Housing for homeless could be in your backyard. Literally. - Homeless shouldn't stay in the backyards of wealthy celebrities and politicians though. Of course.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

L.A. County officials are looking to homeowners' backyards for help with the region's growing homeless crisis.

A pilot program under consideration by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors Tuesday would legalize and encourage the development of so-called "granny flats" — secondary dwelling units on the same lot as a single-family home. Under the pilot, the county would offer cash to homeowners who want to build a granny flat or to bring an existing one up to code. But there is a major condition— it would have to be rented to a family or person who's currently homeless.

The help for homeowners would come in the form of a loan or grant, depending on the unit type.

Connie Chung of the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning called the effort a way to diversify housing stock as the county embarks on a massive effort to tackle homelessness. The traditional model for homeless housing — multi-family units with supportive services on site — is ideal, she said, but costly. A single unit can run as much as $300,000 to $500,000 to develop.

"So given that, it's really important to seek additional approaches," Chung said. "Generally any good housing policy out there will encourage a diversity of housing types."

Currently, there are thousands of granny flats, Chung said. But many were built without proper permits. Recent changes to state law have paved the way for legally building for secondary units on single-family lots. Such units must meet certain size restrictions and regulatory codes.

Chung said unincorporated areas in the county contain tens of thousands of potential sites for granny flats, but the county has only permitted 700 since 2004.

The pilot program would involve up to six homes to start and assist with either with legalizing existing unpermitted units or clearing the way for new constructions. After 18 months, the county could look to expand the program. The pilot would also include the county hosting a design competition for secondary dwelling units.

One question, though, is whether the incentives will be attractive enough for homeowners to rent to a formerly homeless person or family. And how neighbors might respond to any increase in additional units on their streets.

But county officials are hopeful that preserving and developing secondary units may make a dent in homelessness and the region's general housing needs.

"There's a lot of work to do to tap into the potential," Chung said.
 
Ah, gentrification. Drive down property values to displace the current residents so a corporation or the government can buy the land for cheap.

Never change, California.
 
So how long before this becomes mandatory?

"Good afternoon, Citizen. As you're aware, someone with a property as large as yours is legally required to house at least two of the unhoused, and our records show you've never done so. We'll go ahead and start breaking ground tomorrow, unless you'd rather forfeit your property?"

ETA: Actually, I just had an idea. Anyone want to work together to buy some land out in the CA boonies? We'll get about forty bums and start a bumfighting tournament. It'll be great!
 
Fun fact: the city of Los Angeles spent almost a billion dollars in the last fiscal year on programs ostensibly aimed at solving homelessness. I guess we're seeing now what they've come up with at that price tag: "just pay productive people to keep them in their back yards lmao." Just lol at the idea that we live in a "first world" country still.
 
Fun fact: the city of Los Angeles spent almost a billion dollars in the last fiscal year on programs ostensibly aimed at solving homelessness. I guess we're seeing now what they've come up with at that price tag: "just pay productive people to keep them in their back yards lmao." Just lol at the idea that we live in a "first world" country still.
I really want to know: wouldn't it literally be cheaper to just make the homeless disappear?
 
Fun fact: the city of Los Angeles spent almost a billion dollars in the last fiscal year on programs ostensibly aimed at solving homelessness. I guess we're seeing now what they've come up with at that price tag: "just pay productive people to keep them in their back yards lmao." Just lol at the idea that we live in a "first world" country still.
It seems like these Western States always do dumb nonsense like rent out five star hotels for the homeless.

It's very hard being a person who thinks that they should just get a small little one-two room apartment so that they have a foundation to go apply for jobs. Nobody is in your corner. People either want to ignore the homeless or go through with policies that don't really help any homeless people.
 
Ah, gentrification. Drive down property values to displace the current residents so a corporation or the government can buy the land for cheap.

Never change, California.
They don't even need to go whole hog anymore, now they've started to build shitty low-quality rentals in the middle of their ""normal"" suburban developments. Injecting those imported muzzies and shitums right into the heart of your neighborhood by fucking design. Ethno-states for we, but not for thee, goyim. When your nation is a brown blob of warring tribes... I wonder how easy it will be to conquer it?
 
This is great news for people who want to be robbed, have their kids sexually assaulted, or have a drug den nearby so they don't have to travel to the bad part of town.
 
The article said it “must be rented” to homeless people. How the fuck are they paying rent? Can you evict?
Would you even get to pick the homeless person? I think the article is saying that the government is paying their rent for them, but I still don’t want a crazy crack addict living on my property.
 
Fun fact: the city of Los Angeles spent almost a billion dollars in the last fiscal year on programs ostensibly aimed at solving homelessness. I guess we're seeing now what they've come up with at that price tag: "just pay productive people to keep them in their back yards lmao." Just lol at the idea that we live in a "first world" country still.
If it helps, only a few states would be goddamn crazy enough to come up with an idea this stupid. And all it's going to do is accelerate the mass exodus of productive members of society. According to the US Census, California "grew" by 6.1% in the past decade. The problem is the US itself grew by 7.4%, which means any state under that number is experiencing negative relative growth. For what is supposedly the center of the economic, technological, and cultural universe, a relative growth rate of -1.3% is pretty bad.
 
This is great news for people who want to be robbed, have their kids sexually assaulted, or have a drug den nearby so they don't have to travel to the bad part of town.
This is in California. Homeless camps and drug dens are literally everywhere now except gated celebrity/politician communities. Homeless camps and drug dens are even all over the nice wealthier suburbs. There's literally nowhere in California anymore that isn't flooded with homeless, except the homes of politicians and celebrities.
 
Back
Top Bottom