households pay no _federal income tax_ , but most of them still
pay federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on. The
estimated tax burden for the lowest income 20% of the population is 19.2%,
less that the overall 30%, but still significant.

~~~
jbuzbee
Regarding federal payroll taxes, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, it's not
accurate to lump these in with other taxes as they are basically forced-
savings. And due to their progressive nature, low-income individuals will get
more out then they ever put in.

------
nwenzel
Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal
immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled,
adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some
other minimum level of shelter?

Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started
from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a
consensus.

~~~
bufordsharkley
It's important to recognize that the problem isn't that shelter is expensive,
but that land is expensive.

And to reframe the question, do all people have a right not to be excluded
from land (without a commensurate payment)? I believe the answer is a
resounding yes.

Note: I'm a Georgist. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

~~~
internaut
How about the people who decided that they didn't like their land in Nigeria,
but decided to move to Dublin, Ireland because they like it there better.

What then?

Government creates property rights, which is what Land really is about, and
there appears to be a limited supply to go around. Thereby only citizens of a
country who pay taxes should have the right to own Land. Does this make sense?

~~~
bufordsharkley
What happens when people in Virginia decide they want to move to California?

Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as
deeply immoral.

~~~
internaut
If that literally happened there would be ructions. And those two groups are
not that dissimilar.

> Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as
> deeply immoral.

Large numbers of Nigerians moved to Dublin. Robbery, fraud, violence shot up
immediately and the CSO (gov stats) shows they are mostly not working and are
recipients of state aid.

I used to believe in open borders once until I started living in some estates
with migrants and started seeing the horrendous shit they were up to. Stealing
cars, beating people up, probably murdering people judging by some of the
awful sounds and continual police visits. I still do, but only for people like
me. It might not be based on ethic identity necessarily but it should be based
on something. Geekdom perhaps.

Otherwise, unwelcome though it is, violence is an inevitability.

Those borders were there for a reason. If you remove the borders then you need
to remove the reason also. Until then we shall resolve conflict with violence.
Calling that immoral solves nothing.

~~~
bufordsharkley
You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, just that
implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases.

Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery,
and they were just as incoherent at addressing the root moral evil.

~~~
internaut
That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people
clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature.

I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of
race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single
person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent
development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are
well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it
was like coming home from a distant journey.

I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree
that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural
and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is
what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal
battle between the lumpers and splitters.

> Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery

I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being
slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could
develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it.

> You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral,

I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders.
You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a
rhetorical explanation for the motion.

> just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases.

That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an
exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of
California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each
other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that
statement because the differences may be too stark by then.

A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries,
with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences
have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable.

There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one
people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The
borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to
commute with transports that caused splitting.

I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group
dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I
don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics.

What I do know is that historically large population movements of different
peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why
they won't be once more.

~~~
bufordsharkley
> What I do know is that historically large population movements of different
> peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why
> they won't be once more.

I agree more with the concept that strong borders are the prelude to war. To
quote H.G. Wells:

> It was just this dignity of government which the crude Darwinism and the
> Kiplingism of the later Victorian years were destroying. Competition and
> survival were accepted as the basal facts of life. “War is the natural state
> of nations,” said a popular London men’s weekly the other day, with an air
> of repeating something universally known. “Peace is only the interval of
> rest and preparation between wars.” In accordance with such ideas the
> growing boy was exhorted to be “loyal” to his school and contemptuous of
> other schools, “loyal” to his class against other classes, “loyal” to his
> nation and contemptuous and fierce towards other nations, “loyal” to the
> English-speaking peoples and contemptuous and hostile to the German or
> French-speaking. His instinct for brotherhood was narrowed and debased. The
> universal brotherhood of mankind was laughed to scorn. All life was
> bickering, he was taught; and yet the whole course of history has shown that
> the bickering nations perish, and that the alliances and coalescences of
> peoples and nations ensure the life they comprehend.

------
h4nkoslo
A cluster of "tiny homes" is indistinguishable from a "trailer park".

There are actually very nice trailer parks / prefab house / mobile home
communities, that cater to specific populations (especially retirement
communities). They have a bad reputation in general because of the modal kind
of person who inhabits them, not some sort of inherent characteristic of the
construction style.

------
aphextron
Am I alone in finding this "tiny home" trend insane? There's nothing wrong
with downsizing, but just call it what it is: a mobile home or a trailer.

