Tech millionaire builds 99-unit tiny house neighborhood for homeless Canadians - rent is kept at 30% of income, the large majority of residents pay a maximum of $200 — including all utilities
Tech millionaire builds 99-unit tiny house neighborhood for homeless Canadians
This is fine, but millionaires won't save us
He did actually save those homeless people.
I don't think it's possible to amass "millions" as an executive, while giving fair payments to everyone down the chain.
Sure, but let's pretend this one hasn't done significantly more than others.
Absolutely, but it is food seeing some people who actually use their money for something good.
They could, but they won't.
Maybe if they all teamed up and were organized to do so. But a tiny handful of billionaires control as much wealth as the millionaires. It's much harder for a class to voluntarily do good than for a small handful of people. That's why society needs to step in, tax them, and distribute to projects as needed.
Elon Musk would never lol. He could do so much good with his money but he just chooses not to. Has he built a library? A park? A school? Literally anything?
Didn't you know empathy is a sin and weakness.....
Can't believe he said that shit.
Something something he could've ended world hunger, but chose not to.
He twisted and parroted the words of someone else. Fucker's absolutely incapable of original thought or actual creation
If he said that, he needs to be ground into a fine paste, eaten, and then shit out because that's some garbage-tier humaning.
He's a billionaire. Id be surprised if he said otherwise.
Since you asked according to Wikipedia the Musk Foundation has given $50 million to st Judes, although Musk and his foundation have been criticized for their low payouts.
He also promised to solve world hunger if given a plan and when the UN gave him a plan, he backed out.
Thanks for looking, like honestly. At least he's done something I guess.
Very smart to put solar panels on each unit. I hope the residents will be allowed to plant some flowers, bushes, and trees to brighten up the area.
This is in my town. They are allowed and encouraged to do so. Their place is THEIR place, it fosters a sense of community and ownership of the community.
This project really kicks ass and it's making waves. I know the guy is a millionaire, but I've listened to a few interviews and his heart is at the right place. He genuinely cares and is being pragmatic about it.
I wish I could say the same for the billionaires of this province. Looking at you, Irving shitbags.
It's actually not as crazy being a tech millionaire nowadays since so many people build a great service and then just have it bought up by the competition.
It said right in the article Salesforce bought his product in 2011 and thats what made him a millionaire. Pretty good way to use that life changing money for the better of others and not just himself.
Remember, theres a gigantic difference between the wealth of a billionaire and the wealth of a millionaire. For one thing, its possible to make a million without harming others, a BILLION though, you HAVE to sacrifice others to achieve.
The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars
While the guy happened to manage to acquire almost $400 million by selling his company, it seems that he's really trying to do some good with that, quite frankly, ridiculous amount of money.
Also it seems that his employees were compensated somewhat above market rate while he owned the company.
Not exactly a dragon of his own making, we shall observe his career with great interest to see if he follows what seems to be his chosen path, as of now.
On paper, sure. But I might argue that the process of accruing paper wealth as a backstop against misfortune and a reserve during retirement is inherently deleterious - forcing people to forego quality of life in the immediate term as a hedge against the future. This is a highly inefficient process for individuals to manage - who carry the whole cost of an incidental risk/exceptionally long life. And it is the whole reason public pensions and public insurance came to exist.
That's before you get into the moral hazard of certain professions and fortunate individuals being predisposed towards retirement, while others work right up until their dying days.
Some rocker tried to do that in LA and they arrested him and kicked out all the homeless.
I accept millionaires.
I've yet to see moral billionaires.
Yep, I've seen friends reach the seven figure area through steady seven day weeks and some luck picking their trade and finding industrial clients over a period of fifteen to twenty years. I have seen how little they slept and how kids were basically only possible because they were pretty self reliant from age 12 or 13 and helped a lot around the house. I have no idea how a human could possibly create a thousand times that value in their lifetime.
They can't. Billionaires can only exist by taking value generated by others. Absolutely nothing Jeff Bezos could do within 60 seconds is worth continuously "earning" over 18.000$.
The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars. Although the millionaires have to stop clutching their pearls, step up and realize that they're a lot closer in class to the homeless than the billionaires.
Well you sure as hell can't have generally high moral standards and earn a billion from scratch. You have to either screw the environment on a very large scale and/or screw lots and lots of people.
