click the link for article S.F. activist opens tiny door to homeless Building contractor Jim Reid shows off a tiny home, the likes of which he proposes building for the homeless. Perennial mayoral candidate Jim Reid has come up with a lot of big ideas in his time -- but now he's pitching a very, very small one for how to handle San Francisco's very big homeless problem. Miniature houses. Houses that are about 100 square feet -- and that includes a bed, a full bathroom, a kitchenette and even a washer-dryer. Reid bills it as the "smallest house in San Francisco," modeled after the temporary homes that sprang up after the 1906 earthquake and fire. Reid, a building contractor -- along with the folks from his newly organized Habitat for the Homeless -- wants to put 2,000 of them across the city. "I deliberately built it this small to prove that you could provide homes of quality that are absolutely affordable," Reid said as he gave a tour of one of the Lilliputian digs he's set up next to his own Bernal Heights home. The cost: Even with materials and union labor, he figures they can be mass- produced for about $50,000 apiece. Reid envisions Habitat for the Homeless putting them up all over town -- with the idea of allowing clean and sober former homeless people to live in them in return for sweeping neighborhood streets and such. "I'd like to see them on every block," he said. As for the City Hall reaction? "I took (the demo) down on a trailer and parked it down at Civic Center," Reid said. "The mayor wouldn't even come out and look at it." Then he added reflectively, "Maybe it was because I ran against him, or maybe it was because I led a recall against him -- but he could have looked at it, anyway." But while the mayor and the rest of officialdom have turned a blind eye, others have not. "A lot of people walked through it when it was down at Civic Center," Reid said. "People were asking how they could get one -- and they weren't even homeless."
i haven't read the article...but if the place gives shelter and an address to receive correspondence in a job search, then it's a great idea!
got to be better than under the freeway or under the overhangs of deserted gas stations. but I wonder, who's payin for it?
What a trip! SF does have an amazing number of homeless... the contrast with the rest of the vibrant and beautiful city can be startling. I've never lived there, and if I did I might have a different feeling about it, but it looks like a solution for some of the homeless if done in the right way. (don't ask me what "the right way" would be!)
religious organizations would be a good start...church coalitions...interfaith ministries, etc. with some help from the city for land and to alleviate costs associated with compliance with building codes and ordinances...what else am i leaving out? anyone? i can't imagine the construction costs of the buildings being that high...it's not a perfect solution...not sure that it addresses homeless families, because i don't know if you could have more than 2 living in a space like this very long...but for homeless moms with a baby, this beats the hell out of the streets, and may provide some level of dignity that a shelter might not. just thinking out loud here...any ideas or suggestions on how this could/would work would be great.
What's to keep the homeless for turning around and selling that house for $120K? This is San Fran, after all.
I would guess that the city would hold the title to the homes. The resident would be the city's tenant so they couldn't sell it.
That's what I was thinking. I am currently building a 2,000 square foot home on $80,000. I know his quote was for union labor, but I don't pay my guys too badly either.
that's what i was thinking... in my scenario either the city or a non-profit could hold title to the land...and you could put some restrictive covenants in there about use of the land, blah, blah, blah, to make sure it is used for the purpose you intend. so how do we get started on this here in Houston???
I think it might be cheaper to move the homeless people to a more affordable city and then build em houses over there. I bet in good ole El Paso you can pop those houses up for about 2-3 grand max.
This seems incredibly inefficient. Why not just build some tennement housing. Does each homeless person really need a bathroom and kitchen of their own. I think something like college dorms would work fine.
If you want a small 2-bedroom, you can bet on $650,000, and that doesn't give you much or any yard. A simple condo in a decent but not great neighborhood will be $500,000. In SF, we do have a big problem with homelessness, which is obvious to anyone who visits. One reason, to be honest, is you can make more $$ here as a homeless person than anywhere else. I'm not just talking pan-handling. We (tax payers) give out as much as $350 per month per homeless person. (enough to keep even Nomar drunk ). One of our new ballot initiatives here is dubbed "care not cash," where we try solutions like the one pictured up top and quit just handing over money. So the money's already being poured into the problem -- it just needs some good creative directions, IMHO. It's made me more right wing, honestly. I started all lovey liberal about it, but you step in human poo, you defend your girlfriend from some freaked out angry crazy guy a few times, etc., and then you want to just solve the problem, maybe even in a Rudy Guliani sort of way.
Still, the article says the houses can be mass produced for $50,000 each. That doesn't say anything about the land. I don't care where you live, construction isn't that expensive. It's a tiny pre-fab house, and you could travel to about 20 businesses on the Gulf freeway that would sell you a really nice double wide for $50K. I agree, dorm style housing would make a whole lot more sense. Give the people their own room, and have a community room/kitchen/bathrooms/laundry. It's more efficient, cheaper, and easier to maintain. Plus, the goal shouldn't be to stick these people into a shack by themselves. Give them a place where they can get counseling, job training, and support.
Has anyone else seen the 'homeless camp' over on the grassy area at Allen Parkway & Montrose? There is a pack of 4-6 homeless people who basically live there under that tree. They take turns occupying various corners of the intersection and holding up the signs. They even have a pet dog. That is a very nice area over there, and they are completely devaluing the property by scaring visitors and making the park completely unsafe after dark. I have been plotting ways to run them off, but haven't found any that are socially acceptable yet. I'm open to ideas.
