An abandoned office park in Sacramento will be the site of the first group of 1,200 tiny homes to be built in four cities to address California’s homelessness crisis, the governor’s office announced Wednesday after being criticized for the project experiencing multiple delays.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is under pressure to make good on his promise to show he’s tackling the issue. In March, the Democratic governor announced a plan to gift several California cities hundreds of tiny homes by the fall to create space to help clear homeless encampments that have sprung up across the state’s major cities. The $30 million project would create homes, some as small as 120 square feet (11 square meters), that can be assembled in 90 minutes and cost a fraction of what it takes to build permanent housing.

More than 171,000 homeless people live in California, making up about 30% of the nation’s homeless population. The state has spent roughly $30 billion in the last few years to help them, with mixed results.

  • Arbiter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why tiny homes and not high density housing?

    Seems pointlessly inefficient.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The tiny homes can be put up and taken down quicker from the sounds of the article. Takes the better part of a year to build an apartment building, they can put each of these up in 90 minutes supposedly. Does make me worried for structural integrity but it’s not like California gets severe weather so should be fine.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Modern Hoovervilles. There is nothing new under the sun, etc. etc. But yes, this is the point, scale up housing quick, get homeless people housed now and try and get them stabilized and back into society.

      • unceme@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think it was an engineering consideration, I suspect it was the only thing they could get past the NIMBYs

    • tekktrix@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Maybe easier to rent for pest control? That would be my most practical guess. Also subject to different building codes normally and faster to build than high rise apts.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t have a horse in this race except to imagine being in the situation myself, but why should only people with lots of money be allowed to own their own walls and small piece of land?

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      $30,000,000 / 1,200 homes = $25,000 per home.

      That seems cheap, and tiny homes will probably still have the density to support mass transit.