Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It shouldn't be surprising. People tend to have more respect for things they earned themselves than for things they were given.

People also tend to spend more on upkeep when they have more disposable income. If you don't have disposable income, you don't dispose of food and electricity to pay for repainting the house or buying a lawn mower or fixing the gate, or re-doing the roof...

None of which would be the responsibility of a tenate in a situation like this.

I rent and everywhere i have rented with a garden it has been up to me to maintain it, including having the tools to do so. I'd also spend money on repainting if I had damaged the paintwork and would probably attempt to repair anything I had broken (or had been broken) as well. But then I have some disposable income and a little skill at diy/repair...

But you are right, the rest of the stuff should probably be done by the building owner. Guess it is their fault for not spending money on maintaining things

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I'm sorry, where did I say they were lazy again? (rereads post) Nope, never said anyone was lazy. In fact I said a lot of people work very hard just to scrape by, and you want to make their efforts worthless, by basically giving away what they work so hard for.

You referred to homeless people as "unproductive". In the context of your comments regarding people working to "scrape by" this implies that the homeless are lazy.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I'm sorry, where did I say they were lazy again? (rereads post) Nope, never said anyone was lazy. In fact I said a lot of people work very hard just to scrape by, and you want to make their efforts worthless, by basically giving away what they work so hard for.

You referred to homeless people as "unproductive". In the context of your comments regarding people working to "scrape by" this implies that the homeless are lazy.

Thats just you and azaezel trying to read into things......as usual. Unproductive does not equal lazy. It equals unproductive or unable to sufficiently support themselves. Some people spin their wheels, some have no capability to take care of themselves, some just lack the proper motivation, others make a series of stupid decisions and yes, some are lazy.

There are plenty of rich, unproductive people.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Thats just you and azaezel trying to read into things......as usual. Unproductive does not equal lazy.

I won't speak for Azazel.

I am trying to understand the point you are attempting to make, and presenting you with my understanding of what you have actually written.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Unproductive does not equal lazy. It equals unproductive or unable to sufficiently support themselves. Some people spin their wheels, some have no capability to take care of themselves, some just lack the proper motivation, others make a series of stupid decisions and yes, some are lazy.

Ok, so when you use the word "unproductive" you mean "unable to sufficiently support themselves".

It seems like you simply dislike homeless people because they appear, to you, to be exemplars of people that cannot support themselves.

dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Thats just you and azaezel trying to read into things......as usual. Unproductive does not equal lazy.

I won't speak for Azazel.

I am trying to understand the point you are attempting to make, and presenting you with my understanding of what you have actually written.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Unproductive does not equal lazy. It equals unproductive or unable to sufficiently support themselves. Some people spin their wheels, some have no capability to take care of themselves, some just lack the proper motivation, others make a series of stupid decisions and yes, some are lazy.

Ok, so when you use the word "unproductive" you mean "unable to sufficiently support themselves".

It seems like you simply dislike homeless people because they appear, to you, to be exemplars of people that cannot support themselves.

Nah, you can totally go ahead and speak for me on this one. I'm too lazy to properly engage in what will be an entirely predictable argument, and you appear to have gotten the right of exactly what I was pointing out already.

 WarOne wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
...as long as they are willing to work, not doing drugs/crime, sure its a great idea to spend 11grand to house them instead of 16g's to incarcerate them or deal with their vagrancy.

Okay, I can play devil's advocate. What about individuals who aren't willing to work? What about the drug addicts and criminals? What about the mentally ill homeless? Buy them a house? Okay, but what about their addiction, medical condition, or unemployment? And what about the non-homeless who are having their credit ruined because they defaulted on their mortgages? Obama supposedly put in a program for them and it wasn't "just buy them a house".

If you accept the cost benefit analysis where it is cheaper to house them rather than let them loose in the streets, then I would support such a program and see if it works.

Of course, the cost of doing this can vary on a case by case basis.

I wasn't bringing up a cost benefit analysis. I was addressing an issue of personal capability to maintain themselves once you've given them a house.

There are a few issues with putting someone in a "free" house. First, you can't forceably put people into housing if they refuse to go. This is why many mentally ill people are out in the streets. Back in the 50s or so, States would force some homeless people into mental institutions if they determined that there was a mental illness. Some States are alleged to have abused this. Finally, some guy in Florida with mental illness sued the State and the Supreme Court ruled on his side. States cannot forceably compell a person to treatment unless that person has committed a crime beforehand. It stands to reason that forcing a person into housing would fall into this catagory of rulings. So, continuing to play devil's advocate, what do you do about the people who simply refuse to go into this housing or if they leave it after?

