3 ms·

excuse me, take a step back just one minute. you cannot make a false statements as "And 3x that number that are vacant for pretty questionable reasons" and the

excuse me, take a step back just one minute. you cannot make a false statements as "And 3x that number that are vacant for pretty questionable reasons" and then turn around and use the sympathy card as justification by stating that what someone is doing with the property they rightfully own as "morally questionable". by doing so, you are no better than the author of the article in my eyes. i don't like it either that people are sleeping on the streets while these places are "uninhabited" for whatever reason, but the people who own these places have the right to do with them whatever they want.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sp332 9y ago
The people who own and rent these places have a moral obligation to make moral decisions. A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. I'm sure we could imagine some exceptions, but in the common case I believe this is true. Your last part about rights seems to be talking about legal rights, which is a bit irrelevant and also factually wrong. There are regulations on renters and owners, and there's no reason a city can't democratically decide they want different regulations.
- dpark 9y ago
  > A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. By the same logic, someone who chooses to save money rather than pay to rent a dwelling for someone homeless is also probably morally wrong.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Sure, and this is sometimes reflected in law as taxes and subsidies or regulations on rent prices.
- thrownaway954 9y ago
  again... you are trying to play the sympathy card since your original reply was false and rather than admitting it, you chose to take an emotional path in the discussion in an attempt to side step this fact. this discussion is done.
- MR4D 9y ago
  Aren’t you then deciding that people should be car-less? (presuming you have a car - clearly many of us do), and that car sits idle most of the time in a parking lot, isn’t that the same thing? So are you (and all of us) then acting immoral by not letting a car-less person use our car? I think your understanding of morality is deeply flawed.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sp332 9y ago

The people who own and rent these places have a moral obligation to make moral decisions. A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. I'm sure we could imagine some exceptions, but in the common case I believe this is true. Your last part about rights seems to be talking about legal rights, which is a bit irrelevant and also factually wrong. There are regulations on renters and owners, and there's no reason a city can't democratically decide they want different regulations.

dpark 9y ago
> A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. By the same logic, someone who chooses to save money rather than pay to rent a dwelling for someone homeless is also probably morally wrong.
- sp332 9y ago
  Sure, and this is sometimes reflected in law as taxes and subsidies or regulations on rent prices.
thrownaway954 9y ago
again... you are trying to play the sympathy card since your original reply was false and rather than admitting it, you chose to take an emotional path in the discussion in an attempt to side step this fact. this discussion is done.
MR4D 9y ago
Aren’t you then deciding that people should be car-less? (presuming you have a car - clearly many of us do), and that car sits idle most of the time in a parking lot, isn’t that the same thing? So are you (and all of us) then acting immoral by not letting a car-less person use our car? I think your understanding of morality is deeply flawed.