People should be free to build a structure they're willing to live in.
Be the labor, buy the materials, and live in it. We can't really do that now. There are financial checkpoints that price this possibility and regulations/experts that much be paid and waited on that cost more money and take more time.
I think the ideas behind all that are generally good. We want safe structures. But why are we required to go through all of that?
Why can I build a 10x10 structure of whatever the hell I want at whatever the hell quality I can, but once it's 10x11, the entirety of our society comes calling to raise the cost 10x or whatever it is?
I'm just advocating for allowing people to have the freedom to say, buy a piece of land and acquire a roof over their head however they see fit.
It's not solely that, but that would be a good starting place. I think we probably waste a ton of money on the homeless problem.
A big part of it might be more housing akin to shelters, as there are not enough beds. Have some level of no-cost housing where people who have had much of their autonomy taken away could have that back. These places would be horrific environments, obviously, but they'd be free to make their bad decisions in a climate-controlled structure instead of the side of the road.
It's not an easy problem, but there's better than shrugging at the homeless problem while the wealthy rely on the ingenuity of the desperate to bail them out, ethically.
Thanks. At least that's a starting point... Building what you want, on your own land, seems like this should be an American priority.
Here in CA, with our astronomical housing prices, there has at least been a decent amount of work towards reducing the red tape and zoning restrictions on additional dwelling units (ADUs), where for example someone can build a second small dwelling on their property. Often called "granny flats" to make them sound like it's just a place for family members, I know my brother was looking into building one on his own property as a rental. IMHO it's one way to get around one of the key issues with housing costs here--a lack of density. Like most of CA, they are screwing it up, but at least it's SOMETHING.
That said, there's a
major problem here... The cost of building is only partially materials, gov't restrictions, and permitting... The biggest cost
is acquisition of land. I told the story a little while ago here of one of the properties in my neighborhood. It's believed that the owner committed arson and blew up his house, and [if his neighbor is to be believed] he then committed suicide when the authorities were closing in. However, that's immaterial... What's material is that the house is a complete teardown, it's being sold as-is, and the buyer is responsible for all of the demolition--
yet the lot still sold for... $588,000. When you're talking about the insane cost of housing--realize that it's the LAND that has way more value than the structure on it...
Now, they could afford to buy a piece of land in BFE, where they can't get to any reasonable job without an insane amount commute. And they could put up a 10x10 structure at whatever quality they want... And probably not be hooked up to water & electric utilities. Which would suck, unless they were truly the type who could survive off the grid.
This is why the question I posed to you is hard... The backup that you came up with is shelters. Well, we know from our current homeless problem that many of them don't want to be in shelters. Another backup is government constructed high-density housing. But anyone from Chicago knows what hellscapes the Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini Green were...
