ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

How could those "houses" cost so much money?

Contractors and politicians are getting paid under the table. Probably a lot of people.

---

The price is inclusive of all associated infrastructure as well. Water, sewer, electricity, probably a lot of site grading and site work, apparently some roads, etc. It's not just for the shed, but the shed and everything around and under it and the cost of engineering it all. California also costs a lot more to do anything because labor is expensive AF.

The thing is, the ultimate cost isn't that surprising when they're doing it this way. Think of a developer coming in and building a suburb. They do a lot more than simply put a house on a lot. They often regrade the land, build streets, add in storm sewer, add in sanitary sewer, water mains, electrical lines, gas lines, etc. You pay for all of that in the cost of the home even if you just buy the house as the lot.


ETA
For those who did not read OP's excerpt or anything else in the article...

Quote:

---

A breakdown provided by the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering shows that the contract provides $1.5 million just to prepare the site.

It also includes $122,000 for underground utilities, $253,000 for concrete pads (one for each shelter), $312,000 for an administrative office and staff restroom, $1.1 million for mechanical, electrical and fire alarms and $280,000 for permits and fees.

Additionally, the city has budgeted $651,000 to connect to the street sewer line and $546,000 in design, project management and inspection costs.

---

All in all, the cost is completely reasonable for what they're doing. The problem is that what they doing is completely unreasonable.

---

They are homeless! A field, some nice tents and portapotties are sufficient....still 100% better than 3rd world nations. Homeless do not need roads and infrastructure...that just means they are accepting this a permanent problem.

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

I am in the wrong business

---

This

Don't they already have 8x8 residences complete with plumbing, cafeteria, recreation facilities, educational facilities, and tight 24 hour security in various parts of the state?
Residents get to stay there until they served their sentences or get paroled.

And liberals DA's are emptying these facilities as fast as they can.

No way they are maintaining social distancing!

Mostly unsustainable

650k to tie into a sewer line? Who pays the property taxes? That another tax payer expense bc you know CA doesn't want to miss on that revenue.

My question is, how are they handling the mental illness and rampant addiction issues. Will these turn into drug dens like they do in Seattle?

The cost is definitely ridiculous. Seems like porta potty's, centralized water collection and a window unit in a 10k storage shed doesn't = 130k. Hell I have a bigger one in my backyard I paid 6k for that has power run to it.

InfantryAg said:

---

No way they are maintaining social distancing!

---

Didn't you hear, Homeless are immune.

HalifaxAg said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

How could those "houses" cost so much money?

Contractors and politicians are getting paid under the table. Probably a lot of people.

---

The price is inclusive of all associated infrastructure as well. Water, sewer, electricity, probably a lot of site grading and site work, apparently some roads, etc. It's not just for the shed, but the shed and everything around and under it and the cost of engineering it all. California also costs a lot more to do anything because labor is expensive AF.

The thing is, the ultimate cost isn't that surprising when they're doing it this way. Think of a developer coming in and building a suburb. They do a lot more than simply put a house on a lot. They often regrade the land, build streets, add in storm sewer, add in sanitary sewer, water mains, electrical lines, gas lines, etc. You pay for all of that in the cost of the home even if you just buy the house as the lot.


ETA
For those who did not read OP's excerpt or anything else in the article...

Quote:

---

A breakdown provided by the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering shows that the contract provides $1.5 million just to prepare the site.

It also includes $122,000 for underground utilities, $253,000 for concrete pads (one for each shelter), $312,000 for an administrative office and staff restroom, $1.1 million for mechanical, electrical and fire alarms and $280,000 for permits and fees.

Additionally, the city has budgeted $651,000 to connect to the street sewer line and $546,000 in design, project management and inspection costs.

---

All in all, the cost is completely reasonable for what they're doing. The problem is that what they doing is completely unreasonable.

---

They are homeless! A field, some nice tents and portapotties are sufficient....still 100% better than 3rd world nations. Homeless do not need roads and infrastructure...that just means they are accepting this a permanent problem.

