The reason that so many people are reluctant to help poor, homeless people is because of the stigmas you clearly attached in your comment. Check out this site to see what is actually going on http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/addiction.html. There are many other factors besides addictive behavior that contribute to the increase in population of homeless, such as our capitalistic economy which promotes competitiveness in jobs, such that there are always people at the bottom. Just be careful before you stereotype too heavily. 

I agree Whitney that we should be careful not to stereotype a homeless person, and we need to treat each individual as a person with unique background struggling with particular issues.

Having said that, I think Eric also has a point in saying that transitional housing and shelters have a responsibility to ensure the people making use of the facilities respect certain rules, i.e. smoking (fire hazard), drug use, etc. It is not a matter of stereotyping them, but expecting certain responsibilities when they sign on for help. It is the similar expectations when banks receive taxpayer bailout. They can do whatever they want with their own money, but they need to sign on to responsible behavior when they accept taxpayer help.

Eric, I would think these transitional shelters would be a great help to your community, to encourage more stability like looking for work, etc. Feeding the poor is very good work, but it is not sufficient to help them get off the despair of joblessness, homelessness, and hopelessness. A home with privacy, with self-respect, with stability, that's what will help the homeless to find a better way to spend their day than harassing innocent people for money. By the way, most homeless do not do that. You only see and remember the few that do.

Funny how you think we should adopt strict substance policies for housing. You know that won't work and will only force people to feel more ostracisized, vitimized, and take away their liberty  under the constitution. I say let them do whatever hey want. Have you ever researched the happiest country on earth, Denmark, and how they treat this problem? Ever heard of Christiania in downtown Copenhagen? It's a small community that's a model for civility and appropriateness in dealing with people in that kind of need. Do some research and get back to me.

Here's the issue with shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks: they require homeless people to keep hours completely different from those needed to maintain a job.  Shelter kicks people out at 7, breakfast is at a church across town at 9, lunch is at the Elks' Lodge ten miles away at noon, have to line up to guarantee a bed at the shelter (half-way across town) by three because they let people in at six for dinner and it fills up fast.  When do you have time to look for a job, let alone keep one?  Remember, you have no money so you can't just hop on a bus.

At least these houses have enough space for some bedding, proper work clothes, and non-perishable food items from a local food bank.  People can come and go as they please which means they actually have time to get jobs.  It's not much help, but it can easily be the difference between re-entering society and continuing to be homeless forever.

I haven't look up the Danish experience yet, but I am sure there are many viable options. With regard to food bank etc, and the difficult to find work, and other facilities, I believe Dale suggested an excellent idea using community gardens, especially those located near high density urban areas where these facilities are readily accessible. 

I agree that the key to success for these transitional shelters is to ensure that they are transitional, and not become a permanant residence for those who use them.

Wow I think you misunderstood the purpose of these houses Eric its not for those people who are homeless due to drugs or addictions or poor decisions but for the victims of this uncertain economy that people like you and me are pawns of. Way to be a cynic....

Good point, Daisy. Thanks for pointing it out.

Not every homeless person is the same. There are as many reasons for homelessness as there are people. Stereotyping does nothing to solve the problem, nor to understand the situation so a solution can be found. In fact, like most other times, stereotyping is simply misleading and causes more problems. Cynism is just plain nasty...like Rush Limbaugh.

Do you want someone to regulate your tobacco and alcohol use, simply because they pay more taxes than you?  This is faulty logic.

Mary, I assume you are referring to regulations in the tiny house communities, and not some other discussion outside this blog.

I think it is wise to provide structure and a safe place for all residents in the community. What people choose to do on their own is fine. What people choose to do inside the community must be consistent with the goals of the community. Smoking and drinking can be done away from those who are struggling with addiction issues. All it takes is a little consideration.

As for regulating tobacco and alcohol use, outside of this blog's topic, we already do that in society at large. We forbid sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors. We forbid drinking and driving to some extent. We regulate smoking in certain places.

