3 ms·

We already have more than enough places to house everyone in the USA. The quantity is already there. For every homeless person, we have 5-7 houses empty (vario

by kefka 9y ago

We already have more than enough places to house everyone in the USA. The quantity is already there. For every homeless person, we have 5-7 houses empty (various stats around, depending on number of homeless). http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-homeless-families-in-foreclosed-homes-2012-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-we-cant-just-put-ho... . We already have the supply. It's there. They are already built. Now.. Who do these houses belong to? Banks. Insurance firms. In reality, any company that needs illiquid money storage uses property. And they extract as much worth as they can from that. That's only logical from their standpoint. And maybe some office space, sure. But all those houses are simply rotting as people aren't living in them. I say, put them to good use. Eminent domain them, or tax them appropriately so that individuals and families can get them. I think you're mistaking me for some capitalist. If anything, I'm more communist for essentials, socialist for 'effective member of society', and capitalist for stuff on the edge.

closeparen 9y ago
The obvious question is "Why are those houses empty?" Because they are in places that people have felt the need to leave en masse. People need to be near each other. Near family, support networks, schools, social services, and jobs. It's not enough to have surplus housing "in the US." We need it in the specific cities and neighborhoods with affordability crises. Your solution is for people to move thousands of miles to dead end towns with no economic opportunities or social support networks? I think you have mistaken yourself for their advocate. Here's a litmus test: when you win, who benefits? People trying to collect wages? Or people trying to collect rent checks? How does your communist solution decide who gets to live in California and who has to live in North Dakota?

by kefka 9y ago

closeparen 9y ago

The obvious question is "Why are those houses empty?" Because they are in places that people have felt the need to leave en masse. People need to be near each other. Near family, support networks, schools, social services, and jobs. It's not enough to have surplus housing "in the US." We need it in the specific cities and neighborhoods with affordability crises. Your solution is for people to move thousands of miles to dead end towns with no economic opportunities or social support networks? I think you have mistaken yourself for their advocate. Here's a litmus test: when you win, who benefits? People trying to collect wages? Or people trying to collect rent checks? How does your communist solution decide who gets to live in California and who has to live in North Dakota?