Saturday, March 5

A "New Low"? Or Something To Be Expected? L.A. Officials Are Confiscating Tiny Shelters Donated To Homeless

There are television shows dedicated to the building of (and living in) these 'tiny houses'. People all over the country, for varying reasons, decide that downsizing (literally) is what they want to do so they pay, huge sums in some cases, to have a tiny house built;  something in the neighborhood of 8 x 10 complete with kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. 

For someone who has been literally living 'on the street' for years, sleeping on the ground, someone for whom the idea of owning their own home seems like a fairy tale someone made up, one of these 'tiny houses' can be a dream come true. To be able to " ... shut the door, go lay down, quiet. " and have a bed with a place to lay their things, that is a God-send!  Do the L.A. Officials think they are God now, that they can take this gift away from them? 

The article raised some questions for me though. If the houses are on wheels, why can't they just be moved to a different area? And if someone is given one of the houses, it belongs to them, so how can the city just take it away? That's like, if I build a treehouse as a bedroom for one of my kids (don't laugh, it's being done!) and the city comes along and says he can't live in it and tears it down, what gives them the right? These places aren't costing the city anything, and people pay to live in tiny houses! They are 'endangering their lives'?? Where are they coming up with this crap? And the man that built these houses, I'd sure love to know what the 'officials' are saying to him.....


This is not the original video I intended to run; due to technical limitations I was unable to use that one. The video and original article are here.  The above video is on YouTube, and can be found here. It does explain a bit more about what's happening, which actually makes it worse instead of better! I just can't understand it, and it's obvious that the people in the 2nd video can't either.

What gets me more than just about anything about this though, is the city is saying "We need a permanent solution, and this is not it." So since it's not a permanent solution, take them away and leave the homeless people on the street??? Does that make sense to anyone? If so, please comment below and help me to understand, maybe there's something I'm missing.