And if you are in a context where you inherit a billion and think there is no problem with an individual having billions, odds are you are also not in a great position moral-wise.
I think the main ethical pathway to billions is through intellectual property. Write a beloved book series where each installment sells over 10 million copies, gets adapted into a movie cinematic universe that grosses billions, sells a shitload of merchandise, etc., and taking a fair cut of all that economic activity might result in a billion dollars.
Yes, in a sense it's still rent seeking of being paid some kind of toll for someone else building on your work, but that foundation is still your own work.
On a smaller scale, you've got songwriters, filmmakers, other entertainers, who can do one thing that gets seen/appreciated by billions. Same with inventors or artists.
Most millionaires probably don't even know it and certainly don't feel it. It's old people who've been living in the same house for 50 years, who still worry about the price of beans.
Why can't other people be more like this? Go Marcel!
When the time comes we let this one unbothered
“I won the parent lottery, the education lottery, the country lottery,” LeBrun told Macleans. “It would be arrogant to say every piece of my ‘success’ was earned, when so much of it was received.”
Looks like he did this because he’s actually a decent reasonable person.
This is how fucking easy it is. This is a millionaire. Imagine what someone with hundreds of billions of dollars could do.
You can have a soul, or you can have billions of dollars; not both.
Imagine what WE could do if we taxed millionaires and billionaires.
We could build these in every city in the country.
Imagine if the public sector did this and didn't limit it to a single development.
We could even build bigger-than-tiny sized units. Maybe include additional amenities like schools and health clinics and food malls in the immediate vicinity. Throw in a rail stop so people can get to the metro center easily. You know... actual urban development.
No idea where we could get money for that, though. Maybe if Canada didn't exempt 50% of capital gains income from taxation for some reason... But no, that would never work.
Feels like now is the best time for other nations to have low capital gains taxes. No?
My city built a bunch of these, but they are 10 ft x 10 ft pods. Hundreds of them. We still have 5-6,000 homeless living on the street. Our county has been handing out free tents for 8 years and guess what, didn't help.
Our county has been handing out free tents for 8 years and guess what, didn’t help.
I mean, tents help keep the rain and the wind off you. It helps in so far as any amount of camping gear is going to help. But its not solving homelessness unless you classify rough outdoor living as a solution.
Also...
you're paddling against the current if you're handing out tents in a city where the police pounce on homeless encampments and tear them up.
Dude's getting 20k/mo rent and helping the poor. That's fucking awesome.
Considering utilities are included, I doubt he gets much of that
Eat this guy last
He can sit on my side of the table if he keeps this up
I have a feeling by the time we eat the other billionaires, he'd have donated it all away. We won't have to eat him if what his PR team says is really true.
Honestly when I see "tech millionaire" and "altruism" in the same article, I expect to seese seriously ghoulish shit.
I still have concerns around the long-term outcome - the land is ostensibly still privately held, and I assume the homes are as well. I'd like to
It said former, he sold his business 14 years ago and looks like he doesn't work in tech anymore.
Did you forget to finish that last sentence before you hit post ?
Yeah I was kind of working on a long effort post in Jerboa over the course of my day, which is already risky since it doesn't save drafts, but I think somehow switching apps resulted in my posting three times to this thread when I had not intended to post anything at all yet.
So now there are three comments from me on this thread, this one, another without the partial sentence at all, and one completely blank.
Looks goofy as hell but I'm gonna leave them up anyway.
Rember kids; philanthropy is advantageous upon failure of collective efforts
Based
Honestly when I see "tech millionaire" and "altruism" in the same article, I don't expect to see someone actually using their wealth to do something decent.
Millionaires still have their humanity on occasion.
Rent pricing is what the people should target first. Hard to fight the nutjobs when rent is so expensive
Simply approving more housing helps too https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
Building more housing helps, but building new housing will remain expensive for as long as land is expensive, so it's vital that we avoid wasting land. Which means density.
Some people read "density" and think "ah, taller buildings!", but that's only half the picture - you can save tremendous amounts of space by improving horizontal density - look at how dense OP's one storey housing is, by shrinking the houses, and by ditching the front yard and dedicated sidewalks.
Except, most of the space is still empty! Those streets are oversized (take a look at traditional cities, most streets are under 20ft wide (6m wide) wall-to-wall), and the houses all have gaps next to them which look big enough to fit (or almost fit) another house. So you could easily more-than-double the density without even going up, assuming the housing isn't car-centric (I'm guessing those empty spots might be car parks, and the streets are overly wide because they're for cars).
If this sounds nitpicky, it's not: building one-storey houses is dirt cheap; imagine trying to make a portable two-storey tent. It even makes it realistically possible to remove developers from the equation, without too much going horribly wrong. It just needs to be efficient with the land it uses.
240sqft = 22.3sqm
approving more housing is like realizing that hey maybe i should stop actively hammering the splinter into my toe!
i mean yeah, you should do that, but if that's the point we're at maybe it's time to start screaming about it rather than going "man this situation is suboptimal"
This is good, but if we address this at a systemic level, we don't need to put people in tiny low-density homes unconnected to anything for it to be affordable.
Presumably local governments have some mechanism for when they know a house costs X materials and Y labor, and they see new construction costing significantly more than that.
The result is detached homes@avg 75USD/sqft and apartments@55/sqft. With current interest rates of 6.768%, you'd get ~400 sqft homes with a $200/mo 30 year mortgage at those prices, 600sqft if interest rates were 3%.
Yup. A group local to me put up around 20 tiny homes with a grant from the city. With the cost of upkeep, it would have been cheaper for the city to pay for 20 hotel rooms. Which wouldn't have had any fewer amenities than the tiny homes they made.
There's some benefit to them as backyard "mother in law houses" or for a cabin in the woods. For solving homelessness, no, there are better options.
Detached house construction in the US costs are closer to $150/SF.
I was like, holy shit that 55/sqft must be some 10 times as much as my rent (I'm not sure how much a foot is; I think I'm paying about 20-25€/m^2 per month). And then I realized those are BUYING prices. Holy shit.
827USD/m2
To be clear, this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison; even if the US did free trade school with subsidies for living costs and everything, you're not going to get skilled metal workers and carpenters working for $35/day. While labor costs are only ~25% of the cost of construction, the same applies to how low you can get material costs, even when you've got central planning for concrete and steel industries.
As for the residents of the houses, rent is kept at 30% of income, which means the large majority of residents pay a maximum of $200 — including all utilities and internet — every month.
How are they planning to sustain this long-term?
Surely, someone is paying for the difference. Unless I totally missed it from the article 🫣
You're one of today's lucky 10,000! Landlords typically charge even more than the cost of building and maintaining the house, and then just pocket the rest as profit. It's bonkers!
He donated money to pay for the housing units, possibly the land. So that's probably all paid off. There are still taxes and utilities to pay for, which is probably where the rent is going.
This is just an educated guess though.
It's why the tech millionaire financing this isn't a tech billionaire.
I get that he's financing it, but that's not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can't see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
These places are tiny at 240 square feet. There's not going to be much $$ tied up in them for material and utility costs can't possibly be that hught because the homes are so compact.
If each home cost $40k, which is probably generous, over 30 years that's $111/mo. Internet is probably a commercial line to the site and then a local network type setup. The real question is how much the land cost.
Rent might not cover everything 100%, but it would be close. It wouldn't surprise me if some money from the locality was involved since people living on the streets isn't free and simply providing housing can be a massive first step to getting people reintegrated back into society.
If each home cost $40k
"Lowest cost for a Canadian tiny home: $80,000 to $150,000" (SOURCE)
Yes, probably less if they are building them all themselves, but $80,000 seems to be the norm for temporary tiny homes. Uxbridge priced tiny homes made from trailer containers at $80,000, too.
I think they could be sustainable as far as electricity (solar) and even water and heating (propane), so that's not a bad thing.
But how is the land being paid for? Taxes? etc.
Every tiny home project I've heard about has these barriers that get in the way. What needs to change so we can build more of these, instead of single, detached homes with massive yards??
We need more of these!
I would estimate their construction cost is closer to $100k CAD than $40k. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Construction costs can be very high for a tiny home, which is what these are. They are built on a trailer.
Those houses don't cost 40K. I've seen that kind of houses for 20K and less. Either in wood or sandwich panels.
When I lived in germany full time, I would've loved to live in a tiny home, but germany would've rather put me on the street than allow a tiny home lmaoo.
That's the problem in a lot of the US too. We transitioned from building massive subdivisions of small/cheap homes to smalle subdivisions of larger/more expensive housing. This is due to a mix of zoning that favors single family detached housing, land availability, and consumer tastes.
Homes have drastically grown in size over the past 200 years while the number of people living in them has decreased. Not to mention nicer material, which also contributes to cost. No more "builder grade" cabinets and formica counters these days.
If it was possible to build co-ops of these it'd be what I've been suggesting for like 9 years.
I have and there aren't any. Regardless they should be the standard, not the exception.
These units may be basically sheds, but I've seen people pay half a million to have the same thing three floors up in central London.
If I was homeless I'd take solid four walls the size of a medium-sized tent if it meant warmth, utility services, your own toilet and anything else I'd need to even be able to focus on caring for myself or even others more than merely survive. Those tiny buildings might be the minimum, but they ARE something you can call a safe home.
I'm wondering though, how was this more cost-effective to build than a long apartment complex...? Do those tiny things not need any concrete foundation, perhaps regulatory stuff…?
Looking at the video, they're basically trailers. How much does it take to set up a trailer park? Fill a base with concrete, slap in some plumbing and electrical points. Probably quite economical to do it all in one go.
I suspect the most expensive part is the land in most places. Looks like this town has plenty of room around it. Probably costs a bit to heat them though, being where it is.
And I got to be honest, a small separate home looks a lot nicer to live in than an apartment building. Especially if it's built from wood like these are. Being able to hear constant noise from 10 other people around you just walking about is not for me.
Impressive, it's even a walkable place seen that it is a mixed use neighborhood with commercial buildings too
My grandma lived in this trailer park for 40 years until she died. Pretty low overhead.
This is really great to see. So glad there are people like this out there willing to extend empathy to people who are struggling. I love that this project also respects their clients' autonomy as well. The fact that you don't have to stay sober to be there, I think it's great. Just give someone a stable roof over their head, a small support network, and I believe they can turn around their addictions and their lives.
Damn, $200 sounds low, on the other hand 30% is a crazy share. I'm targeting 10-15% at most.
In France the law does not allow rent (or mortgage) payments higher than 1/3 of net monthly income.
It is pretty effective at keeping the housing market vaguely in check.
Fell apart after COVID when a bunch of Parisians sold their little apartments and arrived in the provinces with a million in their pocket. The law has kept it level after that big jump though I think.
In fairness seems to also include all utilities (wonder if internet counts as a utility?)
30% is a good target for keeping things balanced because theoretically youd spend 30% on housing, 30% on food and necessities and 15% for savings and 15% for fun stuff. But reality is for most people the required costs are much higher so you end up with most income going to housing and transportation
I’m just glad it’s housing for the unhoused. In general, we shouldn’t compromise for any less than a normal standard of living for all. But, in absence of that we can’t wait around while people freeze and OD on the streets. As long as this doesn’t become normalized and is simply a step forward. Which is a very serious concern. But, this is a solution in that it’s a 1 not a 0, which is often how things play out irl - messy, and lots of compromises.
Off topic, they look like detached homes. Was there a conscious choice not to make duplexes, quads, or an apartment building? Tiny homes are just so weird to me... People will really do anything except stick units next to each other
They're easy to manufacture and move into place and remove if theres problems(pests, fire, etc). Depending on how he selects people a lot of the unhoused population are not mentally well and/or have substance abuse problems. This means if someone is a hoarder or sets their own place on fire it is not as consequential to their neighbors. It also is less likely to cause problems with neighbors if you have just a little bit of room. I would imagine for something like this to thrive you would want to build community and if people are annoyed with their neighbors because they are sharing a wall it would cause problems. I don't know the real reason just throwing out ideas.
I get that he enjoys staying involved with the project including providing/helping services for the community, but this probably doesn't need to use the "30% of income rent" crutch that is typical. Would be less time consuming to sell homes at cost, perhaps partner with bank to guarantee mortgages at low rates, let the community be a self managed HOA. Can make unlimited communities that way instead of tying up all your/his time into this one.
That may be fine at first, but the price of those houses will skyrocket every time they're sold until they reach the current market prices again. By only renting them, he can ensure the price stays artificially low.
Locking rent to income allows people to get their finances under control and get back onto their feet without the risk of loosing their housing because they make too much
Are these houses good shelters for tornados?