Another issue is that property taxes (and homeowners dues in many cases) still must be paid. The people who move in must maintain that house, even if it is free. All this costs money. So does food. As nice as having a house is, how does it solve the underlying issue of joblessness? I'm not talking about the lazy as others have (although there are people out there who are), I'm thinking of the infirm who have physical disabilities that mean they simply cannot work. Also people with mental illness who wind up homeless usually do because they refuse to take their meds. In short, some people simply need supervision their entire lives in order to keep them off the street. Yet without a crime being committed, the State is forbidden to act. How do you address this with free a house?

Don't ignore that drud addicts tend to flock together and moving one into a house usually means others will follow into that same house and the drug dealers will certainly be there too. Carlin kept using the phrase "not in my back yard". Don't lie to yourself, you don't want these people in your neighborhood either. Of all the people who wind up homeless, druggies are the most dangerous. They are most often thieves and liars. They will commit all sort of petty theft when able and more serious robbery if they think they can get away with it. Again, you need to PROVE a crime in court before you can send them packing and the ACLU will run to their aid should you organize a Neighborhood Watch program and put them under surveillance. Damned right, NIMBY! I don't even need to play devil's advocate to plant that flag.

 azazel the cat wrote:
A socialist program has been shown to work!? We can't have that! Sic the Calvinists on them!

Okay back to the devil's advocate thing. Remember how Carlin was talking about the USA making war on things we didn't like? A war on poverty. A war on drugs. Even a war on homelessness - which got this whole discussion started. Please show me how the war on poverty (a socialist program) has solved the problem of "poor people" or rather "people being poor". Last time I looked, there were lots and lots of people who are poor in the USA. How is this possible since the war on poverty has been fought since 1964? That's fifty years. We beat Germany in TWO world wars in significantly less time. Hell, we saw the Cold War wrapped up quicker. The war on poverty is still going on. What about this war on homelessness that is at the heart of this thread? In the US, we've had programs trying to solve this since the 1930's when Roosevelt put his "New Deal" programs into place. That's over 80 years! Today homeless people live in nearly every city. Damn those Calvinists in the ACLU for keeping the poor and homeless away from the warm and caring embrace of the Democrats. Don't the care about the children? Don't they?

Ok, so when you use the word "unproductive" you mean "unable to sufficiently support themselves".

It seems like you simply dislike homeless people because they appear, to you, to be exemplars of people that cannot support themselves.

Again, reading into things. I never said I dislike them. I just don't see why they should be given things for free that other people have to work hard for and sacrifice to attain. It makes a mockery of what other people work for. It also takes the incentive of working away from some people.

If the program was just for people that were physically or mentally incapable, well that has it's own set of issues. As I said before, if you think the homeless problem is that they just don't have homes, well you really don't know what you are talking about.

Look, people are homeless for many reasons. There is a different solution for each problem, and for some, there really are no solutions. A blanket solution like this really doesn't help anybody in the long term. All you will end up with is run down, crime ridden housing full of mental people that have to be torn down in a few years anyway. Either that or you have to spend a huge amount of money on upkeep. Anybody who thinks this can be done for a small sum has not seen what it actually takes to provide care for people. I have a brother that had a stroke and he is now in managed care, I can tell you it costs more than $16k a year and he shares basically a hospital room, hardly what you would call housing.

You are out of your mind if you think you can give Joe average homeless guy a free house, medical and mental care, a personal caseworker and inspector and have the final tally be under $16k a year.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Ok, so when you use the word "unproductive" you mean "unable to sufficiently support themselves".

You are out of your mind if you think you can give Joe average homeless guy a free house, medical and mental care, a personal caseworker and inspector and have the final tally be under $16k a year.

So, I guess the whole article and program in Utah is a lie. Thanks for letting me know.

Also, as for the "hard Workers" stuff. I think the insentive is still there because a house I buy is going ot be a hell of a lot nicer and cost more than the $11,000 place the homeless guy is getting. Or, if I wanted I could use my money to buy an $11,000 place and save the rest for other goodies.

