4 ms·

I have the assumption you think that this is a witty retort meant to "own the" person you're replying to, but how about this for a genuine answer: Because ther

I have the assumption you think that this is a witty retort meant to "own the" person you're replying to, but how about this for a genuine answer: Because there are often laws or rules against that sort of thing. Taking in a long-term boarding guest who is unrelated to you is against city ordinance in many smaller jurisdictions, and if someone rents (like many do) their leases often prohibit such arrangements. So now instead of one person looking for housing, you have two or more. (Note that my reply omits all of the other arguments about how individual action for collective problems is very unlikely to solve the problem in a meaningful way and this is why we have societies and governments, and so on.)

oh_sigh 4y ago
It's not a gotcha statement. I believe in individual action, even for global problems. And I believe you're a hypocrite if you accuse others of lacking empathy for the problem while both parties external behavior is exactly the same. It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. You say there are "often" laws against what I proposed, which is having someone sleep in a spare bedroom. What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? What is the homeless population? Something like 0.1% of Americans. How many Americans have bleeding hearts when thinking about the homeless? I dunno, maybe 5%? So even if 50% of people lived in restrictive housing locations where they couldn't implement it, you'd still only need 4% of the remaining bleeding hearts to take in a single homeless person to solve the problem.
- techsupporter 4y ago
  > What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? Well, as with many things in life, it depends on the location. The odds of there being a non-familial occupancy limit are a lot lower in Loving County, Texas than they likely are in Harris County, Texas, simply because more population tends to beget more situations where society has decided we need more rules. While overall percentages are likely low, the percentages in the areas where homelessness is most acute are almost certainly higher. For example, San Francisco's occupancy ordinance says that, in general, the upper limit is two people of occupancy per bedroom. While San Francisco has repealed its rules about non-familial cohabitation, Dallas still has some limits (though they are sparsely enforced). Further, areas where homelessness is most acute also tend to have a higher percentage of people who rent, since the barriers to building any kind of housing make all but the most expensive kind of housing--rental units with long-term ROI built for "luxury"--the only kind that get built. According to media reports in 2021, people who rent make up 65% of San Francisco's households. Same for Seattle, where 50.3% of households rent their dwellings. It is likely the case that not all of these rental agreements have restrictions on who can move in and at what time, I would bet one months' rent that the overwhelming majority do. > It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. I agree that simply having empathy but not backing with efforts is the most hollow of gestures. However, simply saying "well, why don't they live with you" isn't helpful. For another reason beyond what we've discussed, why is it automatically the case that someone who is unhoused would want to live with a stranger? There are myriad justified complaints about congregate shelters and short-term transient housing. The answer isn't "find roommates for everyone," it's "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people." But for the howling NIMBYs of the group, we could probably do this. So would it not be more effective to get many of the BS rules blocking housing out of the way? It's not a short-term fix, but we already know what other short term fixes are that aren't people taking in roommates: buying hotels and converting them, for one; tiny house villages with proper doors and sanitary facilities are another. Not sweeping people from one "unsanctioned" campsite to another with nowhere to go is a third.
  - hackerfromthefu 4y ago
    You stated the answer is to "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people" however that's clearly ignoring important aspects of the issues and is not a long term solution. Housing is complex, takes effort. To build and pay for, and then also to maintain and keep livable and operational. Many of those homeless have observed inability to take care of things consistently over times. Probably related to impulse control. It's a continual effort/challenge to keep one's life on the 'straight and narrow' to keep the many aspects working. It's hard for the average person - they work at it continually. Whether, and HOW it's possible, for which percentage of the homeless population, to be able to keep on the 'straight and narrow' and look after a home they have been gifted from others hard work is an important part of the 'the answer' that you talked about. Otherwise you get the situation of the workers building the homeless expensive buildings that are not treated with respect as homes but instead neglected or actively destroyed over time. So 'the answer' you proposed isn't realistic. The closest thing to what you said that may actually work is to first build them a home, then maintain it for them financially as well as operationally, and then continually repair that home when the damage gets too bad. In other words a house with ongoing service agreement. And of course food and healthcare as well. Oh and internet and entertainment, and support when the drugs has caused another problem. Meanwhile this is like 'retirement' that the hardworking part of the population strives and works their ass off to get to as a 'goal'. If I understand your proposal of taking lifes major goals for the productive and just giving it to those who don't take accountability for themselves, I wonder if your solution would be fundamentally destructive to society because then why would productive people work, if instead they can get high regularly while other people work for them?

