Strange take, but we currently have far more empty homes than homeless on a ratio of 6:1... Why create new homes and add to our cumulative carbon footprint?
I've commented previously that MintPress News is part of a network of extremely questionable sources. It's not hard to get a reasonably reliable and more up-to-date reference for a statistic like...
As far as the assertions in the link are concerned, "give the homeless vacant houses" makes a great slogan, but for the most part, vacancies aren't where the jobs are for working homeless people.
The problem is, they're not paid enough, and there's not enough remotely affordable housing stock in the vicinity of their jobs.
Because from my quick googling, a foreclosed house in Oregon costs $50,000, and a school bus costs $1,500. That's just pure costs to buy, not to renovate. If your goal is to help get as many...
Because from my quick googling, a foreclosed house in Oregon costs $50,000, and a school bus costs $1,500. That's just pure costs to buy, not to renovate. If your goal is to help get as many families into their own homes, then the option that costs 1/25th as much is the choice you go with.
That's a great question that I agree with. It is super fucked up. My point, which is better made by @JakeTheDog, is that society DOES put up with it, and this is a real solution that is able to...
That's a great question that I agree with. It is super fucked up. My point, which is better made by @JakeTheDog, is that society DOES put up with it, and this is a real solution that is able to help people right now that are currently living in this situation. I am an active member in groups for helping the homeless and for fighting for affordable housing in the city I live in. These are huge problems and its so heartbreaking and saddening how little society seems to care. If I could wave a magic wand and get @mike10010100's idea, all for it. But I don't have a magic wand, so this is the solution this woman has to help given her means and the world we exist in.
Quick edit: Refreshed the page after posting this and saw @vivaria had also made the point very eloquently. Wanted to give credit to another good comment.
Let's return to this argument if/when that happens. At least this is pragmatic—people are getting shelter now. Not in a hypothetical scenario. And who owns those foreclosed houses? Are the...
That's assuming we don't nationalize some of this surplus housing.
Let's return to this argument if/when that happens. At least this is pragmatic—people are getting shelter now. Not in a hypothetical scenario.
Foreclosed houses often don't require renovation. These busses do.
And who owns those foreclosed houses? Are the owners/banks going to be donating/subsidizing them to homeless people.
The article is describing what real solution that is happening at this moment. Arguing against it with hypothetical scenarios (or fantasies, IMO) is pointless.
Strange take, but we currently have far more empty homes than homeless on a ratio of 6:1...
Why create new homes and add to our cumulative carbon footprint?
I've commented previously that MintPress News is part of a network of extremely questionable sources.
It's not hard to get a reasonably reliable and more up-to-date reference for a statistic like that, e.g https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N.
As far as the assertions in the link are concerned, "give the homeless vacant houses" makes a great slogan, but for the most part, vacancies aren't where the jobs are for working homeless people.
The problem is, they're not paid enough, and there's not enough remotely affordable housing stock in the vicinity of their jobs.
Because from my quick googling, a foreclosed house in Oregon costs $50,000, and a school bus costs $1,500. That's just pure costs to buy, not to renovate. If your goal is to help get as many families into their own homes, then the option that costs 1/25th as much is the choice you go with.
Well that's why this lady does it, but the real question is why do we as a society put up with such an absurd situation?
That's a great question that I agree with. It is super fucked up. My point, which is better made by @JakeTheDog, is that society DOES put up with it, and this is a real solution that is able to help people right now that are currently living in this situation. I am an active member in groups for helping the homeless and for fighting for affordable housing in the city I live in. These are huge problems and its so heartbreaking and saddening how little society seems to care. If I could wave a magic wand and get @mike10010100's idea, all for it. But I don't have a magic wand, so this is the solution this woman has to help given her means and the world we exist in.
Quick edit: Refreshed the page after posting this and saw @vivaria had also made the point very eloquently. Wanted to give credit to another good comment.
That's assuming we don't nationalize some of this surplus housing.
Foreclosed houses often don't require renovation. These busses do.
Let's return to this argument if/when that happens. At least this is pragmatic—people are getting shelter now. Not in a hypothetical scenario.
And who owns those foreclosed houses? Are the owners/banks going to be donating/subsidizing them to homeless people.
The article is describing what real solution that is happening at this moment. Arguing against it with hypothetical scenarios (or fantasies, IMO) is pointless.
Because then you couldn't create Tiny Homes for Working Homeless Families. That helps AND others people.