With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

[Revoltingest]

Somehow, I knew you'd be chiming in to this thread. Please...don't ever change.

I will eventually fade away to the dustbin of forgotten posters.

One thing I would point out here is that the current dilemma has not been caused by socialists.

That's only because they lack the power.
I blame liberals & conservatives.

Tell me: Why do you think an elected government in a capitalist society would impose these zoning regulations and confiscatory real estate transfer costs and other such impediments?

This is independent of capitalism. Even in
socialist countries, there is segregation.
Castro's, Mao's, & Stalin's abodes certainly
weren't in housing for the proletariat or poor.

Zoning regulations because of multiple factors,
but regarding housing, it's often referred to as
"preserving neighborhood character", ie, keep
out the riffraff, eg, no apartment buildings with
lowly tenants mixed in with single family homes.

Costs because of desire for money.

They may be liberals, but also capitalists. Why do they do these things that seem to make capitalism worse?

Capitalism is merely the economic system.
Letting the people individually own the
means of production actually leads to better
housing....if allowed to do so.
But there are also culture & systems of
government at work regarding housing.
Liberals friendly to socialism are especially
fond of mansions & gated communities.
It's human nature.
And even these ostensibly friendly to the poor
liberals are among those who regulate against
the poor & homeless.
So it goes in my ultra-liberal town.

 

[Nakosis]

With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.

apnews.com

It's a valid question. If they can't afford housing, and if they're not allowed to sleep outside, where are they supposed to sleep?

Advocacy groups argue that such ordinances will criminalize homelessness and make the problem even worse.





There are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S.: Vacant Homes vs. Homelessness In the U.S. - United Way NCA

The lawyer representing the city of Grants Pass said "This is a complicated policy question." I don't think it's all that complicated, although before I go into a long rant about this, I wanted to get other thoughts.

Thoughts?

I think you have to pass laws which restrict where people can encamp, but you ought to provide an alternative. Certainly something the federal government could help with. Seems unfair to put all of the onus on local governments which have limited resources to deal with this.

 

[Stevicus]

I will eventually fade away to the dustbin of forgotten posters.

That sounds worse than the Island of Misfit Toys.

That's only because they lack the power.
I blame liberals & conservatives.

Someday, there will be a socialist Federation of Planets.

This is independent of capitalism. Even in
socialist countries, there is segregation.
Castro's, Mao's, & Stalin's abodes certainly
weren't in housing for the proletariat or poor.

Well, those guys had assassins gunning for them, so they had to live under pretty tight security.

Zoning regulations because of multiple factors,
but regarding housing, it's often referred to as
"preserving neighborhood character", ie, keep
out the riffraff, eg, no apartment buildings with
lowly tenants mixed in with single family homes.

Costs because of desire for money.

It seems that there should be enough space to accommodate everyone. Most of the people in question are not riffraff, but just ordinary working people. But there might be some riffraff mixed in there. But even riffraff have to have a place to sleep.

Capitalism is merely the economic system.
Letting the people individually own the
means of production actually leads to better
housing....if allowed to do so.
But there are also culture & systems of
government at work regarding housing.
Liberals friendly to socialism are especially
fond of mansions & gated communities.
It's human nature.
And even these ostensibly friendly to the poor
liberals are among those who regulate against
the poor & homeless.
So it goes in my ultra-liberal town.

Yes, that makes it all the more curious, especially when these problems seem to be cropping up in blue states like California and Oregon. A liberal solution might involve simply spending more money to build extra housing, although I'm not even sure if they're doing that. I remember a while back reading an article about how California set up some $3 billion program to help homelessness, and they were bemoaning the fact that the money was all gone and they still couldn't do anything to solve the problem. It makes one wonder just what kind of Mickey Mouse business is going on.

 

[Stevicus]

I think you have to pass laws which restrict where people can encamp, but you ought to provide an alternative. Certainly something the federal government could help with. Seems unfair to put all of the onus on local governments which have limited resources to deal with this.

I agree. It's a national problem.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

* Sigh * I swear politicians get dumber and meaner every year. Where else are they supposed to sleep? Shelters have limited space,their tents and homemade shacks get torn down and moved along, they get chased out of vacant buildings (sometimes for safety reasons, mostly for trespassing.) Maybe convert and shore up abandoned apartment complexes while implementing more work programs to help them help themselves? How about a cap on how much landlords can raise the rent. But yanno that would require common sense and compassion for fellow humans.

 

[Revoltingest]

That sounds worse than the Island of Misfit Toys.



Someday, there will be a socialist Federation of Planets.



Well, those guys had assassins gunning for them, so they had to live under pretty tight security.



It seems that there should be enough space to accommodate everyone. Most of the people in question are not riffraff, but just ordinary working people. But there might be some riffraff mixed in there. But even riffraff have to have a place to sleep.



