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
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
Removed by mod
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.
Throw in unaddressed mental health and drug crises.
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
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.
Housing + mental healthcare. Without mental healthcare you’d just be proving these NIMBYs right.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
I dont require anyone to be in anything. I was simply giving my opinion. From my experience a lot of homeless prefer to stay homeless because they like that lifestyle. At the same time, we have people like you who want to shower them with things they dont want.
I want to decommidify housing, as there’s no need for that. You want people on the streets, and are making up lies to justify your hatred for poor people.
Simple as.
I have heard of homeless people reject wanting to live in housing because they had rules like no meth or curfew. Ask yourself why do homeless shelters run under capacity when there are still people on the street. Why is it that homeless populations are increasing but the percentage of people in shelters is decreasing?link to info on homeless
The honest truth is there are a lot of families and people who are down on their luck and my heart goes to these people. I also know there are a lot of addicts who dont give a flying fuck.
Yes, so we should decommodify housing.
I dont think housing being a commodity has anything to do with this problem more than scarcity of homeless shelters. But if you made it easier to own a home for the unfortunate, we will likely see the same outcomes. Other countries like Britain or France have decommodified housing and they still have a sizable homeless population.
If you give the individuals who reject rules a luxury of owning a home, the only thing being solved is the eye sore by having certain people moved out of public view. The rest frankly just like being in the environment.
Does your housing have curfews enforced upon you? Does it require you to get rid of all of your possessions? Are you kicked out of it due to preexisting conditions? I am assuming not and I would guess that you would reject such housing as well. They are rejecting being treated as lesser human beings.
why do homeless people care about curfews they don’t have any pressing matters they need to deal with past 9pm other than scoring drugs and committing crimes. nothing good happens past 9pm
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Idk, thats their business, that is the point. Also if we wanted to treat drug abuse seriously, there would be medical facilities to provide drugs legally so that they can receive proper treatment, reducing the black market sales and most likely drug related crime
Half of your opinion is your own personal aggrievement for being morally reprimanded.
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
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.
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.