Freedom does not mean doing whatever you like whenever you like. Freedom means having choices. We can choose to live alone in the middle of nowhere away from society, or we can choose to live a in community, and follow the rules fo the community.

I totally agree with you, my biggest problem with these would be complacency in not even attempting to raise yourself out of your living condition. Why would you, as long as you have a house over your head and enough people giving you hand outs. Look they seem to be efficient enough for a single homeless person and warm and safe, that's a great thing...for a transitioning homeless person who may have just got put out there house and and still working, or a person who's been on the street but are actively involved in programs to get them off the streets. But simply supplying them with the means to escape personal responsibility in caring for themselves, while being a burden on society is not the way.

This is only one possible solution for the many different types of homelessness. For the newly unemployed or small family evicted due to toxic mortgages, these tiny homes, and transitional shelters are all they need for a month or so before finding more permanent solutions.

These are not intended for those severed challenged with mental illness and addictions, who require more care and supervision to ensure that they are on their road to recovery and independence.

We would never prescribe the same medication to everyone who walks into a hospital. Why would we use the same solution for everyone who is homeless?

You have a good point, Gerald. I don't know if the Gates Foundation or the Buffett Foundation provide any funding to shelters and help for the homeless.

Perhaps we should send letters to them to ask them. It wouldn't hurt.

Andrew, that too is a great idea, a grass roots campaign of letter writing and emailing these rich jerks and let them know how we think they ought to act. Why not, they seem to care so much about what the gov.thinks about their money and how it's spent,why not we consumers who put that money in their pockets?

Actually, you can only write off a certain amount of charitable contributions on your taxes and non-profits can only accept a certain amount from each individual before they have to pay taxes on it themselves.  Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc have set up 501(c)3s *because* of that problem, they contribute well above and beyond what they're allowed to write off.  Bill Gates in particular gives a higher percentage of his income to charity than just about anyone in the US and certainly more than anyone in his tax bracket.  Acting as if all billionaires/millionaires are somehow greedy is more than a little short sighted.

Plus, most people who quite literally live on the street can't be rehabilitated simply with money.  If you hand the average guy asking for change $100,000 he won't know what to do with it.  It's been too long since he's been a part of society and he doesn't remember how it works.  If he does remember he's generally too ashamed of his appearance to do any of it.  Can't go to a barber because he looks horrible, but can't start looking better until he does.  It's a cycle that has to be broken before any real change can happen.

Tobias, that's my point they give all this money to these so called charities and what do they do with it, ? They spend it mostly on their own infrastructure as in the CEO of the United Way of the Willamette valley gets paid $500,000 a year!!! And then they have their own office building, That's where I think they do no real work they just act like they do and advertize that they do. As a matter of fact if they give so much to charity as you say then why not just hire back the people they've fired in the past and pay them to do nothing instead of getting a write off for taxes again....There is just no excuse for someone to be that wealthy and be so greedy that they can't just say, Who needs money? How much do you need mom on welfare with 4 kids??? and so on and son on. If they waould just search out the people themselves and help, that is charity..not tithing or United ways...no! Actually sharing your wealth with real people, that is charity.

I would be happy to create an action to petition Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and anyone else you may think rich enough, and generous enough to help.

It would not hurt to try. Even a small donation from their foundations will be very helpful in the starting phase.

Gerald definitely has a point about the amount of waste that occurs in the charity system.  I worked as a fundraiser for a cancer society and I learned a lot of the nitty gritty details these not-for-profit and non-profit charities really don't want the public to know.  Truth is, the vast majority, put 10% or less of the donations they recieve back into helping the people the money was donated for.  The rest goes to pay (sometimes ridiculous) salaries, paying for advertising and renting office space.

The aforementioned United Way hovers around a 9% giveback value for donations.

I don't agree with you statistics but I have never worked as a fundraiser so I don't have your insider information. 10% seems a bit low.  I can't imagine United Way, with a budget of millions require an overhead of over 90% for administration. For smaller charities, the fix cost may be high.

Warren Buffett put his money with the Bill Gates Foundation precisely for that reason, to reduce the overhead cost of administration so that all his money would go to help people.