---

Most probably need to be committed, honestly, for their own good.

But yeah, there is no reason to provide infrastructure like this.

This is nothing but a government money giveaway to Garcettis buddies.

My wife and I just bought 2.25 sheds worth of prime real estate in the Fort Worth area that is 31.25x that total size... I guess the extra 29 multiplier on the sheds is for corruption?

ballchain said:

---

Or they could've just rented all of the homeless $2/mo apartments for five or so years - which is a lot longer than these ghetto sheds will last.

Bonus would be their neighbors abandoning the democrat platform after getting #woke on what kinda folks homeless really are.

---

You could put them all in a cheap, $50 per night motel for almost 8 years for that amount of money.

LA Times did their best to find a couple of sympathetic temporarily down-n-out types to highlight in their piece...however they made no mention regarding what to do with people who intend to make these sheds their permanent homes.

I would be checking politicians pocket books.

No way you charge that much and not send some type of kickback.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

No way they are maintaining social distancing!

---

Didn't you hear, Homeless are immune.

---

Don't they lose this immunity when they move in?

No Broadband Internet? What's up with that? These people are being treated like savages!

We have a bigger and better shed in our backyard. It was like $2,000 installed if I remember correctly. This is insane. Would love to see the paper trail.

Thanks for the F shack.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

Would be easier and cheaper if they just plopped these in backyards of Hollywood libs. No utilities needed. Get em a solar panel and let them pinch loaves in the backyard. Easy.

---

actually they could just use the pool house instead of a new shed...even cheaper!

Why do they think solves any sort of homeless problem?

This displaces the existing homeless into new "homes" which must be maintained, with utilities. Are the "homed" going to pay for those things, or anything?

And the now-open streets, which are cleaned and refreshed. What stops new homeless people from squatting there?

Seems like they are growing the amount of people not contributing to society, paying for their basic needs, and making room for others to join. All while companies that CREATE JOBS leave California.

Genius.

Yesterday said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

How could those "houses" cost so much money?

Contractors and politicians are getting paid under the table. Probably a lot of people.

---

The price is inclusive of all associated infrastructure as well. Water, sewer, electricity, probably a lot of site grading and site work, apparently some roads, etc. It's not just for the shed, but the shed and everything around and under it and the cost of engineering it all. California also costs a lot more to do anything because labor is expensive AF.

The thing is, the ultimate cost isn't that surprising when they're doing it this way. Think of a developer coming in and building a suburb. They do a lot more than simply put a house on a lot. They often regrade the land, build streets, add in storm sewer, add in sanitary sewer, water mains, electrical lines, gas lines, etc. You pay for all of that in the cost of the home even if you just buy the house as the lot.

---

Yeah, but there are probably close to a thousand sheds on each acre -- or at least, something near that ratio. So all those costs you speak of may be real but are spread out among a LOT of these things. Even at 150 sheds per acre, that's almost 20 million dollars for all those sheds. You can't tell me that all the costs you're speaking of come anywhere close to that, especially since there is already water, sewage, electricity, etc. next door or down the street. They aren't putting these things in an unincorporated area without utilities, even if such a place existed in non-remote LA County.

I get what you mean, but 130 is still hundreds of times what they should cost, even in California.

---

An acre is 43,560 sf. 1000 8x8 units is 64k sf. You could pack these in wall to wall and still get nowhere near 1000 per acre. Beyond that, there are requirements on building spacing that mean you can't just pack them in. An 8x8 structure could easily have a 13x13 or more footprint when you include building offsets. Then there's necessary easements for utilities, walkways, parking, etc, so you might want to sharpen your pencil and rethink that, "there are probably close to a thousand sheds on each acre -- or at least, something near that ratio," thing because you're off by an order of magnitude.

