Rent pricing is what the people should target first. Hard to fight the nutjobs when rent is so expensive
If it was possible to build co-ops of these it’d be what I’ve been suggesting for like 9 years.
My grandma lived in this trailer park for 40 years until she died. Pretty low overhead.
deleted by creator
Based
When the time comes we let this one unbothered
I applaud the project but I’d still eat him. He is a near billionaire CEO throwing a few scraps to us commoners. Maybe his PR team can make me look good too as I go for seconds.
He gets a pass in my book. Maybe he did it because he wanted to be spared in the future.
As for the residents of the houses, rent is kept at 30% of income, which means the large majority of residents pay a maximum of $200 — including all utilities and internet — every month.
How are they planning to sustain this long-term?
Surely, someone is paying for the difference. Unless I totally missed it from the article 🫣
You’re one of today’s lucky 10,000! Landlords typically charge even more than the cost of building and maintaining the house, and then just pocket the rest as profit. It’s bonkers!
It’s why the tech millionaire financing this isn’t a tech billionaire.
I get that he’s financing it, but that’s not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
Public services don’t need to be profitable to be sustainable. You just need to tax base to be okay with it.
Yeah, I don’t want them to be profitable, but sustainable.
Even if taxpayers are paying for it, you can’t rely on the (struggling) general population to lift people out of homelessness. Let the rich carry that burden. They are the ones who’ve hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else.
These places are tiny at 240 square feet. There’s not going to be much $$ tied up in them for material and utility costs can’t possibly be that hught because the homes are so compact.
If each home cost $40k, which is probably generous, over 30 years that’s $111/mo. Internet is probably a commercial line to the site and then a local network type setup. The real question is how much the land cost.
Rent might not cover everything 100%, but it would be close. It wouldn’t surprise me if some money from the locality was involved since people living on the streets isn’t free and simply providing housing can be a massive first step to getting people reintegrated back into society.
If each home cost $40k
“Lowest cost for a Canadian tiny home: $80,000 to $150,000” (SOURCE)
Yes, probably less if they are building them all themselves, but $80,000 seems to be the norm for temporary tiny homes. Uxbridge priced tiny homes made from trailer containers at $80,000, too.
I think they could be sustainable as far as electricity (solar) and even water and heating (propane), so that’s not a bad thing.
But how is the land being paid for? Taxes? etc.
Every tiny home project I’ve heard about has these barriers that get in the way. What needs to change so we can build more of these, instead of single, detached homes with massive yards??
We need more of these!
I have done zero research, but that figure seems crazy. I could see it holding up if you were trying to build a single tiny home as each of the contractors will want to ensure a full day’s worth of income. However, if you’re build 100 units the piece cost should fall substantially. 240 square feet is truly tiny, so it should be pretty fast to assemble and wouldn’t take much raw materials. One other possibility for keeping costs down is volunteer labor, similar to habitat for humanity. That type of model won’t scale, but it can help keep prices low for a handful of jobs.
When I lived in germany full time, I would’ve loved to live in a tiny home, but germany would’ve rather put me on the street than allow a tiny home lmaoo.
That’s the problem in a lot of the US too. We transitioned from building massive subdivisions of small/cheap homes to smalle subdivisions of larger/more expensive housing. This is due to a mix of zoning that favors single family detached housing, land availability, and consumer tastes.
Homes have drastically grown in size over the past 200 years while the number of people living in them has decreased. Not to mention nicer material, which also contributes to cost. No more “builder grade” cabinets and formica counters these days.
I’m just glad it’s housing for the unhoused. In general, we shouldn’t compromise for any less than a normal standard of living for all. But, in absence of that we can’t wait around while people freeze and OD on the streets. As long as this doesn’t become normalized and is simply a step forward. Which is a very serious concern. But, this is a solution in that it’s a 1 not a 0, which is often how things play out irl - messy, and lots of compromises.
Honestly when I see “tech millionaire” and “altruism” in the same article, I expect to seese seriously ghoulish shit.
I still have concerns around the long-term outcome - the land is ostensibly still privately held, and I assume the homes are as well. I’d like to
Did you forget to finish that last sentence before you hit post ?
Worst case the business will forcibly close due to lack of rent payments, though, right?
Or he is doing millionaire thing and looking for new kidney.
As long as he pays, capitalism lives on
Imagine if the public sector did this and didn’t limit it to a single development.
We could even build bigger-than-tiny sized units. Maybe include additional amenities like schools and health clinics and food malls in the immediate vicinity. Throw in a rail stop so people can get to the metro center easily. You know… actual urban development.
No idea where we could get money for that, though. Maybe if Canada didn’t exempt 50% of capital gains income from taxation for some reason… But no, that would never work.
Feels like now is the best time for other nations to have low capital gains taxes. No?
Honestly when I see “tech millionaire” and “altruism” in the same article, I don’t expect to see someone actually using their wealth to do something decent.
Millionaires still have their humanity on occasion.
This is good, but if we address this at a systemic level, we don’t need to put people in tiny low-density homes unconnected to anything for it to be affordable.
Presumably local governments have some mechanism for when they know a house costs X materials and Y labor, and they see new construction costing significantly more than that.
The result is detached homes@avg 75USD/sqft and apartments@55/sqft. With current interest rates of 6.768%, you’d get ~400 sqft homes with a $200/mo 30 year mortgage at those prices, 600sqft if interest rates were 3%.
I was like, holy shit that 55/sqft must be some 10 times as much as my rent (I’m not sure how much a foot is; I think I’m paying about 20-25€/m^2 per month). And then I realized those are BUYING prices. Holy shit.
827USD/m2
To be clear, this isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison; even if the US did free trade school with subsidies for living costs and everything, you’re not going to get skilled metal workers and carpenters working for $35/day. While labor costs are only ~25% of the cost of construction, the same applies to how low you can get material costs, even when you’ve got central planning for concrete and steel industries.
I meant holy shit, as in, holy shit that is such an affordable buying price that I confused it for a steep rental price at first.
Yup. A group local to me put up around 20 tiny homes with a grant from the city. With the cost of upkeep, it would have been cheaper for the city to pay for 20 hotel rooms. Which wouldn’t have had any fewer amenities than the tiny homes they made.
There’s some benefit to them as backyard “mother in law houses” or for a cabin in the woods. For solving homelessness, no, there are better options.
Remember, theres a gigantic difference between the wealth of a billionaire and the wealth of a millionaire. For one thing, its possible to make a million without harming others, a BILLION though, you HAVE to sacrifice others to achieve.
On paper, sure. But I might argue that the process of accruing paper wealth as a backstop against misfortune and a reserve during retirement is inherently deleterious - forcing people to forego quality of life in the immediate term as a hedge against the future. This is a highly inefficient process for individuals to manage - who carry the whole cost of an incidental risk/exceptionally long life. And it is the whole reason public pensions and public insurance came to exist.
That’s before you get into the moral hazard of certain professions and fortunate individuals being predisposed towards retirement, while others work right up until their dying days.
The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars
While the guy happened to manage to acquire almost $400 million by selling his company, it seems that he’s really trying to do some good with that, quite frankly, ridiculous amount of money.
Also it seems that his employees were compensated somewhat above market rate while he owned the company.
Not exactly a dragon of his own making, we shall observe his career with great interest to see if he follows what seems to be his chosen path, as of now.