Yes, that makes it all the more curious, especially when these problems seem to be cropping up in blue states like California and Oregon. A liberal solution might involve simply spending more money to build extra housing, although I'm not even sure if they're doing that. I remember a while back reading an article about how California set up some $3 billion program to help homelessness, and they were bemoaning the fact that the money was all gone and they still couldn't do anything to solve the problem. It makes one wonder just what kind of Mickey Mouse business is going on.

The only solution to homelessness is to
put me in charge with full dictatorial power.

 

[Stevicus]

The only solution to homelessness is to
put me in charge with full dictatorial power.

It seems that Trump is vying for that position, although I don't think he cares much about the homeless.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Republican Jeff Weigand says homelessness is a result of sin (victim blaming) then votes against aid for the homeless. I mean, what would Jesus do, right?

"Sin is the root cause" of homelessness, Dane County Supervisor says

A Dane County Supervisor raised eyebrows and prompted some pushback by saying during debate over funding for a homeless shelter that “sin is the root cause” of homelessness – a comment fellow supervisors called a “dog whistle” and victim-blaming. At the April 4 meeting of the Dane County Board, J

madison365.com

 

[RestlessSoul]

In a free market economy, sleep is a luxury available only to those who can afford to pay for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems that Trump is vying for that position, although I don't think he cares much about the homeless.

They aren't his base.
Let'm die or rot in prison, eh.

 

[PureX]

We sure do love to hate the poor in this country.

 

[PureX]

That sounds worse than the Island of Misfit Toys.



Someday, there will be a socialist Federation of Planets.



Well, those guys had assassins gunning for them, so they had to live under pretty tight security.



It seems that there should be enough space to accommodate everyone. Most of the people in question are not riffraff, but just ordinary working people. But there might be some riffraff mixed in there. But even riffraff have to have a place to sleep.



Yes, that makes it all the more curious, especially when these problems seem to be cropping up in blue states like California and Oregon. A liberal solution might involve simply spending more money to build extra housing, although I'm not even sure if they're doing that. I remember a while back reading an article about how California set up some $3 billion program to help homelessness, and they were bemoaning the fact that the money was all gone and they still couldn't do anything to solve the problem. It makes one wonder just what kind of Mickey Mouse business is going on.

Whenever the government allocates money to fix something, the 'cronies' come out of every hidey-hole and bilk the system for all it's worth. The money gets swallowed up before any of it even gets to the solution. Greed, greed, greed, oooh baby, ain't that greed a wonderful thing!

 

[metis]

As the African saying goes, "It takes a whole village to raise one child", and I think that this should also be true of the poor.

 

[McBell]

 

[Kfox]

I would suggest it would put downward pressure on the overall cost of housing.

How?

I don't know if I would consider snowbirds' houses to be truly "vacant." I was thinking more of absentee landlord situations, vacant lots, abandoned housing, empty warehouses..

I suspect there are far more empty houses the result of snowbirds than people who choose to throw their money away by buying property , paying taxes, insurance, and repairs on said property and would rather waste their money in order to let it remain empty; unless huge repairs are needed in order for it to be inhabitable.

I don't see it as a need to increase inventory, but finding more efficient ways of utilizing the inventory already on hand.

Such as?

 

[Kfox]

* Sigh * I swear politicians get dumber and meaner every year. Where else are they supposed to sleep? Shelters have limited space,their tents and homemade shacks get torn down and moved along, they get chased out of vacant buildings

I'm reminded of an article from the Los Angeles times when the new mayor converted a lot of empty buildings into shelters for the homeless, and when they were in place, they remained empty; the people working at the shelter said they couldn't find anyone to live there. The reporter went to one of the shelters to interview the employees and on the way to the shelter, there were tents on the sidewalk, there were even homeless people sleeping on the steps and doorway to the shelter, but they didn't want to go inside because of the rules in place in the shelter, they would rather live on the streets.

(sometimes for safety reasons, mostly for trespassing.) Maybe convert and shore up abandoned apartment complexes while implementing more work programs to help them help themselves? How about a cap on how much landlords can raise the rent. But yanno that would require common sense and compassion for fellow humans.

I don't think most people are homeless due to expensive rent; there must be another reason.

 

[Kfox]

We sure do love to hate the poor in this country.

Naaw we love to hate the rich.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thoughts?

First of all homeless people are scary. They scare the hell out of other people.

When you are homeless act like you are not homeless, because people are scared of homeless people. Shave and shower and don't stink, and people will ignore you. Brush your hair and teeth, and wear clothes which look and smell as neat and clean as possible. But if you don't, and if you walk about stinking and unshaven then people will be afraid. They will also be angry or annoyed or various other things. Sometimes they'll presume you are evil, proud, lazy and all sorts of other evil. Don't be surprised. Nobody can see into your mind whether you are safe to talk to.

I once gave a ride to a hitch hiker, who then pulled a gun on me. Since then I have been very cold towards hitch hikers. When someone approaches me in a parking lot I give them the cold shoulder, and I hate myself for doing so. I also hate this new 'Anti homeless' architecture in cities. It is cruel and ugly and terrible, but I also wouldn't want homeless people near to my business or near to my door. The fact is, they are often crazy and dangerous.

