So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing cold you'l

So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless. Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by tenants. You're demonstrating a limited knowledge of both housing code and its implications, and also the homeless problem. Homeless break down into sheltered and unsheltered homeless. People on the street, the unsheltered, are primarily people with mental and substance issues not receiving help, and don't want to be in shelters. It's completely irrelevant to a two family house being partly empty? Why not then requisition a one family house forcibly and cut it in 10? Do you think that would solve the issue? The City provides shelters, section 8, public housing and now affordable housing. Secondly no the government doesn't pick winners and losers as you put it. What if the government decided to confiscate your car because some people can't afford them to get to work? If you spend your life savings on a two family house, you think the government can force you to lodge anyone they please? Is there a single democratic country where people do this? More importantly, you'd have a house owner go bankrupt out of spite, which is what you demonstrate here? Violins, the violins aren't coming from me, if you read our exchange. People like yourself, who see no difference between a small landlord or business owner and a huge landlord with 100 buildings or a corporation, are what give even reasonable-minded social democrats the shivers.