We witness cities having massive freak-outs over homeless encampments expanding, but no consideration as to the conditions in society that have created this problem. How do you not see this explosion in need and suffering and not think perhaps we are backing an incorrect and untenable economic system?
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
"The moment the realization that all of this is constructed to benefit only the very wealthy—that’s when it all caves in. The threat of homelessness does more to keep workers in line than any other technique. To diligently work to solve homelessness would be to remove an existential threat that most of the working class has—they really can’t have that."
Pretty much, the bastards also turn around and have the nerve to call themselves "philanthropists" by giving back less than they'd pay in taxes in a sane/just society...and then want a pat on the back for it while perpetuating the very thing their "charity" claims to fix.
There was this guy who blocked me on FB years ago when I was, erm, less than enthusiastic about his bragging about the $700 monogrammed titanium phone case he'd just bought. He was like, "I'm such a good person I gave ten dollars to a homeless guy on the corner just the other day how dare you judge me!!"
@IntentionallyBLANK@LeftistLawyer This is how the abusive British poorhouse/workhouse came to be. Parliament passed a law requiring cities to provide for their poor. The city leaders (rich people of course) were afraid that if they provided humane support, there would be a flood of bums from miles around. So they intentionally made the public charity as humiliating and unpleasant as they could get away with.
@mike805@LeftistLawyer
Fair point, but this is why the locals need to constantly push to keep the wealthy and political types in check.
The rich have power coupons. The poor, when smart, have human-power. The power coupons don't mean much when the workers won't work or make the things the power coupons buy.
@LeftistLawyer I vividly remember when that realization sank in, that there really wasn't anything other than wealth extraction all the way up to the top
"I haven’t seen their full briefs, but I’m pretty sure the Republicans are adding punitive measures such as on-site executions. Thankfully the Democrats are only pushing for kneecap shootings after mandatory tent and blanket removal."
Oh noes, the LA Progressive is publishing a Russian trollbot Trump supporter?!?!!? 😱😱🤪
I ask the question; why do we need to run off a cliff before we see the problem running off the cliff will cause?
Why cant we see the cliff coming and turn early?
Homeless encampments should be taken as a view of the future if we dont change.
@mral@LeftistLawyer
There's this huge, wealthy organization whose figurehead promoted the idea that those with the means should provide for those without, those in good health tend to those lacking. If only the members of that organization took the message to heart and put it in action. Isn't that why it is tax-exempt? Because it is a belief system based on caring for others? What a relief they could provide, if only they would.
@LeftistLawyer I'm honestly suprised I haven't heard of entire towns being crested by the homeless, but I'd imagine they'd be raided by the government pretty quickly, because homeless people need to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they'd say
This village in rural Honolulu was protected from attempts to destroy it by the local residents.
But when a similar one rose up at the other end of the island, the mayor suddenly decreed that a baseball field was a vital necessity. The local community has been fighting it for years now.
@jhavok@LeftistLawyer@gavinisdie Heretical thought: Demanding "ownership" of anything that you are not yourself using, is the beginning of a pathology that ends with "Well sure I already have 367X more than any sane person could spend in a lifetime if they tried, but my desire to have 378X justifies the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of people to get it."
Some children were never told "You're not playing with any of those toys, so why can't Susan play with one?" and it shows.
@LeftistLawyer as someone who has worked in real estate law, I think most people underestimate the cost and difficulty of moving and overestimate the availability of legal dwellings by an order of magnitude.
Most people overestimate the availability of housing subsidies by several orders of magnitude.
@AustinB@LeftistLawyer it only there were some legal way to force house hoarders to sell their unused properties to cities for use as public housing. Maybe in the Constitution or something like that?
@AdrianRiskin@LeftistLawyer there is! The 4th amendment prevents the government from depriving people of their property without due process of law and usually compensation. The government can and does condemn privately held property for the public good under a doctrine known as eminent domain. The landowners are paid and the land is reused for public projects. Unfortunately, the people we elect like to use this for sports stadiums instead of housing and transit
@AustinB@LeftistLawyer
I've seen multiple credible-looking reports stating there are enough empty homes on the market to house something like 120% of our homeless population. What's your response to those who've chosen to believe those reports?
