Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
Exactly HOW does a homeless person PAY rent?I'm still trying to figure out why anyone's assuming the tenant would be in one's yard at all. We are talking about a city, not the suburbs.He is talking about them and their friend shitting in the yard.It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
Backyard and garage that could be made into a dwelling for a homeless person
Here's a different building with space behind the house for a small dwelling. To renovate the space to accommodate a tenant, a small portion of one side or the other would have to be converted into a walkway to access the main building and to store the trash bins. One can see that was done for the home above. I doubt the owner of that building would do so, but the point of the photo is merely to illustrate that a tenant in a backyard space need not even have access to the backyard.
The property owner of the house just above probably doesn't want to convert his/her parking area into a dwelling, but maybe they'd consider it...after all, the only real change would be to the stairs that lead to the alley behind the house.
The above homes are in D.C., which is the setting I described in my initial post. Here's one from Los Angeles.
Nobody's requiring that one participate in the program being proposed. Obviously, not every property is going to lend itself to the owner's availing themselves of the program's opportunity. That any given individual or given property isn't suited to participating does not make the program/idea a bad one that shouldn't be implemented and participated in by folks who are of a mind to do so. The program offers a win-win situation for homeowners who want an affordable way to upgrade their property by adding a revenue producing structure to it and for homeless folks who need a place to stay.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
And you are nuts if you think you are more at risk from a co-worker than from a drug using sidewalk shitter homeless person.
Ah, I see. Policy/politics based on fear. Umm humm.....I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
And you are nuts if you think you are more at risk from a co-worker than from a drug using sidewalk shitter homeless person.
Horror stories, schmorror stories...You asserted that:I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
And you are nuts if you think you are more at risk from a co-worker than from a drug using sidewalk shitter homeless person.Horror stories, schmorror stories...You asserted that:I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
I'm not asking you to do anything other than show that your claim is factually and contextually accurate. Can you do so or not?These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
I live in a guest house in a back yard. The county wants to tear down all rentals on private property that are not multifamily apartments.
They are confused.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
It's not the worst idea I've ever heard of for trying to help homeless people.
I realize that a lot of you may consider the idea from the standpoint of 50-somethings living in the 'burbs with 2.5 kids. In that setting, no, the idea probably isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine folks in Hancock Park participating in the initiative. Echo Park, Highland Park, Central L.A., Los Feliz, Hollywood proper, maybe Silver Lake, other areas that aren't suburban feeling...sure I can see folks there giving it a try.
If on the other hand one considers the matter as might a young person or as a DINK couple buying their first home in the city, it's not at all a terrible idea. Many young professionals buy homes in the city because they are fixer-uppers on nice lots in transitioning areas -- parts of the city that are somewhat depressed (thus the price is right, so to speak), but that are on the upswing -- and because being in the city offers many conveniences, not the least of which is a vibrant social life and short commute times or reverse commutes to their office in the commercial 'burbs.
The noted proposal would be great for first-time buyers of that sort. It provides them with a bit of supplemental income, provides them with some pre-AGI tax deduction opportunities, and allows them to make a substantial improvement to their property at a greatly reduced net cost. Insofar as we're talking about residents in transitioning areas, the homeless people are still there; thus encountering them is something the new buyers will have to do anyway.
The first house I bought in D.C., was in a section of town that is posh now, but back then it was several blocks east of the ongoing "urban renewal." It took about three years for my street to become part of what was then called "trendy" and over a decade for it to become posh, but that was okay because that's what I was banking on happening and it did. It was three story row house that had fallen into disrepair, but it had "tight" space for three cars to park behind the house, and it was in the center of the city. I could walk to the bars and clubs I liked in Georgetown and Adams Morgan. There were grocers, restaurants, dry cleaners, ample taxi service, etc., and the Metro was a few blocks away.
That said, when the weather was particularly bad, homeless folks would break into my car and sleep in it. I'm not the only person to whom that happened. It was a fairly common occurrence. Eventually, I got wise and stopped locking the car. I left a note in the front and rear windows: "The car isn't locked. If you need a dry place to sleep, fine, but please don't damage the car and open the door if you're going to smoke."
