Should more large cities open Tiny House Villages for the homeless such as Seattle's?

  • More like Tiny House

    I am all for some Tiny House Villages for the homeless across the country, as long as they are separated from other communities. People who pay a lot of money to live in nice areas should definitely not be subjected to some of the issues that come with living around the homeless.

  • Yes, help the needy

    Providing homes or a decent living facility is the best way to help the needy. It builds self- worth and is the first step for many to get on their feet. Once someone establishes self-worth an incentive to progress forward may take a hold. There may be additional services that can also be provided to help the patrons deal with whatever trauma led them to being homeless in the first place.

  • Yes, Tiny House Villages are a viable solution to the homeless problem in major cities.

    Many of the current 'solutions' to the homeless problem -- locking them up for pandering, tearing down their tent cities, or just hoping they will go away are not working. Tiny House Villages give them a place to stay and a sense of optimism. Combining this with job training programs and other services is a great step toward ending cyclical poverty.

  • Yes, it's an inexpensive way to help the homeless.

    There will always be homeless people. There isn't a lot we can do to change that. However, building a village of tiny houses seems like a relatively low-cost solution that will significantly improve the lives of many people. I would be proud if this is what my tax dollars went towards.

  • No, they shouldn't

    No. Tiny Houses are awful houses, and everybody knows it. The cities aren't allowing it because they are so much smarter than you. The cities are poor mud holes with buildings in them. Who needs tiny houses, anyways? They're cramped boxes with very small interior decorations in them. They show just how poor all you people are.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.