But then again, it's only spelled out in the article that there are 50 units in this particular project. You don't even need to pull numbers out of your ***. The cost for the entire project is listed too ($5.2 million). It also lists the other things like bathrooms and showers, a staff administrative area, and an eating area that are lumped into the project cost and divided amongst the units top arrive at $130k per.

You obviously don't know what any of this entails. Just because city utilities are near doesn't mean that the site itself does not need to be prepped. Storm runoff has to be accounted for, which means they're likely grading the site. They'll probably have to put down base and compact it since they're putting concrete pads under each of these. Then there's the cost of the slabs. They have to run sanitary, water, and electricity to the aforementioned admin area, bathrooms, showers, and eating area. They're probably wiring each of these structures and running electricity across the entire site. I also wouldn't be shocked if they were putting in site lighting. Then you still have to connect to the utilities. If they're under the street and you have to connect to tap into them, it's not like running power from the pole on the corner or connecting your house to the water meter. Then there's the engineering fees. This isn't being done for free.

But hey, WTF do I know? It's not like they've have a breakdown or anything...

OH WAIT...

Quote:

---

A breakdown provided by the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering shows that the contract provides $1.5 million just to prepare the site.

It also includes $122,000 for underground utilities, $253,000 for concrete pads (one for each shelter), $312,000 for an administrative office and staff restroom, $1.1 million for mechanical, electrical and fire alarms and $280,000 for permits and fees.

Additionally, the city has budgeted $651,000 to connect to the street sewer line and $546,000 in design, project management and inspection costs.

---

It's almost like that site work and utilities takes up the entire budget.

---

And you think those numbers are ok? $2030/sq/ft?? Even with an admin building? My cousin just built an upscale condominium complex in San Diego for around $800 sq/ft. Someone is getting rich and it ain't the tax payers.

---

Quote:

---

All in all, the cost is completely reasonable for what they're doing. The problem is that what they're doing is completely unreasonable.

---

Yes. The numbers are ok considering what they made. That is a logical result of developing a site for this level of infrastructure and putting all of 3500 SF of space on it (though that number would go up considering the other structures). It's like building an outdoor sports complex with a snack stand and wondering why the snack stand is $10k/sf when you divide the entire project cost into it. If you could be bothered to read, the actual structures are ~$125/sf, meaning the cost per square foot overall is 95% site.



As far as the condo comparison, it's called economies of scale. Could you build apartments at a much lower square footage cost? Yes. Could you build them at the same total cost? Hell no. With an apartment or condo, you have the advantage of verticality absorbing the cost of site improvements in square footage that goes up instead of out. You are also enclosing larger spaces. Basic geometry tells us that area scales faster than perimeter and volume scales faster than surface area, so the larger enclosed space you build, the less material and labor you use per sf of enclosed space and the lower your cost per sf (to a point until you run into other limitations). The overall total always goes up though. So sure you could build 50 apartments or condos ar a lower cost/sf, but you'd spend even more money doing it.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

How could those "houses" cost so much money?

Contractors and politicians are getting paid under the table. Probably a lot of people.

---

The price is inclusive of all associated infrastructure as well. Water, sewer, electricity, probably a lot of site grading and site work, apparently some roads, etc. It's not just for the shed, but the shed and everything around and under it and the cost of engineering it all. California also costs a lot more to do anything because labor is expensive AF.

The thing is, the ultimate cost isn't that surprising when they're doing it this way. Think of a developer coming in and building a suburb. They do a lot more than simply put a house on a lot. They often regrade the land, build streets, add in storm sewer, add in sanitary sewer, water mains, electrical lines, gas lines, etc. You pay for all of that in the cost of the home even if you just buy the house as the lot.

---

Yeah, but there are probably close to a thousand sheds on each acre -- or at least, something near that ratio. So all those costs you speak of may be real but are spread out among a LOT of these things. Even at 150 sheds per acre, that's almost 20 million dollars for all those sheds. You can't tell me that all the costs you're speaking of come anywhere close to that, especially since there is already water, sewage, electricity, etc. next door or down the street. They aren't putting these things in an unincorporated area without utilities, even if such a place existed in non-remote LA County.

