Did you know that in the USA more buildings are vacant than there are homeless people? So the amount of housing that needs to be built is exactly zero. It' s not an amount of resources problem, it's an allocation of resources problem.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is still a resource problem. There's a reason NIMBYs exist. Homeless populations have substance, legal and mental issues. The property is pretty much a write off the moment you hand it over.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is probably where we'll disagree: I believe that all people living in a humane way is more important than investors' real estate portfolio valuation.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wasn't even talking about investors or the homeowners you'd plan to confiscate from. I was talking about turning neighborhoods into slums overnight. Pest infestation and drug use.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Again, there are more vacant homes than homeless. It's not taking away people's homes. Homes where people actually live in, I mean. Most real estate investments, the owner hasn't visited once in years.

And you'd be surprised at how much people improve once they have stable housing. Finland has had a "housing first, no conditions" programme for a while now with very impressive results.

Obviously people will initially be afraid of "bad people" coming to their neighbourhood. I understand this. But I believe their feelings of discomfort are less important than the immense suffering of the homeless.

Would you seriously place property valuations as more important than humanity and human dignity?

[–] CrimsonTankie@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

copium