I kind of got the overall impression that maybe these weren't a great idea, that skirting regulations or building things halfway in the hopes that they'll eventually be finished, isn't a healthy way to go about things. The article was really pushing the idea though, so I thought maybe there was something I was missing. I've joked before, on here, about digging a hole in the ground, throwing a tarp on top of it, and calling it a house because trying to find an affordable place to live around here is an exercise in frustration, so I can at least in a little bit of a way understand the appeal of the idea. But then again, if people approach this as an actual real solution because they feel like they don't have any other choice, I think we need to take a harder look at the choices we're offering people and where and why we're falling short.
There's a difference between homesteading and squatting. Homesteading is building a domicile where there wasn't one. Squatting is occupying a space in lieu of action. Ask yourself: if these people were to apply for a building permit and do it all according to Hoyle, would they succeed? What would it cost? Could they afford to do it? The answer is no. Because when they're accorded the rights and protections of citizenship they end up in a dwelling three or four times as expensive. That doesn't mean that Texas should tolerate shantytowns. It means that Texas needs to start subsidizing housing.