I think this is getting way off topic, but it's worth discussing briefly to ensure that any agency responsible to create these temporary shelters make use of existing resources as much as possible, and NOT re-invent the wheel, creating more bureaucracy.

Andrew, as I gazed down the thread reading some posts to get an up to date feel for the thread and after rereading your post from the 8th I wanted to comment on the fact that you feel this is off topic. I want to say it is not off topic because this topic covers more than just these tiny houses. The reason we need these places is evident to me when we have people like Gates and Allen who are so greedy..Oh never mind,you get the idea. I only wanted to clarify that point.

Please allow me to clarify, Gerald. I think a discussion of charitable organization's efficiency with donations is off topic, but a discussion of getting donations from charitable organizations is very much part of the topic. I was disputing hypathia mcar's claim that United Way only pass through 10% of its donations to actually help people. That discussion, I believe, is off topic.

Getting Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to participate in any worth while charitable effort is always on topic in change.org in my opinion, because that is what their foundations aim to do, change the world in some way. It is especially relevant if we can convince Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to donate seed money to start these tiny houses in their respective communities. I don't know if there are community gardens in Seattle or Omaha, but the ones in Vancouver are beginning to find good reception.

I believe a discussion of how to improve charitable organizations' efficiency is very much on topic (although not to this blog) especially when the discussion is limited to construction suggestions to change, and not to pointing cynical fingers or smearing organizations that do not have a voice to defend themselves. For those organizations and non-profits that are on change.org, a good discussion to suggest ways to promote efficiency is always welcome, in my opinion.

I see what you're saying Andrew, You're right, discussion of a charities efficiency should be on another blog. Maybe I'll begin that blog somewhere and If I do I'll let you know where because I think we need to discuss the charity's role in the country besides it's infrastructure. What Hypatia said is true that only about 10% of united way's funds actually goes to improving lives.
 But,like you said, off topic and you're right.

I don't know much about organizational efficiency, Gerald. That's best left to CEOs and COOs with MBAs and other initials. I'd be happy to participate in the blog when you start it, but I doubt if I can contribute anything useful.
With respect to United Way's efficiency, I honestly have no idea, and have no connection with them in any way.

I agree with you, Joseph, that this particular solution is only good for people who are motivated to get out of homelessness and trying to achieve independence by acquiring a temporary mailing address, access to washing facilities, etc. Homeless addicts have to first complete rehabilitation programs, have been sober for a period of time to prove their commitment to the road of recovery before being admitted into these. The residents themselves, as a community, can decide if the specific individual can be admitted or not. The mechanism for admission will need to be worked out to ensure fairness and access for everyone who qualifies.

But, yes, I agree with you that we need more funding for programs to help addicts to first recognize their own addictions, and seek help to end their addiction. We cannnot help those who do not wish to be helped.

Having said that, I also believe society has an obligation to prevent people from killing themselves, whether quickly with a gun or slowly with addiction. It is why I believe it was wrong for the decision, whoever made it, to save cost by reducing the programs that kept the mentally ill in hospitals. But that's another topic.

Where does society's obligation end? If someone smokes crack, you can lock them up in a mental hospital because they're "killing themselves...slowly."  What if they smoke a lot of cigarettes?  Or eat a lot of doughnuts?  There were both good and bad reasons for decreasing the number of people in mental institutions.  Often, people's families locked them up there for years, even for life, because they did not conform to social norms, even if they weren't hurting anyone.  We have to be VERY careful about the conditions under which we take people's liberty away.  In considering where to draw the line, remember this lesson from Nazi Germany "Heute ich. . . morgen du." (Today me...tomorrow you.)

Very good point, Celilia. This blog was originally meant to discuss those made homeless by the economic storm, presumably those who are newly unemployed, or even still employed but evicted due to mortgage foreclosures.

