• @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    -21 year ago

    I mean if we were trying to house people we should be aiming for inexpensive and non-wasteful building choices, shouldn’t we? When we’re handling basic human needs we send boats full of rice and beans, not a bunch of badass chefs.

      • @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -51 year ago

        I mean it’s kind of a scarcity thing. Resources aren’t infinite. I have no problem with letting people have nice things and would certainly want minimums to be pretty decent, but when you’re getting people off the street or something then efficiency means lives saved.

        • @crispy_kilt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          I agree!

          Did you know that in the USA more buildings are vacant than there are homeless people? So the amount of housing that needs to be built is exactly zero. It’ s not an amount of resources problem, it’s an allocation of resources problem.

          • @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            -41 year ago

            It is still a resource problem. There’s a reason NIMBYs exist. Homeless populations have substance, legal and mental issues. The property is pretty much a write off the moment you hand it over.

            • @crispy_kilt@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              This is probably where we’ll disagree: I believe that all people living in a humane way is more important than investors’ real estate portfolio valuation.

              • @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                I wasn’t even talking about investors or the homeowners you’d plan to confiscate from. I was talking about turning neighborhoods into slums overnight. Pest infestation and drug use.

                • @crispy_kilt@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Again, there are more vacant homes than homeless. It’s not taking away people’s homes. Homes where people actually live in, I mean. Most real estate investments, the owner hasn’t visited once in years.

                  And you’d be surprised at how much people improve once they have stable housing. Finland has had a “housing first, no conditions” programme for a while now with very impressive results.

                  Obviously people will initially be afraid of “bad people” coming to their neighbourhood. I understand this. But I believe their feelings of discomfort are less important than the immense suffering of the homeless.

                  Would you seriously place property valuations as more important than humanity and human dignity?

    • We have all the money in the world. We have more than enough homes to house people, right now. We have an abundance of housing, of resources to build more housing, of everything. What we do not have is a distribution that allows people who need housing to get it. Instead we have a literal Spiders Georg situation where a tiny fraction of the country each own hundreds of homes they don’t live in or even have any intention of living in. This situation is deranged.

      • @PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        Alright, then show the numbers. Let’s ignore that seizing all that property will go super well. I know, you want people that own more than one house dead, so even include it as double the free housing. Figure out how much it costs to upkeep rental properties. Double it, maybe more, for people that literally don’t give a fuck about it. Add costs for policing the shit.

        Seizure won’t fix it.

        • The math has already been done. I’m not your high school teacher. Go look up, ex, housing co-ops for a relatively inoffensive example.

          I’m not of the opinion that people with more than one house should be killed, but people who own a thousand? People who own houses they will never live in and have no intention of ever living in? Those people are parasites.

          And you can talk about upkeep all you like but who’s paying for they upkeep now? Not the landlords, that’s for sure. Oh don’t get me wrong, they’re managing the upkeep and it’s coming out of their account but all that money? The money is all coming from the tenants. The people living there are already paying the upkeep.

          It’s also an absolute joke to try to characterize landlords as being interested in maintaining property any more than is absolutely necessary when they’re, as a class of person, categorically infamous for being cheap bastards who refuse to make any improvements or even do basic maintenance because it would cost them money. “Sure the heat may be out and the place may be drafty and the freezer may not freeze and the whole place may be infested with vermin but if we didn’t keep paying the landlords for all this decadence the poor people would ruin it!”