Companies have been engineering mobile homes for decades to be highly
efficient, long lasting, and fuel efficient for towing. Slapping a bunch of
heavy wooden shingles on one and calling it a "tiny home" is just feel-good
hipster nonsense.

~~~
runamok
Except that most cities criminalize living out of your vehicle. Renting a
space to put your RV, mobile home, etc. is a non-trivial expense for many.

I read an article about how emotionally draining it was for people to
constantly have to move around, worry about police, get hassled by residents,
not know where they could shower or eat, etc. but I can't find it now. Not to
mention I can't imagine how hard it is to fall asleep and actually rest with
all those fears.

Some articles: [http://mv-voice.com/news/2015/10/23/makeshift-rv-camps-
spark...](http://mv-voice.com/news/2015/10/23/makeshift-rv-camps-spark-
concern) [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-rents-force-silicon-
vall...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-rents-force-silicon-valley-live-
vehicles/) [http://www.businessinsider.com/inside-the-silicon-valley-
van...](http://www.businessinsider.com/inside-the-silicon-valley-van-dwellers-
reddit-community-2016-6)
[http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2015/03/04/only-a...](http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2015/03/04/only-
affordable-place-live-san-jose-my-car) [https://www.quora.com/When-living-out-
of-your-car-where-are-...](https://www.quora.com/When-living-out-of-your-car-
where-are-the-best-places-to-park-to-avoid-being-noticed)
[https://www.quora.com/When-living-out-of-your-car-where-
are-...](https://www.quora.com/When-living-out-of-your-car-where-are-the-best-
places-to-park-to-avoid-being-noticed) [http://gawker.com/you-better-not-
outlaw-living-in-cars-unles...](http://gawker.com/you-better-not-outlaw-
living-in-cars-unless-youre-givin-1561291148)

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Are the building codes really so restrictive as to prevent building housing
for homeless people without ignoring them?

~~~
apsec112
Yes. That's largely why they exist. Zoning codes were often created with an
explicit goal of keeping poor/black people out of rich/white neighborhoods.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/35889...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/3588926209)

~~~
throwaway729
Not sure why you're being down-voted, other than that the evidence you
provided isn't very compelling. For people who think this is hyperbole, it is
not.

Zoning codes also exist for a lot of other (good) reasons, but there are large
sections of zoning codes (esp. regarding the type of housing allowed within a
residentially zoned area) that were absolutely created with explicitly and
openly racist intent. Sometimes those sections of code are _still_ with us
today. Sometimes they've been removed. But in both cases, the effects of those
zoning laws on communities reverberates today:

[http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/02/zonings-racist-
roots-s...](http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/02/zonings-racist-roots-still-
bear-fruit)

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-
raci...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-
housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/)

~~~
throwaway_911
Residential segregation is the large scale observable effect of small biases.
[http://ncase.me/polygons](http://ncase.me/polygons). To end residential
segregation is to either end the biases themselves or the freedom to express
them. Either approach is rather distopian, with strong reverberations in the
worst abuses of the Soviet regime.

~~~
vkou
What? Eliminating ass-backwards zoning laws that enforce 'aesthetic character'
is a Soviet dystopia? How?

And here I always thought that the best example of a Soviet dystopia in
housing was the row after row of cookie-cutter prefab Krushevkas [1]. That and
the constant lack of housing. In fact, restrictions on aesthetics, driveway
sizes, etc, only exacerbate the problem.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHdFd2RKRSI&ab_channel=Inese...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHdFd2RKRSI&ab_channel=IneseStrupule)

~~~
throwaway_911
Look at the data. How many cities around the world have an utopian mix of
people, where millionaires live next to homeless tent encampments and [insert
ethnicity here] live mixed with [insert another ethnicity here].

The uniform cities I can think of are Soviet cities. Soviets worked hard to
Harrison Bergeron their populations, and also to eliminate any shred of social
cohesion other than the prescribed love for the Party. And even in Soviet
cities, the Party leaders live in their own nice segregated neighborhoods, far
removed from the Krushevaks the forcibly uniformized rest of the population is
forced to inhabit.

------
plandis
Seattle has already been doing this for at least a year.

~~~
uxcn
Seattle has set up more than one tiny house village [1], at least that I know
of. Some of them even have internet access.

We still have a very real homeless problem though, and you'll see panhandlers
if you drive through the city. People have even set up camps along I-5.

[1] [http://www.kiro7.com/news/seattles-first-tiny-house-
village-...](http://www.kiro7.com/news/seattles-first-tiny-house-village-
homeless-open-we/40000629)

~~~
Chronic9q
Do democratic/left/liberal states generate or attract more homelessness? Seems
to happen with many other liberal city hubs.

~~~
ocschwar
Red states have a habit of having the police "suggest" to homeless people that
they should get on the Greyhound bus to places like SF and Seattle.

And add to that the factor of both cities have weather that doesn't kill the
homeless as quickly.

------
Roboprog
I guess it's quick, but the apartments they are supposedly planning would seem
a much better use of land.

------
notliketherest
This is a mistake. As soon as you allow squatters to essentially start
building shanty town communities, you are going to start exacerbating a lot of
problems: drugs, crime, rape. All one needs to do is travel to Brazil and see
the favelas to see the effects of an unchecked, institutionalized homeless
population.

~~~
35bge57dtjku
People have pointed out that some crime concentrates in these tent cities in
Seattle. But I have yet to hear evidence that it's actually creating more
crime. And there's plenty of crime that happens outside of those places in
Seattle, like a totally insane number of car break ins.

