But if you give houses to the homeless, they will no longer be homeless and who am I going to look down on now?
And what else will I complain about when I go downtown? I want to be able to complain about how we need to clean the riffraff of the streets, but it gives me no joy if we're actually getting them off the streets! I need something to fucking whinge about!
The bourgeoisie requires a risk of destitution to prevent the proletariat from rising up.
My nipples get erect when I flick them.
There is already an order of magnitude more unused housing than unhoused people- the problem is that the market is involved and that requires winners and losers.
That's why you have people dying of exposure in the richest country in the history of the world. God damn america.
G-give....away? N-n-no money for me?? But money me, now. Money now. Money! House = money! Empty house, no money is ok, full house no money NOT OK!
CoMmUnIsM!!!
-Landleeches
Throw in unaddressed mental health and drug crises.
Not only that - they’re dying in the street immediately adjacent to vacant luxury condos.
Are the homeless people where the empty homes are? That's the concern I have. There are really cheap empty houses throughout the country, but the homeless are congregate in large groups in some of the most expensive states/cities in the country. I dont think there are that many empty homes in San Francisco that are available for rent/purchase that are just being left empty for months at a time.
Where are people sourcing that information from?
It's off the aggregate numbers. I'm sure that there's a lot of useless suburban sprawl pumping the numbers up. The "most efficient system" is an abject failure when it comes to housing people unless the only metric you care about is revenue generation for shithead inheritors.
"but who will pay for it?1!?1?!1?"
The government
"But then my taxes are going to do some good! That can't be!!!"
Housing first is a proven strategy in dealing with homelessness. The fact that every state has not adopted these policies to help eliminate the homeless population shows this is more a cultural issue than a lack of housing.
According to the Census there are a lot more empty houses than homeless people. Let that sink in and you start to realize all is not what it seems.
Until someone is safe and has their basic needs met it is impossible to work on issues such as mental health and addiction.
The solution exists but it is going to take a lot of our time, money, and most importantly a cultural shift away from blaming people to accomplish it.
If we could fix our homelessness then we would show that we truly care about our citizens rather than just paying a lip service to our most vulnerable people.
According to the Census there are a lot more empty houses than homeless people. Let that sink in and you start to realize all is not what it seems.
This particular statistic needs to be handled carefully. There are problems with both its definition and its nature. Empty housing has a fairly broad definition that includes housing that is unfinished, in the middle of repairs, or unfit for habitation.
The nature of housing with relationship to homelessness depends a lot on where the homeless people are and where the housing is. Empty housing in towns and cities that are depopulating is unlikely to be all that useful. Simply taking people from cities with high levels of homelessness, ripping them out of their communities, and plopping them down into communities that other people are leaving is not a favor.
Also, you shouldn't just warehouse unhoused people in whatever housing is available. Many of them have mental illnesses that need good access to mental health services, transit, and jobs. Just because they're under a roof doesn't mean the job is done. The housing should be tailored to the various populations that it will be serving.
I encourage you to lookup up Housing First if you have not already. While it may be misleading to say there are 16 million vacant home to half a million homeless people (32 homes for every homeless person), for the reasons you mentioned, it is entirely possible house these people.
No one who knows about this issue is thinking about warehousing people. Like you said they need a stable place to live, access to services, transportation, and work when they are ready.
Don't forget the Homeless Jesus statues that take up and entire bench so no one can sleep on them.
Ah, another “He Gets Us” moment.
“Jesus was homeless for a time (supposedly), so it’s fine for them to be homeless!” ☺️
I understand this building in downtown Vancouver probably had issues with people sleeping here, but placing a bunch of concrete filled pylons is fucked up.
Sledgehammer time. Looks like fun.
Smashing it to pieces is good practice
Acupuncture bed.
That's fucking shocking
A thicc soft mattress can easily fix that
Housing + mental healthcare. Without mental healthcare you’d just be proving these NIMBYs right.
(sees username)
Housing + universal healthcare
Homeless exist to remind the rest of the serfs that they better go back to the coal mine or they'll end up just like them.
Wow. This format is actually put to good use here.
