• ComaScript@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cars are investments for banks too, but I’m specifically talking about buyers. Selling a house for more than you bought it is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen, and that’s coming from someone buying a house as we speak. I should not be able to sell this thing for 2x its value in ten years.

  • pancake@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We know what the problem is, and how to solve it. The people in charge just don’t want it solved.

    • lugal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

  • BillMurray@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Cowbee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Commodification of necessities has led to perhaps the worst of modern problems.

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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!!!”

    • gkd@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah, another “He Gets Us” moment.

      “Jesus was homeless for a time (supposedly), so it’s fine for them to be homeless!” ☺️

  • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.