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer It's really complicated. There are different kinds of vacancies. Some are luxury units owned as a store of value for the extremely wealthy. The operating costs for these units put them out of reach of the poor, and they're usually far from their communities. There are airbnb/str units that should be forced back onto the housing market (the low hanging fruit). And then there are units that are not rented for one of two reasons (there are more, but from a 20k foot view...
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer To increase the housing stock in affordable neighborhoods, it often requires densification of housing. But you can't replace an underutilized space with more units while they are tenant occupied. This means that you have to evict the existing tenants to replace a 3-unit building with a 6-unit, or combine lots to build something even larger. Evictions can take varying amounts of time, and units are often held empty while other units are being cleared out. Relatedly...
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer There's a generational shift in ownership taking place in a lot of cities, where working-class owners of small buildings are retiring, selling, and moving somewhere cheaper to enjoy the proceeds. Since they often bought during the bad old days of disinvestment in cities, their salaries paid for a mortgage on a 3-unit in an affordable area. Now that $50k building is worth $1.3m. Their kids generation can't afford that, so they're selling to investors.
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer Investors don't want to buy a building with a 20-year-old tenancy, they want either their own new tenants, or to upgrade the building to have more units. So they won't buy something that's occupied. If mom and pop want to sell and move south, they have to kick out the tenants first.
That being said, we are short of units. New York is, on average, losing affordable units as the ultra wealthy replace buildings with new ones with fewer more luxurious units.
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer So there may be a lot of vacant units in some places, but they're not on the market. The cost of the units on the market is often too high for poor families to afford, and there aren't really the subsidies available to help. Additionally, Section 8 housing subsidies managers are very picky about what kinds of housing they're willing to subsidize. The standards are higher than housing code, the number of people per room is limited, and they're hard to evict if they're...
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer a nuisance. So a lot of landlords don't want to be section 8 certified, even though it is illegal to discriminate against payment source. Section 8 is complicated on its own. It's not like renting to someone who pays rent in cash. There's an additional administrative burden for the LL, and that comes with a cost.
@AustinB@LeftistLawyer
Thank you for that insight. I see now that while those statements may technically be true, the matter isn't as simple as opening the doors and letting everyone in.
I've often heard the suggestion of levying prohibitively high annual taxes on all residential properties that are owned but not lived in by the owner, and using the proceeds from those taxes to fund low-income housing. The idea is the additional taxes would render rent-seeking unprofitable.
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer There is discussion of a vacancy tax, but it complicates the economics of creating new units because if developers have to pay additional taxes on properties that they're clearing for replacement, it doesn't make sense to even try to build more.
Otherwise, most housing policy people are discussing rent stabilization measures. Economists tend to disfavor RS because it can perversely lead to inflation in housing costs because it limits turnover and therefore supply.
I'm very interested in your statement on RS limiting turnover and therefore supply. As a lay person, I'm having trouble understanding how a turnover constributes to supply. My understanding is that a turnover would result in the same number of tenants and units on the market. What assistance can you offer me in understanding that point?
You seem to be speaking in the context of residential apartments in high-density cities. Would you...
@AustinB@LeftistLawyer
say that's accurate? If so, would you say your statements would also apply to houses in rural/suburban areas, or is that a different kind of market?
I think the level of tax most have in mind would, by itself, be an amount a working-class person can't possibly afford, making it impossible to pass down to a tenant; something close to the average yearly income of a working-class individual. Does that information do anything to change your opinion on the matter?
@JRFreeman@LeftistLawyer ok first, I’m mostly speaking about high-density urban because that’s what I know best. Lower density areas have different issues--nimbyism, for example limits densification. Also, often the rental market for suburban homes is cheaper than the market for purchase and sale. This can mean that the rent for one of these houses would be less than the mortgage, maintenance, and taxes, and landlords benefit from economies of scale
Add comment