Well, to be fair there are indeed enough houses... We kinda just assumed they would, by the grace of the market, end up distributed among virtually all people and at a fair price. The reason they never did and increasingly don't is one of the largest unsolved problems in economics /s
We know what the problem is, and how to solve it. The people in charge just don't want it solved.
This is so weird, isn't it? I reran the model thousand times, it can't be wrong! I mean, what's supposed to be wrong? The assumptions? That's ridiculous! Let me readjust the factors once more...
The houses aren't in the right place where people need them, however. Where are there millions of unoccupied homes in California, Oregon and Washington?
Oregon alone is short something like 150,000 housing units. I can't ever recall seeing an empty house that stayed vacant for very long.
Spend some taxpayer money on renovating abandoned shopping malls into housing for the homeless
Not exactly doable since living spaces legally must have egress windows, and shopping malls... Don't really have many outer walls for that compared to the amount of space internally they have
Greatest meme. series problem.
I mean houses cost money, and we know the government don't like spending in the first place, they just worried about public image not the root of the problem
"Overwatch, deploying spikes."
Permanently Deleted
Commodification of necessities has led to perhaps the worst of modern problems.
The problem with giving the homeless houses is that if you begin free houses to people you make the big banks and investors lose money. What makes it a problem? Well, where's your money at?
If only we could get governments and communities to back credit unions over banks.
Houses should not be investments. They break down and should depreciate like any other physical asset. If you built your retirement solely on your house then that's nobody's fault but your own.
Your money is in the bank, and banks, which a re for-profit, make a lot of their money on real state and mortgages. Not sure where you get making houses investments from, but for banks, it works out excellently, and when it doesn't, "Too big to fail" demands they (as in their CEO bonuses) get rescued anyway.
Most homeless i have ever talked to dont want this. They want no strings attached crack homes not crack houses. If you even so talk about how shitty a lot of these people are you get pounded down with how awful of a person you are and blahblah. I have worked with and have been in clise contact with a lot of homeless and much of the time they are disgusting people inside and outside.
Hit me with the downvote.
Well I don't think we should judge all homeless people based solely off your close proximity to them.
Your position sort of assumes that anybody who disagrees with you only holds their beliefs because they themselves have never had your close proximity.
I
Downvote cuz youre over generalizing, maybe you get those type of people if youre working in a homeless camp with addicts, then youll encounter the people who have been down in their luck and when theyre addicted they dont see a way out.
People outside of the homeless camp could be completely different cause they havent reached the point of being an addict and homeless where they need that service.
I mean we can just look at historical precedent. Back when the drug crisis started and Nixon decided to start the War on Drugs Switzerland took a completely different approach and started what they called care centers. Somewhere you could go to get heroin of high quality administered by doctors for free, you would also then get somewhere to sleep somewhere to shower and keep your things. Access to social workers and mental Care Professionals to help you get your life back on track.
They saw a 85% success rate within the first year. 85% of people that went into those facilities had a stable job on their own household of some variety within the first year and a follow-up study of how they were doing 5 years later showed that they had stayed employed and housed and not regressed.
But that would require people in the US to be willing to look at them as people and not just criminals who did it to themselves. These people are literally broken, you can't treat their actions as you would a normal person because they are not mentally stable.
Wow, you are an awful person, lmao. You require people to remain in destitution because you anecdotally dealt with rude people? Perhaps they were rude because you're an awful person?
"Perhaps they were rude because you’re an awful person?"
Quote of the day.
Half of your opinion is your own personal aggrievement for being morally reprimanded.
I mean okay...
But then what? Should I keep working just to give it to someone else, or should I just join them and let someone else pay for me?
Would you just stop working?
This argument is always brought up when it comes to universal basic income or free housing. It was disproven every time it was tested, but people still believe that everyone else will just stop working if they weren't punished for being alive anymore.
So giving money/homes increases employment in every study of the homeless I've read.
Having a job while homeless is really hard. Getting one without a home is even harder.
If you know of a study that shows otherwise I would love to read it.
People work to improve their material conditions. Material conditions drive society, after all. Do you do household chores at all, or do you let everyone else do them for you?
Communal ownership of property is the only way to truly aim at fulfilling needs and desires, rather than the profit motive.
You already work to give it to someone else.
