Tent Cities on Oprah Today
This is a little off topic but a good example of one of the many problems simple owner-built tiny houses could solve… and a story worth listening to. I also hope that stories like this begin to wake up local governments all over America to the fact that blocking the construction of small, inexpensive, owner-built homes must be changed. An increase in safe alternative housing should be a big part of the economic solution. But I digress…
Oprah will be focusing on the recession on her show today. One of the stories is about the increasing number of tent cities popping up around America. The tent city they spotlight in the story is just miles from where I live and in California’s state capital.
Below are still images from the video clips that are now on Oprah’s website. If you can’t be in front of the tube today when the story is on the air, you can get a preview on Oprah’s website right now or later. Very sad stuff. Photo credit Harpo Productions, Inc.
[...] people finding themselves with nothing but debt and homelessness. Part of the story was about the tent cities popping up all across America. The tent city they visited was actually not that far from my home [...]
The only surprise is that this hasn’t happened sooner. All levels of government had better get their acts together soon and not just banning these or the usual NIMBY “move on” impetus. Look at the real urban blight areas like Sao Paulo or Mumbai to see what could be a chilling prophecy of the cities of the lower US.
Small/Tiny house communities are vastly more preferred especially with properly designed water and waste facilities over haphazard “temporary” cities that only fit the needs of a few.
It won’t take much to overwhelm the system if ignored.
I am afraid that tiny owner-built houses would not address the problem, because the problem is not lack of housing. “Homelessness” is a misnomer: landlessness is the real issue — and even that is a misnomer, because of course the land exists: what is lacking is the permission to exist on it. The “homeless” have no place where they have permission to exist. Thus, they are continuously rousted by the police. The idea of going out and building a little cabin for yourself like Thoreau only works when you’re cozy with the owners of Walden Pond. Those without land-owner connections — the truly landless — would be foolish to build a permanent structure; it would only be torn down. Even a tent is in danger of being lost in a police action (e.g., if you are arrested and your tent is left behind by the police).
However, *nomadic* shelter, sanitation, etc., would indeed be a boon to the homeless. (Something like R. B. Fuller’s fog-gun, for example, would be a good thing to distribute to the homeless.) But it has to be truly nomadic, capable of being carried by foot, along with all other possessions, without added difficulty. (It must prove itself in terms of weight: to the nomad, the cost of a thing is not its price, but its weight.)
You’re going to have a hard time beating a tent on this: it’s designed exactly for this purpose.
The one design that would be most beneficial, the one design that is really needed, I think — is a sanitary, nomadic bathroom. This would greatly increase the mobility of the homeless, who are always in search of public bathrooms.
Thanks Andrew. Well said.
I guess my underlying assumption is that people without homes want homes. I suspect this is true for those recently made homeless by our current economic trouble. As I noodle over the possible solutions I’m also assuming that the authorities must help find low-cost solutions that are easily implemented and provide shelter, security, and dignity. With these things people who want out of their tents will be more easily able to find jobs and make opportunities for themselves. Without the space (land) and blessing of the local governments low-cost housing is not going to be possible. Tents will be the only option as you point out.
For those who want to remain truly nomadic, al la Christopher McCandless (movie: Into The Wild), a tent and migrating with the seasons is hard to beat. But I suspect there are few of there folks out there and fewer being forced their by economic hardship. However I do agree that a better nomadic shelter would be beneficial as an immediate solution I just can’t imagine anything better than a tent, sleeping bag, and bike. But I don’t think these things will help to solve the bigger problem and help these folks back on their feet.
As far as the nomadic bathroom maybe using simple ideas like a sawdust toilet and composting humanure might be real options. Not sure how this could be implemented on a wide scale or how the general public or authorities to accept such a simple solution. But even this would have challenges because it would be up to each person to help make it work.
The optimistic side of me still thinks that building tiny house communities that empower people instead of simply legalizing tent cities, which seem to trap people, could be a valuable part of the solution.
> I’m also assuming that the authorities must help
> find low-cost solutions that are easily
> implemented and provide shelter, security, and
> dignity.
But, sadly, this is not a justified assumption. “The authorities” are perfectly capable of ignoring even very embarrassing problems. Look at the Feds and the Gulf oil leak, if you doubt.
Remember, it was “the authorities” that created the homeless problem to begin with. It was they who increased the required size of a home, a lot, bathrooms, heating, cooling, sanitation – try getting an occupancy permit for some place without a septic system and see where you end up. Most localities will not accept a composting toilet.
“The authorities” frequently wish to (look like they are out to) eliminate problems, and one problem was plummeting land values because of “substandard” housing. Viola! We make “substandard housing” illegal and we now have no more of it. Case closed, government uber alles! But people in “substandard” housing do so because they can’t AFFORD better. So we replace the “substandard housing problem” with the “homeless problem.” But it’s a lot easier to deal with the homeless, you just call the cops. The REAL problem – declining property values – has been solved.
We do the same thing with the minimum wage. Not everyone in the job market needs to make enough to support a family or a home, but we treat EVERY job as if that were true. The net result of this is that any job worth LESS than the minimum wage to the job provider simply evaporates. An opportunity to make SOMETHING, to at least get experience to use for another, better, job later, is gone. The minimum wage, in effect, removes the very bottom of the ladder to affluence. The bottom line, anyone whose own circumstances and family don’t permit jumping that gap remain forever in poverty. And dependent on the government. Which is why the government likes all this – admitting it out loud would enrage right-thinking people, but lying about it gets them re-elected.
It’s the way life works. I’d fix it if I could.
Well thank goodness Lady Oprah ‘tackled’ the topic – now, homelessness is a legitmate problem!
Because of her, hausfraus all over the US will think about homelessness for a nanosecond longer than usual, before they head off to the mall in their oversized, overpriced SUV’s.
they should keep pepper spray …. for the cops…
“Landlessness?” if you step back and look, the City Government often will prevent you from using your own land for your own purposes. Why? Taxes. A $15,000 Micro House and a $600,000 Mc Mansion can sit on the same plot of land, which generates more taxes and which is favored by the Mayor & his code enforcer Nazis?
The obvious answer is to live out side of the city limits but that puts you further from jobs and services.
Now where I live (Louisiana) there are thousands of Micro Houses but called “Camps.” As temporary structures they fall outside of the code enforcer’s purview. Reachable only by boat or private road they are invisible. Another option is camouflage, an inhabited structure and an abandoned structure can look a lot alike and for some reason abandoned structures don’t seem to raise the eyebrows of Code Enforcement the way new construction does. Consider renovating say an old gas station, just do not change the outside. As an existing structure nobody cares whether it meets code for a residence.
I am always searching for low affordable housing for my own retirement – sadly it is true that taxes will always force us to look at life a bit different and dificult as well as code onforcement tactics to make us react in a negative way – the rural area outside city limits provide a really good option (if land is available) fortunately, other countries outside the U.S. also offer viable options with less taxes and No code enforcement