129
submitted 11 months ago by girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

After selling his software business for millions, Marcel Lebrun decided to pour his time and money into an affordable housing project in Fredericton. CBC’s Harry Forestell takes a closer look at the 12 Neighbours community and its impact on the people who live there.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] laylawashere44 28 points 11 months ago

Honest title: Business owner sells business, uses proceeds to become a property developer and build a trailer park.

[-] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Honestly what's wrong with making a trailer park?

[-] laylawashere44 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Nothing, but I find the framing of this project dishonest.

Edit: Well actually, there are a few things wrong with trailer parks. For one, the value of a house is the value of the land, and not the value of the house or trailer. Trailers are built on small plots, thus as the trailer gets older, the owner might not be building equity. Say if the land was worth 50k and the trailer 50k, after 20 years the value of the trailer might have gone to zero, but the value of the land might not rise over 100k meaning that the homeowner loses equity or doesn't build as much equity as they might have, with a 150k home on a decent sized plot. Especially since the value of a house will not go to zero over 20 years, and if limited renovation will actually increase.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Have you been to a trailer park?

[-] sosodev@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I’ve been to several and they tend to be decent low-income housing. Quality can vary a lot but I don’t think we should be for cheaper housing and against options that provide it.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

There's several segments done about the atrocious practices of trailer parks. If you do any research into how predatory it is, you wouldn't be so excited about it.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 24 points 11 months ago

Housing is largely inadequate due to a reliance on the free market and voluntary philanthropy to supply it.

This wealthy individual used wealth derived from the free market for some voluntary philanthropy.

System working as intended: a problem reinforced through its own aenemic mitigation.

[-] cobwoms 15 points 11 months ago

why are they tiny and not regular

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 29 points 11 months ago

I'll play devil's advocate here ...

First is many homeless need an address to start receiving any monetary help at all (CPP, social assistance, disability, etc). This starts the process.

Second is many don't have jobs so wouldn't be able to afford the maintenance costs of a full-size house.

Third is this could be a starter home for some, where they could get a job and start saving for a down-payment on a home or a larger rental unit.

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago

Honestly, like 200 sq ft. You don’t share walls with your neighbours. No stomping on the ceiling.

For free? Yeah, I could make it work and I’m not even homeless ffs.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

It's not free. You pay 30% of your income (source is the video).

[-] bartleby1@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

but presumably you’re getting social assistance, no? it’s sort of like a Basic Income

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

Only with an address. If you have no address you can't register.

That said there are a rare few agencies that allow people to use the agency address to start the process, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

[-] terath@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

I've always paid >50% of my income when I rented. Sounds good!

[-] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

I think it's a decent solution for some. A small private space. I'll note though that it is rather inefficient in land use. Many of the residents will need a car as well as they get back on their feet. Building these is closer to suburban sprawl in the form of a mini-mobile home park, which is not terrible, as I said it will be a decent solution for some.

I'd be curious as to the construction costs and land use for 99 of these tiny homes vs. building apartment blocks/condos closer into transit and work. Granted I was curious and a quick Google show $800,000 for 880 ft^2 1 bed, 1 bath condo in Vancouver.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, people saying he should have built an apartment have never paid rent in Vancouver LOL. People paying huge rent for half a living room with a sheet hung from the ceiling for privacy. at least with these you have youe own kitchen, toilet, shower, and personal privacy

[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

I don't think you understand the term "Devil's Advocate" as everything you're (rightly) stating is positive to the person doing this.

To play the Devil's Advocate, the person doing this is a Millionaire. I guarantee they are getting tax breaks out the ears for doing this and their accountants will ensure that this ends up being a money making venture for them. Pessimistically speaking, there's no such thing as altruism.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago

He is able to build one a week (with kitchen, toilet, shower) so it gets the people in fast. Building a regular home needs foundation and has lots of wasted space like hallways, etc. And not your own space if you have multiple tennants in a 4 bedroom , who want to be sel sufficient individuals

[-] macaroni1556@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

You need to know your place. You are still bottom class, we are just letting you survive.

[-] cobwoms 6 points 11 months ago

eat the rich

[-] terath@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

At least they aren't communist lemmy posters who spend all their days shitting on good deeds.

[-] ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

Seriously. This whole comment section is disgusting.

[-] Player2@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

On the other hand, at least something is better than nothing

[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

Because we can't let poor people have dignity. A large part of our system is designed to punish poor people for being poor, and to make sure that they know it.

I don't think people realize how important hierarchy and order are to the wealthy. As a class, they're so far above basic needs (food, shelter, security) that all that really matters is their station in the world. When you understand that, you'll also understand why the wealthy are almost viscerally, psychotically opposed to anything the "flattens" society: public education, healthcare, social services. They're quite happy to, eg, donate a hospital wing because it's a grand gesture of their magnanimity, but if you ask them to pay the same in taxes they'll kick and scream.

