The homeless are traditionally anti-corporation, anti-establishment, etc. because they feel that the larger entities that run our country are what put them in the tough spot that they are in. I have a feeling the logos would quickly be defaced and degraded by the owners of the tents, which would ultimately force the advertisers to pull their money from the project. If their logo isn’t even recognizable, they are not gaining any brand equity through their efforts. The advertising to support this kind of initiative sounds great on paper, but I can’t imagine it working very well in practice.

Another interesting point that was mentioned just briefly in the original article is that the portable homes could be sponsored. There would be a commercial logo or ad on the large disk which the homeless person would roll around and display through the city. I wonder if such a thing would catch on. Is it really desirable to have homeless people representing you? What sort of companies would buy into it? How much would they invest for such an advertisement?

As far as tent cities taking over the public parks, I don’t think that will be an issue. Just as you and I aren’t permitted to set up a “home” in the middle of central park, neither will the homeless. Even today they are generally pushed out of many public parks if they seem to be setting up any type of camp.

Scott, I’ll concede that I didn’t take into account all externalities when making my claim, there is just too much to analyze without having an actual example to look at. You do have a good point though, that adequate housing may help many of those that would not have had the chance to even look for work. My personal experience with the homeless back in San Luis was that many of the people there seemed completely capable of working, but the reason they never looked for work was because they were more than comfortable not working. It was a lifestyle choice to stay where they were there once they became homeless, because homeless life in San Luis was a lot cushier than it is in most places. Introduce improved shelter for the homeless across the US and you may get a similar effect to what I saw in San Luis Obispo.

If I got a pretty new red tent, I’d want to personalize it a little bit–maybe a potted plant at the doorway or even a festive flag to identify my new digs. I wonder if sharing would be allowed, and the melody of sounds you might hear on your stroll through the park. Will the police patrol with their flashlights, peering in to check for criminal acitivity, or will the tents be private like our homes, requiring an invitation before entering? So many questions.

Although this may be a good system, and an improvement to society, it will come with new costs.

So, tell me, is this is real proposal or did you just want to get me fired up this morning?

For those that lack the motivation to raise themselves up in society–the drunks, the delusional, and otherwise– will certainly appreciate this new living standard. Although, the original article makes it sound like even these portable homes will require some responsibility and upkeep– it’s hard to say whether this demographic is even ready for it.

The other group are those that have been forced into homelessness, by layoffs, family troubles, and perhaps some war veterans. I think these represent the threshold– they could better their situation, or stay homeless. You predict that a better homeless quality of life will keep them there. However, I would presume that their new homes will give them more opportunity to find their way into society. With a dependable roof over their heads, they will have less health problems, as you have mentioned, and more opportunity to find their place in society. They can get a real night’s sleep, and perhaps even work towards getting a steady job. I think the better housing will introduce opportunity which wasn’t previously available.