Some tiny homes cost $20,000.
Elon Musk could build 2,150,000 of them for the money he wants to spend on Twitter.
House that many homeless.
But where’s the swagger in that?
To those saying “but other billionaires?” Save the whataboutism. We’re talking a $43 billion dalliance.
Why Musk? It’s a concrete example of world-changing wealth spent on whim.
But speaking of other billionaires, see who is and isn’t on this list.
I don’t hate the guy. I’m glad for Tesla and SpaceX.
Priorities tho.
@Marmel
I've heard from SF city hall sources that the lady running the tiny houses program is a bit nutty. But, they are moving the needle.
What CA needs is a grand strategy. Then the billionaires can fund that.
SF is swamped, so the tiny houses are a stop gap until Newsom supports/defines a strategy with a larger scope.
@jurban Im completely down with a different word. But the word "Home" carries emotional weight.
@Marmel
Home is an emotional term. But labels cause grouping that limit the application of effective solutions.
Maybe:
- Home-Transient (down on their luck but trying to get into a home asap)
- Home-Challenged (Can't afford a home in the area)
- Home-Adverse (Don't want to be in a house due to drug or mental health issues)
I guess the point is that if we are challenged to NOT use the word Homeless we will dig deeper to understand how we're unconsciously defining these people.
@jurban
Unhoused?
@Marmel
I think the label should reflect how they got there. Brings us closer to assigning a solution.
@Marmel
Agreed. These people do reduce the pain. Yet funding behind a strategy is more influential than merely reducing the near-term pain.
Housing is both a symptom and a cure. I think we need to go heavy on housing regardless of the addiction-status.
BTW, I think we should stop using the word "homeless". Too general a term for a large group of issues that cause people to be without a stable home.