Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
554 points (95.7% liked)
US Authoritarianism
673 readers
266 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stats like that ignore the fact that they are polling "empty homes" nationally, but the homeless population is majority in densely populated cities, not where those empty homes are. So even if they were given these homes for free, they'd have to be relocated, too.
That's another condemnation of allowing only the market to decide where we build housing. A socialist government would build houses where people need houses.
In my experience, the vacant housing is not built without demand, it's that the demand vanishes.
There were two trailers where they would have been scrapped, but some relatives took then over and kind of refurbished them, and one of those is now home to another relative that would have been homeless otherwise, and the other is a "hobby" trailer until someone else needs it.
Another is a house where the man died and the wife moved to a small apartment because she felt like she needed to be in the city near a hospital, but no one wants the house because the area is the middle of nowhere.
Rural areas tend to have a fair amount of "nobody wants them anymore" housing laying vacant, but they all, at one point, were being used as housing.
And... Float them in the air? Homeless in metro areas may not have started there, but that's where a sizeable portion are now and it's not like there's abundant space for housing.
People need houses but we need stores and office buildings and other things too.
There's plenty of room; we just build nothing but luxury housing. And there's an over-abundance of parking lots because of land speculation. Our land is not being used efficiently at all.
Are you finding homeless people somewhere I'm not? The downtown metro areas are where there is a) not other housing by and large, and b) not space for anything else anyway. Maybe we are talking past each other.
I'm in downtown Los Angeles. We have lots of homeless people, vacant housing, and wasted space like paved parking lots. Where are you?
Midwest, below Chicago burbs. We have in my area way way way more housing demand than supply and houses sell before market or within hours. We have some here and there homelessness but it's never as bad as streets of downtown Chicago, where parking spaces cost as much as houses.
Most office jobs are done as or more efficiently by workers at home so we should downsize office real estate. This frees up a lot of space for affordable housing and encourages office workers to stay in their suburban communities, thus reducing congestion.
Whole hearted agree. Happy my company is 100% remote.
Have you ever thought that the houses don’t need to be in big cities? Why is that not an option in your mind? Other states bussed them out, they can pay to bus them back in and give them homes.
Why would you advocate for keeping displaced people displaced?
it's insane how people cannot imagine a way to make decisions that's not profit driven. people's minds are so poisoned by capitalism. If we're around in 100 years, people will judge us like they judge any superstitious culture from the past. We sacrifice our own to the "profit motive" to appease "the market"
Oh don't worry, the end of the world's probably coming around 2045 with the start of the post-oil dark ages
Did you read the person I replied to? You can't house then where they are with socialism or marxism or Harry potter magic. Sure, yes, move them, that's sane. But no you can't just snap your fingers to generate housing in places with no footprint to build in.
Why are you hung up on the literal square footage of where these people currently sleep on the streets?
People commute with public transit across great distances.
But yes, downtown areas can be densified. Did we hit the limits of engineering? As far as I can tell we can still build tall buildings.
Holy shit bro, just think.
There's no reason to reply to you at all if you can't read dude. This starts with "we can't house then where they are because capitalism" but this is the fucking point. You can't house then where they are no matter, literally because of square footage. Public transit and house. Calm your tits and learn to read.
No I mean it lets build houses under bridges and in parks
Well that's not what you said. It's not unreasonable except for the fact that you just eliminated all the green spaces from an otherwise concrete jungle. I could be persuaded anyway, but it's a not insignificant downside.
Ok I actually feel bad now. I'm being sarcastic. Build more houses in cities, and people can live in those houses, just like the people in those cities that already have houses. People use transportation to move around inside of cities.
Ok then agreed. Sorry for the vitriol, I wasnt feeling heard/understood and maybe handled it poorly.
No need, I was objectively being an asshole for most of it. I'm a leftist, and I want to live in a world where people are put above profit and cooperation is more important than competition. I want to live in an egalitarian society not a stratified hierarchy. I'm extremely frustrated not just by how far from that we are, but how much further we constantly get.
I took my frustrations out on you as if you were being malicious
This is your sincere and well thought out position? You think the homeless population in each downtown area is so large that there's not enough real estate to house them?
You can just say you don't care about housing them, this is a safe space
And you can just say that you are not listening because you believe your position is the most moral one.
This guy's point is that it doesn't matter what government is running things. There will always be some desirable areas where demand is larger than supply. You haven't proposed any details besides "a socialist government would solve it".
Post your specific proposals or stop posturing.
You might want to sit down, it's complicated.
500 people need houses in an area. Ignore what the market thinks should be done. Build houses or densify housing in that area.
Do you think there are any real world examples where you would need to "float them in the air?"
It's a stupid argument that's not on good faith and completely lacks any imagination...
How are houses built now? People speculatively buy land and build on them. Instead of market speculation telling people where to build, people tell people where to build.
Planned economies aren't a novel or theoretical concept.
TL;DR use your brain
Yes, in cities. We were talking about downtown areas. Not anywhere that has land available. So any housing project will be more complicated than "build houses".
You obviously think you are more moral than everyone else, but you've provided no interesting solutions. so there's no use talking to you.
On a more serious note i wonder why you think people that are currently unhoused couldn't take public transit?
Do you ever have any ideas? What's it like not being able to reason?
Watch out! Goal posts are moving boys!
This is not "house then where they are". This is the sane argument of put housing and move the people, not "There's no housing so I cast SOciALisM!" And poof it's solved.
local man disproves leftist theory on technicality by taking online argument extremely literally!
We don't need to move people around, build houses where people need houses!
No not like that. Obviously build them somewhere else and bus people to the houses!
Internet idea man is oblivious to cognitive dissonance.
Editing to be less rude because I think there's actually a real misunderstanding here.
Build houses in places (cities, not literal square meters) where unhoused people need to be housed. They, like anyone else that lives in a city, can use their feet and bikes and public transit to go from where their house is to another place in that city where maybe they shop and work like any other citizen. The suggestion is simply to give them houses.
I also disagree with suburban sprawl and NIMBYism, hence my comments about densification
We are on the same page. Where I see homelessness there is not space for housing, but there are places that could accommodate without a cross-country trek.
"planned economies"
My dude you can just say you have no idea about economics and leave it at that
ah yes true capitalism is equivalent to economics I've forgotten
I also wonder about the state of many vacant homes.
Mmmmm...asbestos flavoring