I agree with you on two points, that there were good and bad reasons for decreasing the number of people in mental institutions, and that we have to be VERY careful when we decide to take away people's liberty. I believe there are many court decisions to consider competence etc. I do NOT advocate simply locking up people because they are addicts. I believe they NEED resources which allow them to make sound decisions for their own future. This may mean signing for a fixed term program to kick the addiction, or achieve mental health. I also believe no single mental health professional can decide after a brief examination if a person is fit or competent or not. Mental health is a complex issue that deserves its own discussion, separate from the homelessness issue.

Suffice it to say here, that these tiny houses and temporary shelters are not designed to help addicts and mentally ill. They need additional resources that require institutional settings, by that I mean full-time professionals in mental health and social welfare, NOT simply the rooms for lockup.

And to answer the question regarding killing themselves slowly with cigarettes, I believe governments should do everything possible to discourage and prevent people from smoking. This includes public service announcements, teen outreach programs, higher taxes, restriction in smoking areas, and even higher taxes for smokers to cover health care costs. Simple prohibition has proven to be ineffective with alcohol, so it is with tobacco. But that's another topic entirely.

You beat me to it, Dale. After I posted the action to petition President Obama to create transitional shelters out of these tiny houses, I realized there are issues involved, such as location as you suggested.

I like the home gardening idea, especially since Vancouver has been successful with a recent innovation called urban community gardening. These tiny houses can be located in these community gardens. The bathing facilities will be more difficult. However, once you recommended community gardens, everything else fell into place in my mind. These gardens are usually located in high density urban settings, with coin laundry nearby, and community centers with swimming pool, and shower facilities. Most people on social assistance are often provided with free community center membership. Food preparation is not a big issue if these tiny houses share a community kitchen with simple appliances. I think this is a really workable idea. I will edit the petition to reflect these suggestions. Thank you for your input.

The design from Emily Carr University is not stackable. Although there is no technical reason why a stackable design cannot be made, I think for sociological reasons, a stackable design is not a good idea.

Stacking creates higher density communities, and also accessibility issues. These are not problematic in permanent housing communities but for transitional shelters, the cost (both monetary and social) is not justified by the cost savings in economy.  However, clustering them, for example four or six in a cluster, will create the same economy without the disadvantages of stacking.

I am not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic, since Eric wasn't proposing what you suggested, but was merely saying he didn't want his tax dollars going to cozy little houses for bums.

But, I like the scenerio you painted, which brings to mind an online voting democracy of sorts, even if we do not have this in the real government, it is a great way for a new game or online community. Are you listening change.org?

It's almost like the fantasy stock portfolios that were in vogue a while back (before the bear market). Every participant receives a certain amount of dollars, and they can vote for line items in the budget with those dollars. What would be REALLY interesting, is the impact in terms of services the voting creates. Let's say you vote to increase budget for law and order, but not health care. A few turns later, a roll of the dice and you need health care. Or, you voted for health care, but a roll of the dice, or perhaps as a choice of life style (going out late drinking in the seedy part of town, say) and you need law enforcement.

That's a whole different web site than change.org, but I think the voting mechanism is simple enough. Maybe the video games company, the sim genre can do something for public service. Hint, hint.

I kinda thought you were being rhetorical. However, your rhetoric makes a lot of sense, and the technology really is available to allow individuals to vote for line items on a budget. This was never available in the past, so participatory democracy has arrived at a new level.

I don't think we can yet translate these votes into actual implementation by the executive branches, but at least the legislative branch will have a better idea of their consitutents take on what is happening. My comment about sim games taking the vote to the next level was sort of rhetorical as well.

In fact, change.org is in essence what participatory democracy is about, each individual voting with actions and comments in terms of what they support or oppose. A voting system using budgetary dollars would be easier to tabulate and provide easier statistical analysis. Any social entrepreneur out there who wants to start on this idea, please let me know. I'd be happy to participate.

