4 ms·

I'm all for building more housing for people. Ending homelessness, by definition, would mean to provide housing. But the thing is, we don't even need to build

I'm all for building more housing for people. Ending homelessness, by definition, would mean to provide housing. But the thing is, we don't even need to build more housing. There are more than 30 times more vacant homes [0] than there are homeless. It makes the most sense to redistribute resources more effectively and efficiently. We should be looking at our system as a whole when it clearly doesn't distribute necessary resources effectively (e.g. food insecurity, wealth inequality, homelessness when there are 30 times more vacant homes than there are homeless, etc.) [0]: https://247wallst.com/housing/2019/09/30/there-are-over-17-million-vacant-homes-in-america/ https://247wallst.com/housing/2019/09/30/there-are-over-17-m...

0xB31B1B 5y ago
This is the worst possible take. Yes, there are vacant homes. They are by and large vacant because there is no economic opportunity near these homes. The vacancy rates in cities with high homelessness rates are at or below 1%. Yes, there may be more homes than homeless in these cities but "the homeless that currently reside in a locale" are not the total extent of the stakeholders that may want to move in our out of a city.
tunesmith 5y ago
I don't think that "we don't need to build more housing" follows from "we have more vacant houses than houseless". It seems like the implicit assumption there is we have the ability to move all the houseless to those house, but that sounds really unlikely (albeit an extremely interesting project if it's tried).
BurningFrog 5y ago
Those houses are empty for a reason. Usually they are where there is a housing surplus, because population in the area has declined. I predict offering the people in my Oakland neighborhood shantytowns housing in abandoned rustbelt towns will not find many takers.

4 ms·

I'm all for building more housing for people. Ending homelessness, by definition, would mean to provide housing. But the thing is, we don't even need to build

by EarthIsHome 5y ago

0xB31B1B 5y ago
This is the worst possible take. Yes, there are vacant homes. They are by and large vacant because there is no economic opportunity near these homes. The vacancy rates in cities with high homelessness rates are at or below 1%. Yes, there may be more homes than homeless in these cities but "the homeless that currently reside in a locale" are not the total extent of the stakeholders that may want to move in our out of a city.
tunesmith 5y ago
I don't think that "we don't need to build more housing" follows from "we have more vacant houses than houseless". It seems like the implicit assumption there is we have the ability to move all the houseless to those house, but that sounds really unlikely (albeit an extremely interesting project if it's tried).
BurningFrog 5y ago
Those houses are empty for a reason. Usually they are where there is a housing surplus, because population in the area has declined. I predict offering the people in my Oakland neighborhood shantytowns housing in abandoned rustbelt towns will not find many takers.