 Easy E wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Ok, so when you use the word "unproductive" you mean "unable to sufficiently support themselves".

You are out of your mind if you think you can give Joe average homeless guy a free house, medical and mental care, a personal caseworker and inspector and have the final tally be under $16k a year.

So, I guess the whole article and program in Utah is a lie. Thanks for letting me know.

Also, as for the "hard Workers" stuff. I think the insentive is still there because a house I buy is going ot be a hell of a lot nicer and cost more than the $11,000 place the homeless guy is getting. Or, if I wanted I could use my money to buy an $11,000 place and save the rest for other goodies.

I wouldn't call it am outright lie, I would say that they are forgetting certain costs or playing with the budgets.

You say the house you get would be better. How does that work? Many poor families live in pretty awful housing, but they are still paying for it. Yes, sure, maybe you would buy a nicer house but we are not talking about people that can afford nice houses. We are talking about making the working poors efforts useless because they will have the same standard of living as the homeless....only the working poor will have to work and pay for that privileged.

I think its a great idea though. If it is monitored and there is follow through I can see it working, but people that can't follow the rules need to be removed from the program immediatly. I just have seen a lot of these programs get abused to the point where they don't work anymore. Section 8 housing can quickly turn good neighborhoods into drug and crime filled ghettos, I've watched it happen to suburbs in Cleveland.

Right, and your argument is that people will not want to work for a nicer house because they can be unproductive and get a $11,000 house. The basis of our economy assumes and hopes you are wrong.

As for people abusing the system, does that mean we should shut down the whole system because a small percentage abuses it? Where is the breakpoint? If 49% of people are "abusing the system" should we shut the whole thing down?

Breotan wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
A socialist program has been shown to work!? We can't have that! Sic the Calvinists on them!

Okay back to the devil's advocate thing. Remember how Carlin was talking about the USA making war on things we didn't like? A war on poverty. A war on drugs. Even a war on homelessness - which got this whole discussion started. Please show me how the war on poverty (a socialist program) has solved the problem of "poor people" or rather "people being poor". Last time I looked, there were lots and lots of people who are poor in the USA. How is this possible since the war on poverty has been fought since 1964? That's fifty years. We beat Germany in TWO world wars in significantly less time. Hell, we saw the Cold War wrapped up quicker. The war on poverty is still going on. What about this war on homelessness that is at the heart of this thread? In the US, we've had programs trying to solve this since the 1930's when Roosevelt put his "New Deal" programs into place. That's over 80 years! Today homeless people live in nearly every city. Damn those Calvinists in the ACLU for keeping the poor and homeless away from the warm and caring embrace of the Democrats. Don't the care about the children? Don't they?

I'm not going to respond until you come up with an argument that is actually relevant to either my post or the OP. I have no patience to reign in the level goalpost-moving you've illustrated right out of the gate, nor can I be bothered to address the nirvana fallacy your statement is predicated on. Your statement appears to be so wildly from the lunatic fringe and disjointed that I am honestly not even certain exactly what you are trying to argue.

Go back and re-write your point in its entirely, and make sure that the reader can understand what your intention is without needing to read your mind.

 Easy E wrote:
Right, and your argument is that people will not want to work for a nicer house because they can be unproductive and get a $11,000 house. The basis of our economy assumes and hopes you are wrong.

As for people abusing the system, does that mean we should shut down the whole system because a small percentage abuses it? Where is the breakpoint? If 49% of people are "abusing the system" should we shut the whole thing down?

Nope, I'm saying some people work very hard, and get paid only enough to afford to buy a $11,000 house actually most will rent a very cheap apartment too small for their family . You seam to believe that everyone that works makes enough money to afford housing, food, and mental/medical care. What country do you live in?

No you don't shut it down, you just kick out the abusers.

How to solve homelessness? Give them a house? NO! Make them build their own damned houses!!!

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/27/257560971/architects-dream-house-less-than-200-square-feet

NPR wrote:Architect's Dream House: Less Than 200 Square Feet

You might think going through a divorce and losing your home to foreclosure would be hard to bounce back from, and they are, but Tell Me More caught up with a woman who beat the odds and built a new home for herself.

Macy Miller, an architect from Idaho, built the home with her own two hands at a cost of only $11,000. The house is less than 200 square feet

Interview Highlights

On building the home

It took 18 months. I had a minor injury — or some might call it a major injury. Yeah, I did break my back. I'm a klutz and I fell off the roof, and it was because I was being incredibly stupid.

On the home she used to live in

I came from a 2,500-square-foot house. You know, four bedrooms, three baths and, you know, I had bedrooms that I literally never even opened. After years, there were still vacuum marks on the floor. It was a little bit too much. It was not really my style at all, and this just works better for me personally.

On the most expensive and difficult part of building the house

The most expensive component in the house is my toilet, actually. I didn't want to put in a sewer line, so I have a composting toilet. And so to put that through all the tests it needs to go through to be regulated and OK'd by jurisdictions, it brings up the price tag on it quite a bit. So that was my most expensive part.

The hardest and probably most daunting part for me was all of my electrical, because I had no experience with electrical whatsoever. I never had any building experience, either. I went to school for design, which is a lot different than building. So wiring the house was scary to me, because if I did something wrong, I could shock myself and hurt myself, or, you know, light it on fire. But ... I just got a book, I read about it, watched YouTube videos. I did it, and then I came and I had a licensed electrician check my work before I covered anything up. So I was happy to find out I did everything just right. It took me a couple times in some spots, but I got it.

On how it feels to live in a tiny home

My house, honestly, it doesn't feel that tiny. The space is laid out in a way that I have a living room, I have a bedroom, I have a kitchen, I have a bathroom. They all function; none of them feels cramped. I mean, two people can cook in my kitchen at the same time. I actually also have a Great Dane that runs around in there. I designed it for him, though, too. I have stairs up to the bedroom. So, like, a lot of people that live in tiny houses have loft spaces, but I wanted him to be able to get up into the bed, and that's where he spends most of his time, honestly.

On whether other people can live in tiny homes, too

There's a whole bunch of people all across the nation right now. It's kind of a do-it-yourself kind of movement, because they kind of get pricey if you have to pay someone else to do them, and, you know, it costs the same as a normal house. So if it costs the same, why would you not just build a normal house? There's people doing this all over. I would say look into it more, research it, and see if it's right for you. It's more of a change in the style of living, and there is quite a bit of going against the norm. You get a lot of naysayers that [say] it's not possible and you can't do it, and you just have to believe in yourself more than that, because it's really not that different.

If it weren't for those pesky home-owners associations I would totally put one of these in my backyard as a hobby-bunker!

 d-usa wrote:
If it weren't for those pesky home-owners associations I would totally put one of these in my backyard as a hobby-bunker!

Yeah, HOA's suck. I'll never live in a place that has one.

They can be good. Ours does a fairly good job and we have few pesky rules. Only ones that really affect me are "keep two trees in the front yard". "keep the trashcans where they can't be seen from the street" and "here is the list of sheds you can put in the backyard".

They do a good job with the upkeep of the neighborhood, we got very nice playgrounds and very nice common areas, maintained soccer and baseball fields, and last year they added a splashpad to one of our parks and will likely add a couple more in the next few years.

I don't mind them as long as the rules are reasonable and as long as I can see that our fees are spend on positive things.

The fee thing gets me. When I buy a house, I want it to be my house. I am not going to pay a mortgage, so I can continue to pay "rent".

 djones520 wrote:
The fee thing gets me. When I buy a house, I want it to be my house. I am not going to pay a mortgage, so I can continue to pay "rent".

See, I don't mind the fee IF I can see that stuff is actually being done with my money. I see good benefits in the neighborhood with ours (like the parks, sports fields, walking trails, splash pad) and we get an "money in, money spend" statement each quarter to see what it is being spend on.

If I send them money and don't see any improvements from it I would think differently.

But remember, I'm the pro-taxes guy so I like giving my money to other people to spend for me .

wrong thread...or fast posters. This is an edit (or delete) post

 djones520 wrote:
The fee thing gets me. When I buy a house, I want it to be my house. I am not going to pay a mortgage, so I can continue to pay "rent".

Look at it this way: a good HOA is a cost-effective way of ensuring that your neighbors don't do anything that would trash the area and lower your property value, and you might even get more property value out of any neighborhood upgrades. You might not care if you don't plan to ever sell the house, but that's not a trivial benefit for a lot of people.

Now, obviously none of this applies to the horror-story HOAs that go well beyond that legitimate purpose.