At least someone is trying to do something about the homeless problem in this country. Anyone would rather have one of these than a tent. One of the most important issues about them however is the toilet facilities and running water. These two things are the most enlightening objects a person can posess. By that I mean that when someone has control of their environment they feel a lot better about themselves and we all know the first step to stepping up is self motivation and it's hard to get motivated when you see you and your children trudging down to the "waterhole" to clean up and toilet and all the other very personal things a family might need in order to help the transition. Yes I'm focusing on families but I just wanted to make a point about the impersonal way these little houses might make a mother and father feel as they realizes that their little girl and boy will have to use public facilities and a toilet "trough" or impersonal multi showers.Just a thought is all please don't scold me.But it is a great idea and it needs a little more think time but they can be a real solution IMO. if we can just figure out the toilet situation.

I believe the second photo shows a kind of sink, so there would be running water. I am not sure if there is a toilet but it should not be a problem. It is why I thought the clustering idea is great, because the plumbing can be located together for half a dozen of these tiny houses, and saves a lot on piping.

Even just a little privacy, like have a door that you can lock, or an address that you can put on a job application, gives a homeless person the dignity to make a big difference.

Andrew your point is well taken and I believe we're on the same track. That was my point in my earlier post about the privacy issue for families. Yes, even a locked door to put one's valuables is very uplifting for someone who has probably carried their home on their back or in their trunk,whichever senerio fits. I was trying to look at it from the perspective of a father with 5 children who loses his job and finally their home . It would be very hard for a man like that to be very comfortable leaving his children alone so he can look for work and this and that and...like I said before there's a lot more thought that would have to be put in this issue. And as you said,sometimes all that's needed is a roof and a warm address to give one that extra step up.

Thanks Gerald. I am on the same track and have been thinking the detail logistics further. For example, it's fine to have an address but what about mail delivery and Internet access. These are finer points worth considering when looking for work. You bring up a good point for single parents, child care. It is why the location of these tiny houses in a community garden located in urban settings would make sense, where child care facilities are more readily available. In fact, I have been thinking a kind of "senior resident" would be good to take care of mail delivery and generally looking after the place. I am not sure if a single person can also look after the residents' children as well, depending on the number and age, of course. There are a lot of detailed concerns that need addressing to make it work. It's not simply building the shelters and they will come. Fields of dream have to be realistic, too.

 The logistics of such a program is always the largest roadblock to any program. Your idea Andrew of a senior resident or something similar is a good idea also. The huts could be arranged around a central courtyard/garden, where everyone contributes to growing veggies and such and neighborhood watch would be automatic since everyone will know each other and be part of their small "hood". Depending on the size of the property these hoods could be set up in a grid like streets, only bikes and non motorized vehicles would be allowed within the hood. Yes there are many logistics to think about to make this type of shelter work. It would definately have to be policed seprately I think because of the circumstances with children living in the situation.My one definate must have IMO is absolute safety for children to be able to be comfortable in this type of situation. And you're right about internet and such,these things are paramount to getting a job now a days.

I was thinking of the opposite, instead of the houses on the periphery facing into a central courtyard, these tiny houses would be clustered (facing out) along paths in an urban community garden. Security would be provided by public openness (as in villages in the old days) so there would be no hidden spaces.

I have been thinking that more than one senior resident will be needed. Probably a council or tribunal of senior residents to make decisions and share responsibilities, like mail and child care services, etc. The detailed social structure can vary depending on the composition of the residents. If there are more single residents, the focus of the community will be different than if there are more families with small children, or families with teenagers. All this is academic until there is a physical and political infrastructure to accomodate people with needs.

Thanks for the link, Kelli. EDAR is a really brilliant design for its purpose, but at $500 for a singler person, compared to $1500 for a tiny house that can potentially house a family of three or four, I don't see it as a better solutio
EDAR is designed for those who do NOT want to go to a shelter. I can see EDAR working really well as semi-permanent shelter for a sub-group of the homeless, those who are mentally ill and addicts. Personally, I'd like to see them cared for in better facilities, but if they refuse, EDAR is a compromise solution to keep them out of the elements. Hopefully, with enough trust and communication, they will accept more permanent solutions, such as tiny house shelters, rehabilitation, and eventual independence.

