Free sheds!!!

With more than $300,000 and volunteer homeowners, Multnomah County has a new idea to fight homelessness: Build tiny houses in people’s backyards and rent them out to families with children now living on the street.

The homeowners would pay nothing for the construction. They would become landlords and maintain the units for homeless families for five years.

Then the tiny houses would become theirs to do with what they want. If the homeowners break the contract before then, they pay the cost of construction.
MORE

This entry was posted in WTF?. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Free sheds!!!

  1. juju2434 says:

    Fuck the sanctuary county and the “homeless”. Give them a place to keep warm while they plan on how they are going to steal you blind right after they kill your ass. Put the sheds in these fucking judges’s back yard. I’m reasonably sure they have backyards that could acomodate several and make up a whole village and they could call the judge THEIR village idiot. Fuck them AND the judges!!!!

    • Unclezip says:

      C’mon, tell us how you really feel. You’re right, in that the Porkland area has gone completely over the top. But you’ll see no homeless in the West Hills, or Lake Oswego, or any other part of the Metro area where the libtard elite hide.

    • crazyeighter says:

      “Optional” for “volunteers” now; “mandatory” for “land barons” (more than a couple of acres) later.

  2. I saw the story. I didn’t read enough to find out how they planned to deal with; electricity, water, and (the biggie!) septic. I didn’t find out because I don’t care. The stupidity of this idea is amazing even for Portland OR.
    I’m sure if you looked into it that you would find that (at some point) Portland drove the cheap hotels out of business, the flophouses of olden days. High business taxes, $15/HR minimum wage (desk clerks, janitors, security, etc.), building & fire codes and the mandated improvements therein.

    But lets put drunken and doped up bums into the back yards of the middle class, and if they break their little bathroom they can just knock on the back door. Right?

  3. J says:

    I got 60 Acres, and wouldn’t let ANYBODY on even 1Sq. Inch of it. It’s all a Freefire Zone!!

  4. No way in hell! After 5 years the ‘shed’ will be trashed, filthy and unfit for anything except firewood. I can just see it “can I borrow some milk, TP, coffee, electricity, food, and on and on.

    • crazyeighter says:

      All the headaches of land-lordery and parenting teenagers with none of the benefits.

  5. czechsix says:

    LOL, oh yeah, great idea. This’ll work well. Glad I stocked up on the popcorn, I’m gonna need it.

    • czechsix says:

      HOLY CRAP I JUST READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! Those sheds are seventy five grand each…I think I have a new business. $700 in materials, and they sell for $75k. I’m gonna be rich.

      • Timbo says:

        You won’t be.
        …but somebody that knows somebody will be!
        Welcome to reality, I’m sure it’s very comfortable at the top.

  6. One more thing, the county is getting ripped off if they are paying 75,000 for one of those sheds. Idiots.

  7. snuffy says:

    Plumbing? Or will they be allowed to SS and S in the big house?

  8. Winston Smith says:

    I sense a huge potential for Wirecutter Level stories in this. Definitely need to revisit this over the next few years unless smarter minds prevail.

  9. RocketmanKarl says:

    Who are they kidding with this? I looked through the pictures of their “model” houses. If they’re paying $75k for one of these half-assed plywood shacks, they ought to be arrested for misappropriation of public funds. My chicken coop is better built and better looking than this crap, and I spent $500 on it.

    I also noticed that, in order to skirt around zoning restrictions, they have to be very small, a family of four would be more than a little cramped in there. Oh, and none of the models looked like they had four sleeping spaces. A space that small will be trashed by the tenants in far less than five years, the homeowner will not get a free shed, they’ll get a wreck they’ll have to pay to have carted to the dump.

    Finally, these shacks have no plumbing, and little to no electricity. Where will the “tenants” literally “go”? Is the homeowner going to share their own bathroom?

    Ah, soft-headed out-of-the-box thinking and its myriad unintended consequences that they never even imagine that they should consider…

    RocketmanKarl

  10. POd American says:

    Immediate land available on Zukerburg’s/Tim Cook’s properties….could probably get about 5000 built on just their Kommiefornia properties. Then we could spread the wealth to the Clinton’s, Bush’s, Schumer’s, Pelosi’s, Boxer’s, Ginsburg’s, Kagan’s, Soto-Majors properties; I think you’re getting my drift.

    Disclaimer: No dirt people were harmed in the making of this decision.

