Tiny Homes for the Homeless Now Under Attack in California

tony_homes_for_homelessBy Isaac Davis

Personal liberty is under attack in so many areas of American society, and combined with a faltering economy, people are in greater need than ever of finding ways to survive economically while still maintaining basic freedoms.

The tiny house movement is one of the many creative ways in which people are out-smarting the matrix of consumerism and debt. Recently, however, we reported on the federal government’s attempts through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to make owning and living in a tiny home more difficult for those who wish to do so.

It seems this is an important issue for many, and even the infamous website Snopes, in its typical mainstream, ‘nothing to see here folks,’ fashion, has chimed in on this debate claiming that concern over the HUD’s updated regulations are simply false, citing various interpretations of the new HUD regulatory changes to make their case.

Well, not so fast. We know how government works to corral people into compliance and conformity with its ever-expanding rule sets, and however you interpret the HUD’s intentions over the regulation of tiny homes, there is more to this story, as state and local governments are themselves making it more difficult than it should be in some areas to choose this type of simple, affordable lifestyle.

Case in point: California, where Los Angeles city council member Curren Price recently requested that sanitation officials confiscate and destroy a number of tiny homes owned by homeless people.

Tiny homes for the homeless are an idea started by long-time L.A. resident Elvis Summers who wanted to help a 60-year-old homeless neighbor who was always sleeping in the dirt. The movement has been gaining momentum in the L.A. area as way to extend compassion to the city’s least fortunate. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to this effort, and dozens of tiny homes have been built and donated by caring residents who have worked hard to see to it that the most downtrodden in their communities have some type of basic shelter.

Since establishing the My Tiny Houses for the Homeless in Los Angeles (MYTHPLA) project and Starting Human nonprofit last year, Summers and his volunteers have built and placed 37 tiny homes between Inglewood and Van Nuys. [Source]

The homes take up very little space, but offer a tremendous amount of dignity and peace of mind for those fortunate enough to have one.

The homes, which are about the size of a parking spot and come equipped with lights, windows and doors that lock, are designed to offer a safe space for some of the city’s tens of thousands of homeless residents. They have been funded by nearly $100,000 worth of donations since last April. [Source]

The bureaucratic reasoning for outlawing and confiscating these structures is typical of big government, and citing safety concerns and general disgust for something that does not fit in with the established paradigm, city sanitation officials have been stealing these properties from the less fortunate and destroying them. For their own good, of course.

10 Strategies to Survive and Thrive During Economic Collapse - Subscribe To Get Your Free Copy

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL

Unfortunately, these structures are a safety hazard,” says Connie Llanos, a spokeswoman for LA Mayor Eric Garcetti. “These structures, some of the materials that were found in some of them, just the thought of folks having some of these things in a space so small, so confined, without the proper insulation, it really does put their lives in danger.” [Source]

Really, their lives are in danger not from being homeless in a city that spends millions in subsidies for higher socio-economic groups, but from having a makeshift roof over their head? Typical.

Furthermore, a Waking Times reader has alerted us to actions by both Sonoma County and Petaluma, CA city officials to derail efforts by local citizens to establish a “Little House on the Trailer” park, where people would lawfully be allowed to pursue this simple, affordable lifestyle in one of the nation’s most expensive counties.

Sonoma County, CA and Petaluma, CA both gave Little House on the Trailer permits to open their little house building business and then turned around and outlawed them. I sure as hell hope and pray they sue the county and city and bankrupt them! I looked into one to have my widowed elderly mother with health issues live in it, and went to the county permit department and they said “I would have to build a new septic system” $50,000 later and that “I couldn’t move her into it. It is only for a caretaker!” What is the point in asking for a permit? In other words…they are purposefully ruining Little House on the Trailer’s business/livelihood. = Fascism disguised as democracy. [Source]

Final Thoughts

Compassion for the most desperate members of society seems to be a forgotten American value. And the matrix works harder and harder to corral people into conformity with a particular lifestyle centered around mass consumption and the accumulation of debt. The tiny houses for the homeless movement in L.A. is rooted in more altruistic values including love for thy neighbor and good old-fashioned American ingenuity.

Here, Elvis Summers, the inventor of the tiny houses for the homeless concept walks you through a design-build of a unit he constructed for a 60-year-old homeless neighbor who had been sleeping in the dirt.

Isaac Davis is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and OffgridOutpost.com Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and and a voluntary society. He is avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, here.

Image Source

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

This article (Tiny Homes for the Homeless Now Under Attack in California) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Isaac Davis and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

16 Comments on "Tiny Homes for the Homeless Now Under Attack in California"

  1. It is important to realize that people built homes before there were governments making them a natural and cprotected right from those that serve within our governments.

    There is a lot of “color of law” that is being unlawfully enforced against the people by those who serve within our governments.

    Color of law: “Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    Under the US Constitution, Amendment 9 it is written that not all rights protected FROM those who serve within our governments are listed, but they are still protected from them. That authority over those things were NOT delegated to the governments – state and federal.

    “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

    “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

    “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

    “Right to possess and protect property is not more clearly protected by constitution, than right to acquire it. Right to acquire is right to use proper means to attain end; and use of such means, cannot be prohibited by legislature, except peace and safety of state require it.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

    “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

    “Wherever right to own property is recognized in free government, practically all other rights become worthless if government possesses uncontrollable power over property of citizen.” House v. Los Angeles
    County Flood Control District (1944), 25 C.2d 384, 153 P.2d 950.