I think that has to be the ultimiate goal. A mobile tent is still a tent, and the person is still homeless. We want to eradicate homelessness so that anyone who wants a home has one. Again, if the person does NOT want a home, or independence, then EDAR is a brilliant compromise.

Hey,thanks for the link to wikipedia. It is definitely interesting. I can see this is a very attractive place, but even in Amsterdam, I doubt it will work. Danes have been known to be very active and civic minded. The mission statement calls for very responsible self government. The biker gang eviction, for example, would never happen in America. A Freetown will be dominated by criminals. Just my opinion, and I may be wrong on this. In order for this concept to work, you need a critical mass of very strong and dedicated inviduals in the core group of founders, who are willing to work hard to fight against government, police, criminals, and most of all, selfish individuals who exploit the community for their own agenda.

I hope something like it can happen in America, or anywhere else in the world. It is a form of the communes that were attempted in the '60s by various groups. Few succeeded because sooner or later, the core founders left or were burned out or gave up.

Also the historical location is unique, which provides a form of protection because the Danish government would not dare marching in with force, in fear of damaging the irreplaceable historic buildings. There are not that many four hundred year old groups of buildings in North America.

Actually, some countries indeed put them on an island somewhere, or at least in a remote location, away from the drug dealers, the tempations.

That is the major issue with helping homeless addicts with cash alone. They do not have the power to make the right decisions for themselves, so until they are sober and on their own again, society has the responsibility and the obligation to help make those decisions for them, to give them back the freedom to make their own decisions.

Addictions must be made to go through rehabilitation before they can be given the freedom with cash, etc. We would never consider giving children hundreds of dollars and let them out of sight. Why would it be different for anyone who is incapacitated with drug addiction? It would be the equivalent of giving the keys to a drunk driver.

"Most homeless are content where they are" is simply stating the consequences of decades of social decay. People are remarkably adaptable, even addicts and homeless. They are content because that is the only way to survive on the streets. If they are not "content" then they would either get so depressed over the powerlessness of their ability to change their circumstance, and commit suicide (as many often do) or commit crimes to get the power they need to change. What may seem like being "content" is in fact apathy and fatalism.

When we have the political will and the social conscience to commit resources to help all the homeless, according to the needs of the individual rather than according to our own political agenda, then and only then will homelessness be eradicated. Until then, the poor and the homeless will always be among us.

That's a great design, Vinay, and I think as the website suggested, it is excellent for disaster relief and emergency shelters, for example during earthquakes, floods, and forest fires. These are certainly going to be in great demand as climate change makes mass migrations necessary.

For homelessness, I see a couple problems that are not addressed. Facilities for washing and toilets. Tiny houses may not be perfect, but I believe there are washing facilities. One can modify a hexayurt to add the wash basins, etc, but then the cost will be higher than $150. It will probably be cheaper than the tiny house, but I also see a significant psychological difference between houses built of wood versus the hexayurt. Perhaps it is just the video but they do not appear to be as structurally rigid as a tiny house. Has any tests been done on wind resistance, etc? The psychological impact of a solid secure privacy shelter cannot be under-estimated. It is the difference between living in a tent, and living in a hut or cabin. I believe the hexayurt is in between a tent and a cabin. A great design for the purpose of housing masses of people quickly and inexpensively, but not necessarily the best solution for urban homeless with specific needs.

We have to remember that there are those who are newly homeless, and therefore can be held to a higher standard, of safer, healthier living in the community of tiny houses. Those who have substance abuse problems who are not yet homeless should be held to the same standard to prevent them from sinking into homelessness.

Although there may not be paying jobs, there are many chores to be done in the community gardens, growing and harvesting vegetables, caring for the grounds, the children in the community, etc. In addition, volunteering in the community where the tiny houses are located would also provide opportunities to make connections with prospective employers. There is no shortage of tasks for residents to do.

I am seriously considering pulling together a proposal. Would you manage it as a paying job, a volunteer, or a resident? Which state are you located? What are your expectations? Please feel free to message me directly in private. I agree that we need to turn vision into action.

