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.
Good News Everyone
A place to post good news and prevent doom scrolling!
Rules for now:
- posts must link from a reliable news source
- no reposts
- paywalled articles must be made available
- avoid politics
Millionaires still have their humanity on occasion.
Rent pricing is what the people should target first. Hard to fight the nutjobs when rent is so expensive
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%.
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 🫣
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.
Sure it is. You have to have government fund it, like a normal social democracy would do.
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.
These units may be basically sheds, but I've seen people pay half a million to have the same thing three floors up in central London.
If I was homeless I'd take solid four walls the size of a medium-sized tent if it meant warmth, utility services, your own toilet and anything else I'd need to even be able to focus on caring for myself or even others more than merely survive. Those tiny buildings might be the minimum, but they ARE something you can call a safe home.
I'm wondering though, how was this more cost-effective to build than a long apartment complex...? Do those tiny things not need any concrete foundation, perhaps regulatory stuff…?
If it was possible to build co-ops of these it'd be what I've been suggesting for like 9 years.
Look up "housing cooperative" in your area, there might actually be one, as there's a pretty substantial number of them scattered across many locations. My area has at least 10.
Impressive, it's even a walkable place seen that it is a mixed use neighborhood with commercial buildings too
This is really great to see. So glad there are people like this out there willing to extend empathy to people who are struggling. I love that this project also respects their clients' autonomy as well. The fact that you don't have to stay sober to be there, I think it's great. Just give someone a stable roof over their head, a small support network, and I believe they can turn around their addictions and their lives.
My grandma lived in this trailer park for 40 years until she died. Pretty low overhead.
Damn, $200 sounds low, on the other hand 30% is a crazy share. I'm targeting 10-15% at most.