    “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all
    rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

    “Constitutional right of acquiring and possessing property includes right to dispose of such property in such innocent manner as owner pleases and to sell it for such price as he can obtain.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

    So then what is this constitution named so much? Why is it that the words within it (US Constitution)/them (state constitutions) given so much bearing in our Constitutional republic (yes, NOT a democracy). Why does it matter beyond that all who serve within our governments are lawfully bound by Oath to support and defend it; that it defines our government and assigns the delegated duties maintaining the separation of powers; that it is the supreme law of our land and the contract that ALL, in every position, are under.

    “The constitution of a state is the fundamental law of the State.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199.

    “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

    “Constitutional provisions and amendments to the Constitution relate to the fundamental law and certain fixed principles upon which governments are founded. Constitutions are commonly called the organic law of a State.” State ex rel. Halliburton v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408, 130 S. W. 689.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

    “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

    Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law, 3rd. ed. (1898), pp. 386-387. (Little & Brown Co.).: “In the construction of these instruments the following rules are actually observed:
    1. The practical construction must be uniform. A constitution does not mean one thing at one time and another at some subsequent time.
    2. The object of construction is to give effect to the intent of the people in establishing the Constitution; it is the intent of the law giver that is to be enforced. But the intent is to be found in the instrument itself. . .”

  2. Herbert Dorsey | May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Reply

    Two primary ways “the powers that be” keep the people in economic bondage is with cars and houses. Most people purchase these items on credit and spend years paying them off. These people, whether they realize it or not, now have become bond servants to the bankers. The real reason for building codes, construction permits, and construction inspections is to insure a product that the bankers consider a sufficient security on which to lend money on. The price of homes, especially in California, have become so expensive that many cannot afford to have a home. That is the reason for the increase in homelessness. The Tiny House program to help shelter the homeless does not fin in with banker profitability. So “the powers that be” feel that they must obstruct the program. Perhaps homes should considered a natural human right rather than a business investment.

    • Yes, the way banks create their policies is absolutely insane.

    • Well said, Herbert. You can only imagine how things are going to be later down the track. Unless, we start pushing back REALLY HARD, none of us have a future…

  3. The only way I can see this working is to have state or county land set aside for multiple units. This of course would not guarantee that crime would be controlled. Having them on the street would be a health problem because of trash and excrement. Who would pay for the clean up?
    Can you actually expect the homeless to sign an agreement to clean up after themselves to show how much they appreciate what’s been done for them?
    We have homeless living in the woods here in Lacey, WA that move on and leave the place a disaster zone. Again, excrement, used condoms and trash permeate a pristine Chehalis bike path and trail. Should we expect the county to clean up after them all the time?
    Another case in point is the Jungle in Seattle. Crime and drugs.
    I don’t belittle this effort and I think it is commendable for those willing to volunteer time and money. This really needs to be better planned for the long run.

  4. clarioncaller | May 18, 2016 at 6:15 pm | Reply

    These boxes do not constitute a home, unless you are a dog. It may be a step-up from a refrigerator box, but not a big step. I would much rather see trailer camps with proper sanitation and oversight. As a nation, we can do better than this.

    • True enough, but as a former homeless person a tiny house would have been a much better blessing than living under the Coney Island Boardwalk many years ago.

  5. You can’t leave them on the street. Within 72 hours, they must be moved at least 150 yards. They should be on wheels.

  6. Stop wasting money on the largest homeless generator on the planet – the MILITARY. The MILITARY provides no useful peaceful purpose and is an intense waste of tax profits as well as a prime instigator of homelessness and pollution. There is no peace with a military that is run by the banksters and whose offensive tendencies leads to more refugees needing shelter. Expensive non-productive military hardware like drones, fighter jets, etc. just leads to more homelessness. It would make better sense to pass laws that would allow the homeless to live in all those air-conditioned/heated office buildings with working sanitation at night when they are not in use thus giving the homeless the dignity of living in a modern facility with proper security and comfort.

    • berrybestfarm | May 19, 2016 at 8:31 am | Reply

      Excellent solution. And yes there are a few businesses willing to do this. Churches already do where it hasn’t been “outlawed”. There are a few others that could coordinate with local shelters as emergency overflow space.

    • The useful peaceful purpose of a military is national defense. If a country decides to become an aggressor to mass rape pillage and plunder then by keeping a standing military can serve as a deterrence to such activity. If you don’t like a country with a military then may I suggest going to live in a country without a military. You will quickly discover what kind of life a nation has without military protection.

      Also when there are military losses on both sides it frees up the housing to person ratio in favor of people. Research into military hardware, medicine, and other areas does provide an eventual benefit to all of humanity.

      I do agree that there is no peace with a military that is run by banksters. I agree with your sentiment but from my perspective your facts are a bit skewed.

      Peace out.

  7. Captain save a HOmeless | May 27, 2016 at 1:37 am | Reply

    You would be disgusted if you knew some of the secrets of the tiny houses that are hidden from the public. There is a reason why they need to be shut down but only the homeless advocates know the truth.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.