4 ms·

Who’s Bezos supposed to buy the homes from? It seems like there is already a higher than average number of people living per house here, so distribution of hous

Who’s Bezos supposed to buy the homes from? It seems like there is already a higher than average number of people living per house here, so distribution of housing is not really the problem. The total number of homes is too low. It would help if Bezos could build a huge number of new housing units, but that’s illegal (which is the problem).

tomjakubowski 5y ago
Most cities, even those with large homeless populations, have many times more vacant homes. True even in regions with housing shortages like the SF Bay Area. Presumably in this fantasy scenario he'd buy some of those.
na85 5y ago
My point, which seems to have soared over the heads of my detractors in this thread, is that the ultra rich should be taxed at a higher rate, and that money used to fund programs that combat homelessness. Jeff Bezos and the other dragons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H billionaires have demonstrably too much wealth, to the extent that they can afford dick-measuring contests like "whose CEO can get to space first, for no reason whatsoever". The measure of a great society is by how it treats its least fortunate members.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  A fine opinion, but the only nexus to the news story we are commenting on is the exhortation for Bezos to go buy a bunch of houses (which would only push prices even higher and make somebody else homeless).
  - na85 5y ago
    There was no such exhortation. I used the word "could", not the word "should", for a reason. That reason was to illustrate that he can afford a tax and should be levied one.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
      For what it’s worth, Bezos is associated with Amazon, not Apple.
- epistasis 5y ago
  The problem here is not the ultra rich, it's the moderately rich that are blocking housing. There's more than enough money for people to pay for the building and maintenance, it's just that local land owners have said "we don't want to share" All of Bezos' money isn't going to fix that problem. The problem here is wealth inequality, but it's the inequality of land wealth, not dollar wealth. The problem is excessive greed, not of Bezos, but of local homeowners and politicians. A former mayor literally joked about building a wall around Cupertino. That is the asshole that needs to be backed against a wall to fix this problem.
lumost 5y ago
Start ratcheting up the property tax to improve utilization. Unaffordable homes are only affordable if the cash flow requirements are low. If there was an extra 3-6% property tax, it would align interests towards construction and punish speculators.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Yes, that would be ideal!! However homeowners in the late 1970s wrote into the state constitution that property taxes would be based on purchase price, and never increase more than 2% per year. It's called Prop 13, and it needs to die. However, I fear it won't until there is a generational change.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
freen 5y ago
There are enough empty houses to house every homeless person in the country: there are ~ 19 million empty houses in the country. (in 2019)
- epistasis 5y ago
  Shipping people to other states against their will, and away from their connections, support networks, and whatever else they say need, is both unethical and counterproductive. Who the hell cares about homes nobody wants to live in? Build homes where people want them, don't let a few wealthy assholes hoard the best climate from everyone else. Why defend the interests of rentiers and landlords like this? It helps no one except the very wealthy.
  - swiley 5y ago
    We did this in the 50s to Mexico and the result is the modern Mexican state. This is truly one of the worst things you can do.
  - freen 5y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. I never meant we should ship people places, just that “supply” exceeds “demand”. Capitalism is an inherently inefficient mechanism for the distribution of resources. It favors the aggregation of capital over efficient distribution.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      When you write "there's enough empty homes to house every homeless person," the only possible interpretation I can come up with is that you're saying that capitalism has provided enough housing already, and that we should use those existing houses. Is there another interpretation that you can provide me, that I'm not understanding? Because I see that claim repeated all over the place, and I only see it in response to the idea that we should build homes where people want them, as a reason for not building homes. I would be greatly relieved if there was an interpretation of that statement which was not just a defense of the status quo.

tomjakubowski 5y ago

Most cities, even those with large homeless populations, have many times more vacant homes. True even in regions with housing shortages like the SF Bay Area. Presumably in this fantasy scenario he'd buy some of those.

na85 5y ago

My point, which seems to have soared over the heads of my detractors in this thread, is that the ultra rich should be taxed at a higher rate, and that money used to fund programs that combat homelessness. Jeff Bezos and the other dragons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H billionaires have demonstrably too much wealth, to the extent that they can afford dick-measuring contests like "whose CEO can get to space first, for no reason whatsoever". The measure of a great society is by how it treats its least fortunate members.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
A fine opinion, but the only nexus to the news story we are commenting on is the exhortation for Bezos to go buy a bunch of houses (which would only push prices even higher and make somebody else homeless).
- na85 5y ago
  There was no such exhortation. I used the word "could", not the word "should", for a reason. That reason was to illustrate that he can afford a tax and should be levied one.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    For what it’s worth, Bezos is associated with Amazon, not Apple.
epistasis 5y ago
The problem here is not the ultra rich, it's the moderately rich that are blocking housing. There's more than enough money for people to pay for the building and maintenance, it's just that local land owners have said "we don't want to share" All of Bezos' money isn't going to fix that problem. The problem here is wealth inequality, but it's the inequality of land wealth, not dollar wealth. The problem is excessive greed, not of Bezos, but of local homeowners and politicians. A former mayor literally joked about building a wall around Cupertino. That is the asshole that needs to be backed against a wall to fix this problem.

lumost 5y ago

Start ratcheting up the property tax to improve utilization. Unaffordable homes are only affordable if the cash flow requirements are low. If there was an extra 3-6% property tax, it would align interests towards construction and punish speculators.

epistasis 5y ago
Yes, that would be ideal!! However homeowners in the late 1970s wrote into the state constitution that property taxes would be based on purchase price, and never increase more than 2% per year. It's called Prop 13, and it needs to die. However, I fear it won't until there is a generational change.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

freen 5y ago

There are enough empty houses to house every homeless person in the country: there are ~ 19 million empty houses in the country. (in 2019)

epistasis 5y ago
Shipping people to other states against their will, and away from their connections, support networks, and whatever else they say need, is both unethical and counterproductive. Who the hell cares about homes nobody wants to live in? Build homes where people want them, don't let a few wealthy assholes hoard the best climate from everyone else. Why defend the interests of rentiers and landlords like this? It helps no one except the very wealthy.
- swiley 5y ago
  We did this in the 50s to Mexico and the result is the modern Mexican state. This is truly one of the worst things you can do.
- freen 5y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. I never meant we should ship people places, just that “supply” exceeds “demand”. Capitalism is an inherently inefficient mechanism for the distribution of resources. It favors the aggregation of capital over efficient distribution.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    When you write "there's enough empty homes to house every homeless person," the only possible interpretation I can come up with is that you're saying that capitalism has provided enough housing already, and that we should use those existing houses. Is there another interpretation that you can provide me, that I'm not understanding? Because I see that claim repeated all over the place, and I only see it in response to the idea that we should build homes where people want them, as a reason for not building homes. I would be greatly relieved if there was an interpretation of that statement which was not just a defense of the status quo.