They don't look like they would be. That alone kills the tiny house for a huge chunk of the US :/.
You can have community tornado shelters.
I know they do that in trailer parks, but you still have to make it to the shelter. And there are a lot of people who would prefer to gamble than do that. Trailers at least have heft to them, and multiple walls to catch flying debris. You can duck into a bathroom for instance if things get real bad real quick.
Edit: but I clearly haven't thought this out as the people would otherwise be homeless and have 0 shelter
If you build one big shelter for the neighbourhood its probably way more cost effective than per house.
Generally this can be solved with hurricane ties (to prevent the structure from completely flying) and a community tornado shelter in affected regions. It won't eliminate damage but will reduce it as much as can be.
It’s in Canada.
Alberta and Saskatchewan do have some tornado risks, but it's not nearly as bad as central US.
It's not scalable, but good on him
Why not?
I mean.. we can't rely on rich people funding our housing
But also the way it's built. They're all small, single story homes. It's great for starting an independent community like he did, but most people want to live in cities, and this would never work in a city
Rich assholes hoarding wealth instead of emulating this guy.
When is that 30% determined? Sounds like this would be an inescapable situation. If they finally start making more, they're suddenly overpaying for this shit and can't save up anything to move somewhere better
they could move somewhere else where they wont be overpaying and let someone with less income move in. why inescapable?
You tend to need a deposit to move into a new place. Which requires savings. It's hard to save when the biggest expense you have keeps going up in direct proportion with the money you make...
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Yes, apparently there's a cap, but if there hasn't been, it sounds like one of those surface level nice things that is actually exploitative
Currently a little over 50% of my income goes to rent+utilities, then there's still food+transport to deal with. I'd gladly take 30% as it would actually give me some room to save instead of living paycheque to paycheque.
If my income were to improve where 30% is unreasonable, I'd just move back to flat-rate renting as I am now.
You'd need to make $2000/month for a cheap apartment (~$600/month) to be cheaper than this. And if you are, just move there.
Anyways, this is irrelevant; Marcel implemented a rent cap much before that.
There's max at $200. I guess it's enough to keep it running and maintained.
When you earn so much that these 30 % are more than usual rent, you are far from being homeless very quickly. Not to mention the 300 $ cap.
There's a cap of $200.
And places like this should have income caps, after which you need to move out. A good practice is a system where income has to be under one cap to move in and have to leave after making a different, higher cap. It lets people get a foothold and establish some savings to prepare to support themselves.
Affordable is awesome. If it helps people who can only afford affordable, awesome. But this could be organized more decentrally to help everyone that wants affordable. It would be a disadvantage in "buying" a home, if your efforts to improve your income backfire/kick you out of your home.
Man, shut up. This dude made bank when he sold his company and thought, "how can I improve the lives of others with this money?"
Then he put in the work to figure out the best way to spend it. And then he fuckin did that.
Should the government be handling the problem? Yes. Is that how every rich person should think and act? For sure. But is that reality? No, so we should celebrate it when it happens.
You'll never be happy if you let perfect be the enemy of good.
its literally what financial advisers tell people should be the upper bound for their housing costs and this is for low income individuals. they didnt pull the number from their own rear. so take the small good news were you can.
"A year ago, I was homeless. Now I have a home, I'm not on the street and I have peace because every place where I stayed before was temporary. Here there is very much a sense of community. Marcel has a heart and a passion for what he is doing."
People got homes. Ones that dont require them to starve themselves to death.
30% of income spent on housing is a perfectly reasonable number
It's the maximum reasonable amount as per StatsCan.
People spending 30% or more of their income on shelter costs are considered to be rent-burdened, or in unaffordable housing.
To me, "perfectly reasonable" implies that there would be wiggle room on either end where the figure could still be reasonable were it higher or lower.
“The word ‘philanthropy’ is often interpreted as someone who gives money,” he told the alumni magazine.
“But the Greek roots of the word ‘philos’ and ‘anthropos’ mean to love humans. What I have discovered is spending money is the easy thing, spending yourself is the hard thing. The 12 Neighbours project is how I can best spend myself.”yl
I'm not crying, you're crying... Sniff
I also liked this:
Seems like a decent dude.
I like this part as well:
Someone must be cutting onions. Let's add them to the billionaire stew.