I get what you mean, but 130 is still hundreds of times what they should cost, even in California.

---

An acre is 43,560 sf. 1000 8x8 units is 64k sf. You could pack these in wall to wall and still get nowhere near 1000 per acre. Beyond that, there are requirements on building spacing that mean you can't just pack them in. An 8x8 structure could easily have a 13x13 or more footprint when you include building offsets. Then there's necessary easements for utilities, walkways, parking, etc, so you might want to sharpen your pencil and rethink that, "there are probably close to a thousand sheds on each acre -- or at least, something near that ratio," thing because you're off by an order of magnitude.

But then again, it's only spelled out in the article that there are 50 units in this particular project. You don't even need to pull numbers out of your ***. The cost for the entire project is listed too ($5.2 million). It also lists the other things like bathrooms and showers, a staff administrative area, and an eating area that are lumped into the project cost and divided amongst the units top arrive at $130k per.

You obviously don't know what any of this entails. Just because city utilities are near doesn't mean that the site itself does not need to be prepped. Storm runoff has to be accounted for, which means they're likely grading the site. They'll probably have to put down base and compact it since they're putting concrete pads under each of these. Then there's the cost of the slabs. They have to run sanitary, water, and electricity to the aforementioned admin area, bathrooms, showers, and eating area. They're probably wiring each of these structures and running electricity across the entire site. I also wouldn't be shocked if they were putting in site lighting. Then you still have to connect to the utilities. If they're under the street and you have to connect to tap into them, it's not like running power from the pole on the corner or connecting your house to the water meter. Then there's the engineering fees. This isn't being done for free.

But hey, WTF do I know? It's not like they've have a breakdown or anything...

OH WAIT...

Quote:

---

A breakdown provided by the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering shows that the contract provides $1.5 million just to prepare the site.

It also includes $122,000 for underground utilities, $253,000 for concrete pads (one for each shelter), $312,000 for an administrative office and staff restroom, $1.1 million for mechanical, electrical and fire alarms and $280,000 for permits and fees.

Additionally, the city has budgeted $651,000 to connect to the street sewer line and $546,000 in design, project management and inspection costs.

---

It's almost like that site work and utilities takes up the entire budget.

---

You're right: I didn't read the article. But you should have left it at my numbers because you're making the case MUCH worse here. $5.2 million to help 50-ish PEOPLE? For how long? What is the continued operating costs of this establishment? Who's going to clean it up? Who decides who gets a shed, who has to leave and under what circumstances? Do federal housing laws apply?

You can take my numbers literally if you want and have a field day but my whole point was that this thing is beyond stupid.

MaroonDynasty said:

---

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-12/los-angeles-tiny-homes-homeless

LA Times said:

---

In other cities, 64-square-foot aluminum and composite sheds are being used as quick and inexpensive emergency shelter for homeless people.

Not in Los Angeles. Here, plans to employ the minimalist structures, known as "tiny homes," have blossomed into expensive development projects with access roads, underground utilities and concrete foundations and commensurate planning delays.

At the city's first tiny home village, scheduled to open in January, each of the 39 closet-sized homes is costing $130,000, about 10 times what some other cities are spending. Five more villages are planned to open later.

Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the program in March, signaling that the concept of sheltering people in tiny homes, long neglected in Los Angeles, had emerged as a leading strategy in the city's response to a federal lawsuit alleging it has done too little to get homeless people off the streets.

---

These are literally ****ing sheds though. Lol

Sad state of affars, southern california is dead. Those who can move, are.

---

Hard working Texans get to pay for this when the feds bail out Cali NY and Illinois

Sid Farkas said:

---

LA Times did their best to find a couple of sympathetic temporarily down-n-out types to highlight in their piece...however they made no mention regarding what to do with people who intend to make these sheds their permanent homes.

---

I wonder what the Prop 13 value is on those homes?
And the real question is who pays the property taxes on them?