I have to say Michelle, you make a good point. They did look rather tiny when I first saw the pic and I'm glad you have a winesses eye to give one proper perspective. After thinking about it you're right these are very tiny and without even toilets they are set up to fail because there aren't enough homeless looking for anything remotely like this. I mean even the "cronic" homeless want an apartment or house they can come home to because they WANT to and not just have to go to another temporary shelter. 

Michelle, Gerald, I think you miss the point here. These are temporary shelters to allow those who are motivated to leave their plight of homelessness to find more permanent homes.

The tiny houses would allow them to have a fixed address, and yes, Michelle, by grouping these tiny houses in a community with a community facilitator, there will be social interaction and community support. The physical aspect of the solution is simple. We don't need hotels to house them for a few months. For that kind of money, you can help hundreds or thousands more. There has to be a point of balance in a time of crisis. You can spend the budget helping the first 100 people, or all the people with a little rationing.

Locating these communities of tiny houses near public Community Centers will solve the problem of toilets and shower facilities. However, if the photo is correct, I see a simplified version of a sink. That may not be, since you were actually visiting the structure, you would know better. Even if the initial design did NOT have plumbing, the cost of a simply sink and shower, and a toilet, would not add too much to the base cost of $1500. At $3000 say, it would still be much less expensive than most other shelter solutions, including hotels.

Andrew, I don't think I'm missing the point at all. I understand these are supposed to be "temporary" shelters, but like all things people tend to get possessive of things once they get their claws into it. They'll want to redesign it "improve" it and basically, possess it.  This isn't necessarily set in stone, as they say, it's rather a statement on the human condition and at this time that means greed as well as everything else. So when "we the people" get ahold of something we "scent mark" it just as any cat or dog would. We are, after all, only animals too. Then there's the toilet issue I commented on earlier in the thread and I wanted to reitterate the comment that one wants to have privacy in the toilet and especially for one's children, that's my concern. I don't know if you're a parent or not but trust me a mother hates it when her toddler or whatever has to go to the bathroom at a park and my concern is that, the concern moms and dads woiuld feel constanly in a place where if one has to "use the potty" in the middle of the night, what does a toddler do???

I am aware of human nature to make their homes more user friendly, more personalized. And the tiny homes are not adverse to that. You would be amazed at the amount of personalization students can do to their tiny dormitory rooms.

I agree with the need for toilet facilities, and if you retrace the discussion, I was understand the assumption that the tiny houses have them. If they do not, then it is not difficult to add that, at the cost of at most, doubling from $1500 to $3000 per tiny house.

None of these issues are deal-breakers for making these houses successful helping newly unemployed and newly foreclosed people and families to get a breathing space before finding a more permanent solution.

By the way, nobody seriously personalize their hotel rooms or any other temporary spaces. I agree that it will help small children feel more comfortable, but most adults will want to focus their energy on moving out of those tiny houses, not staying in them. These are NOT for longer term homeless cases.

Andrew, that's true most will not personalize a motel./hotel room but they at least do have their own toilets. Then if a person or family gets stuck in the system for a while, while they look for work or a way to make a living again. But in this economy especially, it might take someone a long time to find another job or at least a way to get up out of there so they'll end up personalizing the joint,especially if it's a family.But I like these for temorary shelter and they are a lot better than a tent or a makeshift leantoo.

As I said, I agree about the toilets and showers, and it shouldn't cost more than $1500 to add that to the plans. As discussed earlier above, clustering these tiny house together will help to minimize the plumbing needed.

I agree that these "temporary shelters" may become home for a few months. It's not difficult for anyone to personalize it with posters, and other decorations easily so they wish. They can even paint it. You can't do that with a hotel room, or a tent.

Personally, I see this solution as a great idea that needs to be acted on.

Oh yeah, I'm with you there Andrew, this is a great idea and should be acted on. I'm just hashing things out is all. I do think these are a really great solution for some people but I feel the gov will come in and ruin it so we must try to keep it in the private sector. Then we have to rely on the greedy of the community with the big pockets like Gates and Allen....Just another thought.