ah! yummy 🔥🍾

i don’t get it but happy for u :)

appreciate!

i’m not advocating anything lmao i am saying it’s shitty to laugh in peoples faces.

if there is a region with high homless density compared to few vacant homes and it is determined that building housing is cost effective in service of that community i will not laugh in the aid worker’s faces.

i will not laugh. that’s all i mean, and if you actually tried to pay attention you would notice it’s all i have ever said.

i am blocking you now thanks for thoroughly embarrassing yourself

radical compared to the status quo, thanks for allowing me to clarify

Truth.

That number includes abandoned and run down homes that are currently unlivable, houses that aren’t actually on the market because they’re being remodeled, they exist in the middle of nowhere where people don’t want to live, etc.

Would love a citation? The commonly cited numbers I know explicitly only include livable homes. Remodeling also excluded.

a lot of people say that housing is commodified and that’s why it sucks. This is not accurate. Housing is treated as an investment that should go up in value over time

yup and that sucks so bad BASED BASED BASED thanks for sharing

People are getting toxic at you so as OP i just want to send love for your radical [compared to the status quo] acknowledgment that vacant homes should be taxed.

Other people are being mean sickos for a percentage you mentioned, and though I share their perspectives, it still stands true that NO ONE in our current government would be caught dead saying such a radical anti-1% thing as far as I know. Keep fighting for human rights and don’t let the internet trolls push you backwards. ❤️

[There is time in the future for you to learn and perhaps become even more radical <like me lol ✨> but no shame for advocating for basic tier one human rights oriented policies.]

Indeed! Just combating the “laugh in their stupid faces” and “it would be trivial” of the person I am responding to. No other disagreements. :)

Missing some key education a moderate amount. The numbers this cites specifically point to livable homes. So renovations and transitions are explicitly excluded from that count.

Further, vacancy rates are primarily increased by rent-seeking behaviors (capital) like dual home ownership, AirBnB, holding homes empty as an investment, etc. This is what the post is speaking to. People owning multiple homes. As such…

We’re doing a better job cramming people into available housing than ever before and it’s not enough.

False. If we were doing a better job, the number of homes per rich individual would not be growing.

Truth. “Ending homelessness” unfortunately isn’t just as easy as “give them homes.” There a huge hurdles to overcome that are created by other ghoulish aspects of capital.

Just one example, a huge proportion of unhoused people suffer from addiction and PTSD (veterans hugely overrepresented) and what this means for some solutions like building big apartment buildings (called “permanent supportive housing”) can devolve into conflict and interpersonal violence without meaningful recovery and mental health support—which of course we know is also restricted by a for-profit model of care.

And again that’s just one example. Another example I commented elsewhere is that @[email protected]’s plan without providing transportation could result in malnutrition or health concerns by positioning victims of homelessness deep in food and care deserts. This of course is the inhuman exploitation of healthcare under the fist of capital.

Don’t mistake ofc, there are some very smart people out there working hard to make plans through this maze, but that maze exists, and is difficult, and I don’t like laughing at people putting in the labor to explore the solution.

It would be trivial to end homelessness without building a single new home.

I mean, no, but I get what you mean. Plenty of empty homes are in areas with low homeless density, so you would need a non-trivial system to transition homeless people, get them jobs, transportation to grocery, education and medical, etc.

Again you are not wrong cuz I get what you mean but, for example, if you see a project tackling homelessness by building housing (especially in urban and historically zoned areas, and especially when it’s government or ngo owned [not for investment]) it doesn’t necessarily mean they are full of shit, just that they are engaging on a different front of the battle. :)