That solved the problem. The homeless person(s) who used my car for shelter got what they needed and I got what I needed. They weren't bothering me, so I had no reason to be irked with them. Hell, every once in a while, I'd go out to find someone had washed my car -- I suspect they were drinking my water too and using it to rinse piss away, which, frankly, didn't bother me because had my parking spot started to smell of piss, I'd have put up a fence in a NY minute --- or dug the snow out from around the car. On occasion, I'd leave a snack or something to drink. Christmas time'd come and I'd leave a case of beer and $50. The beer cans ended up in my trash bins.
That went on for several years before I eventually got round to converting my parking space into a garage. I sure wouldn't have minded the city offering me a deal to convert part of my parking space into a small flat of sorts, I'd most certainly have taken the deal.
The thing about living in a city is that one is sooner or later going to encounter and develop some sort of relationship with folks who are very different from oneself. One can either embrace that happenstance and foment positive relationships or one can be an ass. Frankly, I think it takes less energy and is more rewarding to do the former than it does to be the latter. So long as we're talking just homeless people, I don't have a problem with them -- of course, there's a "bad apple" here and there, I won't deny that -- for just being halfway decent toward them is enough to get the same in return.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
And you are nuts if you think you are more at risk from a co-worker than from a drug using sidewalk shitter homeless person.Horror stories, schmorror stories...You asserted that:I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
I'm not asking you to do anything other than show that your claim is factually and contextually accurate. Can you do so or not?These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
I am predicting what will happen to homeowners who agree to let the homeless live in their yards. Once the politicians see the benefit of getting shitting homeless people off of the public sidewalks, they will make sure that said homeless people remain Somebody Else's Problem.
Here's the flaw that makes this a big problem: Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights. Urban property owners already have horrible problems with rent control and other renters's rights that destroy own's property rights. Ceding control to some homeless people, who likely have substance abuse or other behavioral problems that contributed to their homeless condition, is a recipe for disaster. What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp? What happens the to refuse? How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate? These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them. They will look like heroes (in the Prog Media) for clearing the streets and putting the homeless in one's backyard (making them Somebody Else's Problem).
I say No Calcutta in my backyard.Allowing the homeless units in one's yard is going to void one's property rights.
- What specific property rights?
- By what specific mechanism do you imagine taking a tenant constitutes giving up any right for which one is not given consideration?
Who said anything about ceding control beyond the scope of a typical renter-landlord relationship/transaction?Ceding control to some homeless people
What?What happens when their homeless network lands in your hard and sets up camp?
- The landlord would have a renter-landlord relationship with only the person(s) to whom he's renting the space, not some "network" of people. Obviously, the formerly homeless tenant can have guests over, but they can't occupy the yard indefinitely. If they do, the landlord calls the cops and has the usurpers removed, pressing charges if need be.
- If one has any such concerns as you've described, the preemptive solution is simple. The rental agreement need only stipulate what portion of the property is considered "common" and what portions are to be considered the domain of the landlord and the renter.
What?What happens the to refuse?
It's not impossible for a landlord to evict anyone who doesn't have title or an active rental contract. There's a process one must go through, but evicted the unauthorized/unwanted tenant will be.These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
The above is an ambiguously vitriolic remark that does not benefit the conversation and that makes you seem mad. Employers and coworkers routinely allow folks who have communicable ailments to come into the workplace. Schools do the same with kids, who, are the most prolific disease vectors around.How much of a disease vector should one be willing to accommodate?
I can assure you that one is far more likely to contract something from a coworker, checkout clerk, passenger on a subway train, touching a door handle, picking up a bag of chips in a grocery store, etc. than one is from a tenant who occupies a space that one need not enter and that one would not typically enter while the tenant is living there. My tenants surely get (have gotten) sick and, to date, I have yet to catch anything from any of them.
I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
And you are nuts if you think you are more at risk from a co-worker than from a drug using sidewalk shitter homeless person.Horror stories, schmorror stories...You asserted that:I suggest you read up on the horror stories of landlords in San Francisco and Berkeley who have tenants from hell that they cannot evict.
I'm not asking you to do anything other than show that your claim is factually and contextually accurate. Can you do so or not?These homeless will be sacred cows to the politicians who will make sure it is impossible to evict them.
I am predicting what will happen to homeowners who agree to let the homeless live in their yards. Once the politicians see the benefit of getting shitting homeless people off of the public sidewalks, they will make sure that said homeless people remain Somebody Else's Problem.
I can just see homes forced to host the homeless getting their pools transitioned to very large toilets.
