December 18, 2017
Putting the Homeless in the Dog House
Timothy Birdnow
Here is an example of stupidty on parade - and the impetus of doing something for the sake of feeling good rather than accomplisning anything positive.
Gramd Metropolitan Servoces are building tiny houses for the homeless in the St. Louis area.
From the article: "Since the St. Louis homeless population has remained a steady 1,750 people since 2014, this campaign is becoming crucial as the harsh winter approaches. Within three months of creating the project’s GoFundMe page, they have almost raised $31,000 of their $75,000 goal, so surely it will be a success. The total will be used to create three tiny homes, with two people residing in each. However, Executive Director of the NGNS Donna Torrillo added promptly that this number is simply "how we would start out,†as she assures that they hope to help more in need throughout St. Louis in the future."
End excerpt.
Why is this stupid? Because:
1. The City of St. Louis is full of abandoned houses that can be picked up for just a few thousand dollars, or less. Many are free; abandoned by their owners as the neighborhoods deteriorated. Rehabbing will be cheaper than building a tiny new house, which still requires all the expense of basic services, like heating, water, sewer, etc. Much of this is already in abandoned homes.
2. You still have to pay for the lot you are putting the house upon. You can get the lot for free with an existing property.
3. Many homeless are mentally ill. Is it a good idea to stuff two people into a space between 250 and 400 square feet? How many murders are going to occur because two unstable people are stuffed into too small an area?
4. These people will still be renters, with the same mentality. I remember a project in North St. Louis by Habitat for Humanity; a new subdividsion that was completely torn down, destroyed by the people it was intended to serve. Why? Because you can't change the people who are being helped, and they are not what one would call good tenants.New houoses are often more fragile than the old city properties (which were made of brick and plaster) and will not last long with these sorts of people.
This is typical liberalism; homeless people are just like the rest of us only they don't have a place to live. It never occurs to the liberal to think that the homeless are in that state because they are not responsible people. Most homeless are drug abusers or mentally ill. Those who aren't remain homeless for a short amount of time before getting back on their feet, so have little use for a tiny home.
If we were to give a man a doghouse to live in we would be called cruel and heartless. If a liberal does it he is called innovative. Go figure.
Here is an example of stupidty on parade - and the impetus of doing something for the sake of feeling good rather than accomplisning anything positive.
Gramd Metropolitan Servoces are building tiny houses for the homeless in the St. Louis area.
From the article: "Since the St. Louis homeless population has remained a steady 1,750 people since 2014, this campaign is becoming crucial as the harsh winter approaches. Within three months of creating the project’s GoFundMe page, they have almost raised $31,000 of their $75,000 goal, so surely it will be a success. The total will be used to create three tiny homes, with two people residing in each. However, Executive Director of the NGNS Donna Torrillo added promptly that this number is simply "how we would start out,†as she assures that they hope to help more in need throughout St. Louis in the future."
End excerpt.
Why is this stupid? Because:
1. The City of St. Louis is full of abandoned houses that can be picked up for just a few thousand dollars, or less. Many are free; abandoned by their owners as the neighborhoods deteriorated. Rehabbing will be cheaper than building a tiny new house, which still requires all the expense of basic services, like heating, water, sewer, etc. Much of this is already in abandoned homes.
2. You still have to pay for the lot you are putting the house upon. You can get the lot for free with an existing property.
3. Many homeless are mentally ill. Is it a good idea to stuff two people into a space between 250 and 400 square feet? How many murders are going to occur because two unstable people are stuffed into too small an area?
4. These people will still be renters, with the same mentality. I remember a project in North St. Louis by Habitat for Humanity; a new subdividsion that was completely torn down, destroyed by the people it was intended to serve. Why? Because you can't change the people who are being helped, and they are not what one would call good tenants.New houoses are often more fragile than the old city properties (which were made of brick and plaster) and will not last long with these sorts of people.
This is typical liberalism; homeless people are just like the rest of us only they don't have a place to live. It never occurs to the liberal to think that the homeless are in that state because they are not responsible people. Most homeless are drug abusers or mentally ill. Those who aren't remain homeless for a short amount of time before getting back on their feet, so have little use for a tiny home.
If we were to give a man a doghouse to live in we would be called cruel and heartless. If a liberal does it he is called innovative. Go figure.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0131, elapsed 0.2855 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2795 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2795 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