If you just let poor people lead a life of quiet dignity... (shudder)

[-] Jessvj93@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Ngl that being said, I would live in one, it's a pretty nice studio imo.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

I had to downsize to a bedroom last April and miss having my own kitchen and more space. I'd live in one of these in a heartbeat.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

This gives them immediate dignity. Address, wash and toilet facilities, a kitchen, and a safe place to sleep amd keep belongings. Just because a 200sqft house doesn't look like a detached 2 story don't take away their chance at living like a human. Heck non vulnerable people in Vanvouver pay huge rent for 200sq ft bicycle sheds.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

Larger homes cost more to build for obvious reasons, so with any given amount of money, you have to balance the amount of individual units you can build with the size of the units.

Which is to say that you can provide homes for more people if you make them tiny and not regular

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Most of the cost of a home comes from the land sale itself, unless if you're building somewhere nobody wants the land (in which case there's nothing nearby to earn a living by as well). Considering that, building larger will only marginally increase the price. Doubly so if the larger building is for more than one resident.

A pair of townhouses can be built for almost the same cost of a single typical single family house, yet house two families on the same plot of land. A condo or apartment can house dozens for the cost of less than 10 normal houses.

Not to mention the reduced cost of plumbing and heating if you build one large building for a community rather than having dozens of separate systems for individual shacks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Datto@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

Dudes a millionaire, not billionaire. /S

[-] jadero@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

What's the mix of singles and families in the group needing shelter?

What funds are available? Is it better to build 99 tiny houses or 50 regular but small houses or 25 moderately sized homes?

What land and services are available? Are there differences in permitting?

Are there differences in the construction process? Is it better to jumpstart a project returning nearly immediate results with a bunch of quick and easy to build tiny houses or to take much longer to build out?

What I'd like to see is the long term plan. Is this the beginning of something grand or just a bandaid. It's not that we don't sometimes need bandaids, but it would be nicer to see a longer term plan.

As a first step? Maybe it will prove to be a misstep, but at least someone is doing, not just talking. Learn as we go.

[-] DoomsdaySprocket@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

This project looks like a jump up from Seattle’s various tiny homes villages (Nickelsville, Othello, etc), which are around 120sq.ft each and don’t have running water, if I recall. Those are considered temporary housing, but this is a like a next step up.

Curious how these ones interact with building codes, etc, being more permanent.

Either way, people who haven’t frozen to death, been stabbed, or OD’d have more options for recovery and moving forward.

[-] jadero@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah, these ones don't look far removed from the ones I've seen on YouTube that people with plenty of options choose to live in.

[-] LeafTheTreesAlone@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago

I think this is great. You can argue he’s making money off it or benefiting in some way but as long as people get to live in these houses on an affordable budget, great. They get a place to call home, personal space, a community with similar struggles. Most people don’t need big spaces, they just need a space and shelter.

[-] sosodev@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

There’s a lot of negativity in this thread. I think people often forget that perfect is the enemy of good. Cheap housing is objectively a good thing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

How tiny are we talking? It's not a very detailed article.

[-] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The New Brunswick government site says 18m², and there are some pictures on https://www.12neighbours.com/

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

You know, the first thing I thought of is that you could build like 6x that many homes if you just didn't bother with the yards and added a second story. I mean, yes, what was done is nice, but it's basically just a trailer park. I bet that the land alone was like 70% of the cost if not 90% as well, so building the houses more densely would've provided for several times as many people for almost no extra cost.

Alternatively, a single mid-rise apartment building would've done the same thing on only a fraction of the land, and probably a lot more comfortable to live in, not to mention cheaper on amenities like heating and sewage.

[-] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

On the other hand, you can throw one of these things together in a week, ensuring that people have homes sooner. You also don't have to worry as much about soil conditions, water pressure, and all the other complications of building large structures. If the choice is between space inefficient homes or no homes at all (because the cost is prohibitively expensive), then the one that makes homes wins.

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

But how long will that last? Are we talking about just making a few dozen homes one a week and call it a day after we've given homes to 1% of those who need it, and having used up all the space within 100km of anything decent? Those homes might be tiny, but they waste space like no tomorrow. Besides, building a low rise isn't expensive nor takes long at all, yet is far more space effecient. Especially if people don't mind such small homes.

For the space of four of those units, you could build a single building that could easily house a dozen. Hell, just build a normal house and give everybody their own room, sharing the kitchen and bathroom. It'll be a nicer place to live on top of housing far more people on a fraction of the land. It's basically just a college dorm house at that point.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

he could build one a week, making housing people immediate, rather than the planning and bureacracy a full story apartmwnt with a real foundation would take. Some times gap measures are best, until there is better

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

I agree the bureaucracy is a huge issue. NIMBY is a scourge in the western world.

But still, while he could build one a week, he could also build a 40 unit low rise in a single year, occupying the space of only one block rather than fill a good hectare of wheelless trailers that all need separate sewage and heating systems, and have a total upkeep of only a small fraction of all the independant homes that'll probably only last for a decade or two without being rebuilt on a regular basis unlike the apartment that could last for 50+.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] anachronist@midwest.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

From the looks of them, about 1/3 of a typical singlewide mobile home, built of similar materials. Basically more of a shack.

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Ah, NB. I could tell it wasn't Ontario or BC because the municipal government didn't stop him.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
129 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7163 readers
303 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS