Kissimmee, one of the more liberal city governments in Central Florida, wants to pay people to house the homeless.

Homeless people aren’t simply ordinary working families who have fallen on some hard times. The vast majority of them have drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Now imagine that you can’t evict your “tenant” or charge the market rate for rent.

That’s right: according to the city, the initiative would have some requirements: the homeowner would have to live at the property in a neighborhood that doesn’t have an HOA and the rent cost would have to be approved.

Did you get that last part? The rent has to be approved by the city. That means you won’t be able to rent this apartment that is in your home without getting the permission of the city, who will tell you how much you can charge. The city will own your house from that point forward, not you.

It gets even better:

Eligible homeowners would need a two-car garage in a home that’s homesteaded, and not governed by a homeowner’s association (HOA). If the city were to provide funding for the home expansion — Eady said she’s looking into government grants that support that — 25 percent of the rent would go to the city to defray those costs. 

That’s right: The city gets to keep 25% of the rent that you collect for the privilege of allowing homeless people to live (and use drugs or even manufacture meth) in your home. Of course, this isn’t being done out of altruism. No, the commissioner is trying to get the homeless out of her neighborhood.

Her motivation, she said, came from a family who she’s heard drives into her neighborhood very late each night to sleep in their car.

So what will be the benefit?

According to national apartment listing service RentCafe, 50% of one-bedroom apartments in the city are renting from $1,400-1,600 per month.

Said Eady: “Not everyone who needs a place can afford all that.”

So I think we can assume that you will not be able to charge more than $1400 per month for this “deal.” The city gets to keep 25% of that. You get to keep $1050 per month, with the city getting $350 of it.

Here’s the financial side of the problem:

  • Now your house is going to be valued higher, and the portion of your home that is rented out is no longer eligible for homestead tax exemption. That means your taxes will increase.
  • Your homeowner’s insurance will have to be changed to a commercial landlord’s insurance. There are very few companies that offer this, and it’s more expensive.
  • You are going to have to pay taxes on the additional income.
  • The renters will likely be using your electricity and water. That means more expense for you.
  • Now you have all of the legal liability for complying with the fair housing act, local building codes, and other regulations. If your tenant has a dog that bites someone- that could be YOUR liability.

It’s only a matter of time before the left begins mandating the housing of people in your “spare” room.


Boneman · May 24, 2024 at 5:21 am

So this will work as long as the “homeless” are not “military”… as that would be in direct conflict with the “No Quartering” tenets of the Constitution.

What’s funny is that people will sign up for this sans any consideration pursuant to all of the issues you’ve addressed here. Useful Idiots? Very much so.

And here in SW FL we have had a lot of issues w homeless camps popping up. These folks are all too happy to live outdoors in squalor. What makes them think they’re chomping at the bit to live indoors?

We get the camps and we have panhandlers popping up all over too. I don’t think this is something that will be fading in the near future either.

Buckshot · May 24, 2024 at 7:16 am

I wonder where they go to the bathroom.

jimmyPx · May 24, 2024 at 8:16 am

This is against the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution. While that amendment is mainly about the government forcing you to quarter troops in your house, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the US Supreme Court cited the Third Amendment as implying a belief that an individual’s home should be free from agents of the state.

jimmyPx · May 24, 2024 at 8:48 am

While we are on the topic of the “homeless”, when I was young and idealistic (not like my older cynical self now), I volunteered with a group that worked with the homeless. I realized that there were 3 main groups of homeless.
First (and the smallest) are the TEMPORARY homeless.These are normal people who due to circumstances end up not having a place to live. These people do NOT want to be homeless and programs to help them are very effective.

The Second group is the very mentally ill. Before they closed them, these people would have been in long term care facilities. The poor things are hopelessly crazy and the ones with more violent tendencies end up in prison.

The Third group (and the largest by far) are those with serious addiction issues and they are slaves to their drugs or booze. They don’t want to work or give up their drugs and there is nothing you can do for them. Sometimes group 2 blends with them as crazy people try to self medicate.

So understanding that, this proposed law would force you to have group 2 or 3 in your house — someone batshit crazy or a druggie and possibly both.
What could go wrong with that plan ?

SiG · May 24, 2024 at 10:59 am

From a slightly different angle, why is Kissimmee so whacko? Influence of Disney employees?

JNorth · May 24, 2024 at 11:40 am

Well, that’s new, I never believed something would want me to have a HOA.

D · May 24, 2024 at 1:03 pm

State and local governments don’t give a crap about the homeless.
My wife and I looked at what it would take to buy/build small 10×15 “tiny homes” on our property.
They wouldn’t be anchored to the ground so they could be moved. We could easily attach water for a sink using an easily disconnectable pipe. Water/sewer could go into a buried container that had a sump pump and could pump everything over to our septic tanks. We have decent solar, so we could easily provide lights and heat. We have wireless and cell service covering our entire property (~10 acres). We could *totally* help people get back on their feet by giving them a temporary place to stay. We could also give people that just needed a place to rent a spot to stay.

Government won’t allow it. Not zoned for tiny homes. No, you can’t attach anything else to your septic. Septic lines must be at least 100 feet away from water lines and there’s no place on the property that’s 100 feet away from a water line. Oh, and if you let someone move in and they start destroying the place, they have more rights than you do so abandon all hope of ever forcing someone to move out.

I’d love to help people–tax credits or not. But government really doesn’t care about homeless people unless they happen to exist/breathe on public land or choose between a biological mandate to urinate and trespassing into a private business that won’t let them use the bathroom.

Big Ruckus D · May 24, 2024 at 4:00 pm

How many neighborhoods in Florida don’t have an HOA? I thought they were de rigueur nearly statewide, excepting really old developments. Seems like this idea would be inherently limited by that, just to start.

    Divemedic · May 24, 2024 at 7:58 pm

    The city of Kissimmee is all old neighborhoods, low income, and Crack whores.

Gryphon · May 24, 2024 at 7:24 pm

I’ve seen articles where Illegal Aliens (and ‘advocates’ for them) suggest that the Invaders look for Empty/Vacant Homes to “Squat” in, under the presumption that if they can get away with it for some period of Time, they have some ‘Claim’ on the Property. Not sure how this is any kind of “Legal Concept” if the Property Owner takes action to remove the Trespassers, but I’m sure there are plenty of (((lawyers))) who would ‘Defend’ a Squatemalan…

BraulerBob · May 24, 2024 at 8:58 pm

Thank goodness for Ron DeSantis. He just signed HB 621- an Anti Squatter bill.
Under HB 621, a property owner can request law enforcement to immediately remove a squatter from their property if the following conditions are met:

The individual has unlawfully entered and remains on the property;
The individual has been directed to leave the property by the owner but has not done so; and
The individual is not a current or former tenant in a legal dispute.

Matthew · May 25, 2024 at 8:24 am

Not even the Karens of the municipality want to deal with an HOA, that’s saying something!

Just one more thing that people will be required to get permission from the PTB to do. Add it to the daily expanding list.

Aesop · May 25, 2024 at 12:38 pm

And suddenly, “homeless” people started turning up with a .22 through their heads 10-20X every day, and in just a couple of weeks – about the time the body count went over 500 – we couldn’t find a single homeless person in the entire county, no matter how hard we looked. It’s just the damnedest thing. And just yesterday, we found two city council weasels with the same problem…

Toastrider · May 25, 2024 at 12:46 pm

By all means.

Just don’t ask me where these ‘unhomed individuals’ have wandered off to after a few days. I’m not their minder. Free country, y’know?

Arizona Bay · May 25, 2024 at 6:08 pm

If my kids would be homeless when I tossed them out could I get paid to house them in my home? I know someone that is very sick from Lyme Disease. Her mother gets paid by the government to come to her apartment and visit. They have been grifting the system like this for many years.

BT · May 25, 2024 at 6:58 pm

This is the guy that had this great idea?

Comments are closed.