91AggieLawyer said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

How could those "houses" cost so much money?

Contractors and politicians are getting paid under the table. Probably a lot of people.

---

The price is inclusive of all associated infrastructure as well. Water, sewer, electricity, probably a lot of site grading and site work, apparently some roads, etc. It's not just for the shed, but the shed and everything around and under it and the cost of engineering it all. California also costs a lot more to do anything because labor is expensive AF.

The thing is, the ultimate cost isn't that surprising when they're doing it this way. Think of a developer coming in and building a suburb. They do a lot more than simply put a house on a lot. They often regrade the land, build streets, add in storm sewer, add in sanitary sewer, water mains, electrical lines, gas lines, etc. You pay for all of that in the cost of the home even if you just buy the house as the lot.

---

Yeah, but there are probably close to a thousand sheds on each acre -- or at least, something near that ratio. So all those costs you speak of may be real but are spread out among a LOT of these things. Even at 150 sheds per acre, that's almost 20 million dollars for all those sheds. You can't tell me that all the costs you're speaking of come anywhere close to that, especially since there is already water, sewage, electricity, etc. next door or down the street. They aren't putting these things in an unincorporated area without utilities, even if such a place existed in non-remote LA County.

I get what you mean, but 130 is still hundreds of times what they should cost, even in California.

---

An acre is 43,560 sf. 1000 8x8 units is 64k sf. You could pack these in wall to wall and still get nowhere near 1000 per acre. Beyond that, there are requirements on building spacing that mean you can't just pack them in. An 8x8 structure could easily have a 13x13 or more footprint when you include building offsets. Then there's necessary easements for utilities, walkways, parking, etc, so you might want to sharpen your pencil and rethink that, "there are probably close to a thousand sheds on each acre -- or at least, something near that ratio," thing because you're off by an order of magnitude.

But then again, it's only spelled out in the article that there are 50 units in this particular project. You don't even need to pull numbers out of your ***. The cost for the entire project is listed too ($5.2 million). It also lists the other things like bathrooms and showers, a staff administrative area, and an eating area that are lumped into the project cost and divided amongst the units top arrive at $130k per.

You obviously don't know what any of this entails. Just because city utilities are near doesn't mean that the site itself does not need to be prepped. Storm runoff has to be accounted for, which means they're likely grading the site. They'll probably have to put down base and compact it since they're putting concrete pads under each of these. Then there's the cost of the slabs. They have to run sanitary, water, and electricity to the aforementioned admin area, bathrooms, showers, and eating area. They're probably wiring each of these structures and running electricity across the entire site. I also wouldn't be shocked if they were putting in site lighting. Then you still have to connect to the utilities. If they're under the street and you have to connect to tap into them, it's not like running power from the pole on the corner or connecting your house to the water meter. Then there's the engineering fees. This isn't being done for free.

But hey, WTF do I know? It's not like they've have a breakdown or anything...

OH WAIT...

Quote:

---

A breakdown provided by the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering shows that the contract provides $1.5 million just to prepare the site.

It also includes $122,000 for underground utilities, $253,000 for concrete pads (one for each shelter), $312,000 for an administrative office and staff restroom, $1.1 million for mechanical, electrical and fire alarms and $280,000 for permits and fees.

Additionally, the city has budgeted $651,000 to connect to the street sewer line and $546,000 in design, project management and inspection costs.

---

It's almost like that site work and utilities takes up the entire budget.

---

You're right: I didn't read the article. But you should have left it at my numbers because you're making the case MUCH worse here. $5.2 million to help 50-ish PEOPLE? For how long? What is the continued operating costs of this establishment? Who's going to clean it up? Who decides who gets a shed, who has to leave and under what circumstances? Do federal housing laws apply?

You can take my numbers literally if you want and have a field day but my whole point was that this thing is beyond stupid.

---

Well you sure as hell won't be able to evict them from their new **** shacks.