    • POd American says:

      I’m sure that I’ll get someone telling me that the “wise latina” women’s name is “Mayor” not Major, but I did this for a reason. She is minor league at best, With the right training and experience, she might make a great small city traffic judge.

      • Elmo says:

        Correctamundo. Kinda like Babs Boxer, Kirsten Gillibrand et al are unqualified for anything above county supervis… er, make that school boar… er, dog catch….

        Never mind.

  11. Hillbilly says:

    Agenda 21 on steroids.

  12. Okami-San says:

    I”m sure if a regular person wanted to do this to rent to college students or regular people the City’s Zoning and codes wouldn’t let it.

    • Unclezip says:

      Indeed. Porkland is regulatory heaven. You can’t even trim your tree without a permit.

  13. tripseven says:

    Get the right judge (OR has PLENTY of them) and that shed/land in the corner of your property becomes the homeless’ shed/land through adverse possession.

    Fun fact for the day…the original owner will pay the property tax.

  14. Walt says:

    My shed needs replacing damn squirrels get in there an eat the dog food. Do they deliver? Wtf I paid my taxes

  15. John says:

    Let’s see…$75,000 each and they have $300,000 budget. That gets 4 homeless families off the street for $300,000. Then the homeowners can keep the $300,000 in shacks. Meanwhile, the homeless folks are paying rent (or should I say the taxpayers are paying rent). So essentially this is $300,000 more expensive for every four families than just paying their rent. Neato, you get a gold star snowflake.

  16. One of the many Bills says:

    What a stupid fucking idea!

  17. Fjord says:

    They “cost” $75k because $70k of it will be funneled back to the politician who came up with this bright idea. Most likely, the contract is with a family member.

  18. .45-70 says:

    Lol….such maroons.

    Just feed the homeless to the hungry and save the hassle.

  19. Oh Burrito!, luis says:

    They can get beaners to build them for less, the ones still here and haven’t deported themselves yet.

  20. LFMayor says:

    How much does a grizzly bear cost? I’d rather spend 75 grand a pop on them and turn them loose in those “afflicted” neighborhoods. They’d eat all the piss bums, probably smell better and shit less, too

  21. arc says:

    My tiny ‘house’ cost around $4000 after taxes, 240sqft. It was a barn kit, some assembly required.

  22. Glenfilthie says:

    Yep.

    You can build a shed, fill it with shit and set it on fire for a hell of a lot less than $75K…

  23. Gnome Sane says:

    It took them two years to come up with this idiocy. Some pol up there wanted to tax people $50/month for each unused bedroom in their homes.

  24. I wondered all the same things as On The North River! They going to be shitting in a five gallon bucket? Then What? Come knock on your door and ask dump the bucket? or just dump on the ground behind their new abode!

  25. eclectic kelvin says:

    “Once in the tiny houses, the families will plug into existing county services, including a mobile team that helps people stay in their homes after experiencing homelessness. That includes resolving disputes with landlords”
    Translation- Once you let this happen you can kiss everything you own goodbye. With the backing of the city attorneys they will receive you will not stand a chance. The first time you complain about the slaughter of a goat halal style in your back yard your dead meat. The scum the city puts in your yard will sue you every time you look at them. And wait until the city tells you to enlarge the little house to accommodate the 5 or 6 little bastards they produce

    • crazyeighter says:

      Oh. And the best part: you don’t have to take in one of these homeless to get the best benefit. If your neighbor does, then you can make repeated trips to the pawn shop to buy your own shit back.

  26. California southpaw says:

    They’re called bums. We used to run them out of town. And then go to Jack in the Box!

  27. partyzantski says:

    This program will die a quick death, like the first yet to be named victim of it. The shacks are disgusting, maybe it will redpill some Portlandites with the truth before it is too late.

    ps- plumbing & sanitary??? Porta John contract & small dumpster. This would also go better if it were a proprietary rental, where it was more like a hotel than a rental unit… prevents the turds from gaining leverage on a landlord.

    Me? I would not have this on my land, ever. Too much legislative and legal risk, not to mention the high chance of getting raped/killed/beheaded. Or worse.

  28. Hogbody says:

    A while back, the city of Portland cut the fees/permits required to build a tiny house in your yard. Once you built one, your property value was reassessed. IIRC, some people were being hit with up to an additional 8,000 a year in property taxes. Combined with a family living in the backyard you won’t be able to collect rent from, or evict for nonpayment of rent, and I think some people are in for a rude awakening.

Comments are welcome. Trolls will be banned and then shot.