oh_sigh 4y ago

It's not a gotcha statement. I believe in individual action, even for global problems. And I believe you're a hypocrite if you accuse others of lacking empathy for the problem while both parties external behavior is exactly the same. It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. You say there are "often" laws against what I proposed, which is having someone sleep in a spare bedroom. What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? What is the homeless population? Something like 0.1% of Americans. How many Americans have bleeding hearts when thinking about the homeless? I dunno, maybe 5%? So even if 50% of people lived in restrictive housing locations where they couldn't implement it, you'd still only need 4% of the remaining bleeding hearts to take in a single homeless person to solve the problem.

techsupporter 4y ago
> What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws? Well, as with many things in life, it depends on the location. The odds of there being a non-familial occupancy limit are a lot lower in Loving County, Texas than they likely are in Harris County, Texas, simply because more population tends to beget more situations where society has decided we need more rules. While overall percentages are likely low, the percentages in the areas where homelessness is most acute are almost certainly higher. For example, San Francisco's occupancy ordinance says that, in general, the upper limit is two people of occupancy per bedroom. While San Francisco has repealed its rules about non-familial cohabitation, Dallas still has some limits (though they are sparsely enforced). Further, areas where homelessness is most acute also tend to have a higher percentage of people who rent, since the barriers to building any kind of housing make all but the most expensive kind of housing--rental units with long-term ROI built for "luxury"--the only kind that get built. According to media reports in 2021, people who rent make up 65% of San Francisco's households. Same for Seattle, where 50.3% of households rent their dwellings. It is likely the case that not all of these rental agreements have restrictions on who can move in and at what time, I would bet one months' rent that the overwhelming majority do. > It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that. I agree that simply having empathy but not backing with efforts is the most hollow of gestures. However, simply saying "well, why don't they live with you" isn't helpful. For another reason beyond what we've discussed, why is it automatically the case that someone who is unhoused would want to live with a stranger? There are myriad justified complaints about congregate shelters and short-term transient housing. The answer isn't "find roommates for everyone," it's "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people." But for the howling NIMBYs of the group, we could probably do this. So would it not be more effective to get many of the BS rules blocking housing out of the way? It's not a short-term fix, but we already know what other short term fixes are that aren't people taking in roommates: buying hotels and converting them, for one; tiny house villages with proper doors and sanitary facilities are another. Not sweeping people from one "unsanctioned" campsite to another with nowhere to go is a third.
- hackerfromthefu 4y ago
  You stated the answer is to "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people" however that's clearly ignoring important aspects of the issues and is not a long term solution. Housing is complex, takes effort. To build and pay for, and then also to maintain and keep livable and operational. Many of those homeless have observed inability to take care of things consistently over times. Probably related to impulse control. It's a continual effort/challenge to keep one's life on the 'straight and narrow' to keep the many aspects working. It's hard for the average person - they work at it continually. Whether, and HOW it's possible, for which percentage of the homeless population, to be able to keep on the 'straight and narrow' and look after a home they have been gifted from others hard work is an important part of the 'the answer' that you talked about. Otherwise you get the situation of the workers building the homeless expensive buildings that are not treated with respect as homes but instead neglected or actively destroyed over time. So 'the answer' you proposed isn't realistic. The closest thing to what you said that may actually work is to first build them a home, then maintain it for them financially as well as operationally, and then continually repair that home when the damage gets too bad. In other words a house with ongoing service agreement. And of course food and healthcare as well. Oh and internet and entertainment, and support when the drugs has caused another problem. Meanwhile this is like 'retirement' that the hardworking part of the population strives and works their ass off to get to as a 'goal'. If I understand your proposal of taking lifes major goals for the productive and just giving it to those who don't take accountability for themselves, I wonder if your solution would be fundamentally destructive to society because then why would productive people work, if instead they can get high regularly while other people work for them?