A girl in an enormous truck drove next to me as I was walking in a walmart parking lot. She began to talk to me about her problems. She had to leave her boyfriend, and she had no gas. I thought about it, then I quickly escaped. No telling what this girl would do. Would she scream like I had tried to attack her? Would she pull a gun out of her glove compartment? Would she take my money and laugh all the way home? Maybe she was trying to sell me sex? Maybe she really was having a hard time and just needed a little gas. I had no idea what this was about. I simply got the hell away as fast as I could.

Is it normal to walk up to a stranger to ask for rides? For gas money? I don't think it is. I think its a mark of someone who doesn't consider the feelings of others. Since having a gun pulled on me I will never risk my life again to give a ride to a stranger, and I in turn may one day be homeless, and I will understand when other people don't want to help me. I, in turn, may one day have no one to help me. That is cruel and horrible and true.

 

[Stevicus]

How?

By creating a strong disincentive for property owners to hold on to a vacant property for an extended length of time. Conceivably, they could be paying more per month on tax than the property is worth. (If you do the math, you'd see that a house which pays $100 per month now, if it stays empty for a year, would have the tax up to over $200,000 per month.) And if it's an investment company, broker, or bank-owned, then they wouldn't be able to let it go for taxes either. They'd be required to pay (any and all of their assets would be subject to seizure, no matter where it be), which would create a huge incentive to sell properties quickly. This would mean that they'd have to take whatever they can get, which would lower the average property values overall, thus making housing more affordable.

I suspect there are far more empty houses the result of snowbirds than people who choose to throw their money away by buying property , paying taxes, insurance, and repairs on said property and would rather waste their money in order to let it remain empty; unless huge repairs are needed in order for it to be inhabitable.

I was curious about this, so I did some more checking.

Millions Of Homes Sit Vacant Amid America's Housing Crisis — Here Are The 3 Biggest Reasons

www.benzinga.com

LendingTree's analysis showed that the most prevalent reason (26.61%) for vacant housing units in the nation's 50 largest metropolitan areas is that they are available for rent.

Meanwhile, 17.04% of housing units remain vacant because they are used only part-time.

Additionally, 7.98% of homes are unoccupied because of ongoing repair or renovation work.

The 17.04% figure would account for the snowbirds you mentioned, with 26.61% available for rent, and 7.98% due to ongoing repairs or renovation. That accounts of 51.63% of the vacant housing, but the article doesn't say anything about the other 48.37%. I wonder why. In any case, it wouldn't matter. Under my proposal, snowbirds would be exempt.

Such as?

Such as what I've been proposing. Housing is a human right, and it is a necessity, just like healthcare, police/fire departments, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

By creating a strong disincentive for property owners to hold on to a vacant property for an extended length of time. Conceivably, they could be paying more per month on tax than the property is worth. (If you do the math, you'd see that a house which pays $100 per month now, if it stays empty for a year, would have the tax up to over $200,000 per month.) And if it's an investment company, broker, or bank-owned, then they wouldn't be able to let it go for taxes either. They'd be required to pay (any and all of their assets would be subject to seizure, no matter where it be), which would create a huge incentive to sell properties quickly. This would mean that they'd have to take whatever they can get, which would lower the average property values overall, thus making housing more affordable.

Are you channeling Stalin? This kind of scorched
Earth policy regarding vacant units wouldn't
work well. There are complexities....
Buying & selling
Rehabbing properties
Flagging markets
Economic obsolescence
Lengthy legal disputes
Some of these things take over a year to resolve.
Confiscating all of an owner's property, & driving
them into bankruptcy with your proposal would
do far far more harm than good.

Without punishing anyone, why not do things
that don't punish anyone.....
- More reasonable zoning laws.
- More reasonable building codes.
- Lower government fees to build & remodel.
- More reasonable housing codes.
- Faster court hearings.

I was curious about this, so I did some more checking.

Millions Of Homes Sit Vacant Amid America's Housing Crisis — Here Are The 3 Biggest Reasons

www.benzinga.com

The 17.04% figure would account for the snowbirds you mentioned, with 26.61% available for rent, and 7.98% due to ongoing repairs or renovation. That accounts of 51.63% of the vacant housing, but the article doesn't say anything about the other 48.37%. I wonder why. In any case, it wouldn't matter. Under my proposal, snowbirds would be exempt.

I wonder about your link.
Excerpted...

• Investing in real estate just got a whole lot simpler. With as little as $100, average investors are becoming landlords thanks to this Jeff Bezos-backed startup.

That smacks of someone trying to get real estate newbies
to buy a course on how to get rich without money or work.
And the link doesn't work.

Such as what I've been proposing. Housing is a human right, and it is a necessity, just like healthcare, police/fire departments, etc.

If housing is a right, why not have government
provide it, or the money to rent it? This doesn't
punish any individuals, & the burden is spread
among the taxpayers.