Geeze, I get it, you guys don’t like landlords. The fact of the matter is that many of these people are a huge gamble for a landlord to rent to. With so many other people clamoring to rent, it’s hard to justify renting out housing to someone who could be risky. Programs like this should really help in getting people housed and stable.
if their parasite business is so risky they need a state guarantees for that
That’s the thing. It’s much less risky if they continue to exclude homeless people. It only becomes risky when they do house formerly homeless people. Take away the associated risk and it’s a lot easier for them to justify renting out to make a dent in the problem.
I understand what you are telling me, but i condem this as parasitic politics in a country where neoliberal dogma rules supremely. Coutry which have something like 11 empty homes per homeless person. All that while even under capitalism the housing problem can be resolved somewhat as several european cities and countries did - they just need to look beyond that dogma. Private landlordism and development never could and never will resolve any kind of problem about homes.
Coutry which have something like 11 empty homes per homeless person
This is a misleading statistic that constantly gets misused. Certain regions in the US have experienced massive depopulation, leading to empty housing units. Other regions, like the Portland metro area, have seen fairly stead growth. So while there may be empty housing, it’s not located where it is needed. That number also usually includes housing that is not finished with construction, is in transition between tenants/owners, or is a vacation home where
There are some legitimate issues with housing in the US. AirBNB is a problem, with an increasing amount of housing going to AirBNB instead of to residents. I’ve also heard about schemes where large investment firms buying up apartment complexes have figured out that a certain price will leave vacant units, but fetch a higher overall profit. I have heard one legislative fix to impose a tax on ownership of over X housing units.
So you just see a problem with a huge landlords. Guess what, it’s the exact same problem, just on the bigger scale, especially that capitalism does with rent seekers the same thing it does with rest of the bourgeoisie, big eat small. Property gets concentrated.
And about the “misused” statistic, i have another idea, very closely tied to the first and abandoning neoliberal dogma - how about creating jobs in those depopulated areas? Or maybe, since it’s so big difference, just giving the homes to people? Without rent eating 70% of their wages even those depopulated areas could surprise you.
I don’t see an intrinsic problem with landlords. In the ideal situation, they provide a service. People can rent a housing unit with a low commitment attached. There are serious downsides to ownership like the amount of concentration of a household’s wealth in a single asset, upkeep, and being tied to a given unit for a long period of time. It’s only when landlords aren’t providing appropriate value to tenants or are being abusive that I see a real issue.
how about creating jobs in those depopulated areas
More easily said than done. There are usually reasons those areas have trouble. Creating jobs is rarely a matter of waving some magic wand. There are efforts to get jobs into those areas for sure, but they’re often unsuccessful. Sometimes it really is better to let an area die instead of spending a bunch of money trying to get people to move to an unproductive area.
Or maybe, since it’s so big difference, just giving the homes to people?
Some of those homes literally are just going for a pittance, something like a dollar. Clearly there’s something else going on. So why not just transfer ownership? Well, residing in a home is about more than just owning a structure. There’s sewer, water, waste management, maintenance, and so on. Also, many homeless people have at least one mental illness, either as the cause of their homelessness or acquired while homeless, so they need mental health resources. An area that is experiencing depopulation is unlikely to have that care available.
A housing first approach near appropriate services is designed to help provide the stability they need and stronger connections with services. A door that locks and some privacy goes a long way. Uprooting them and chucking them in some godforsaken town is not a real solution.
Well i know of the magic wand which was pretty good at “conjuring” housing, healthcare, jobs and other necessities. Hell, even two magic wands -☭ hammer and sickle ☭
Here’s an idea that will blow your mind. Give money to people who can’t afford rent instead, or even better spend money to build affordable housing. US is such a deranged society.
The US does that through Section 8 housing vouchers. Various entities also build affordable housing, though that has a fraught history because it tends to concentrate poverty.
Concentration of poverty isn’t a product of affordable housing. And the context for the discussion is that a county is giving money to landlords which doesn’t directly translate into people being housed, instead of giving money to people who can’t afford rent. If you can’t understand why that’s backwards what else is there to say.
Geeze, I get it, you guys don’t like landlords. The fact of the matter is that many of these people are a huge gamble for a landlord to rent to. With so many other people clamoring to rent, it’s hard to justify renting out housing to someone who could be risky. Programs like this should really help in getting people housed and stable.
Poor landlords can’t they just go find real job if their parasite business is so risky they need a state guarantees for that?
That’s the thing. It’s much less risky if they continue to exclude homeless people. It only becomes risky when they do house formerly homeless people. Take away the associated risk and it’s a lot easier for them to justify renting out to make a dent in the problem.
I understand what you are telling me, but i condem this as parasitic politics in a country where neoliberal dogma rules supremely. Coutry which have something like 11 empty homes per homeless person. All that while even under capitalism the housing problem can be resolved somewhat as several european cities and countries did - they just need to look beyond that dogma. Private landlordism and development never could and never will resolve any kind of problem about homes.
This is a misleading statistic that constantly gets misused. Certain regions in the US have experienced massive depopulation, leading to empty housing units. Other regions, like the Portland metro area, have seen fairly stead growth. So while there may be empty housing, it’s not located where it is needed. That number also usually includes housing that is not finished with construction, is in transition between tenants/owners, or is a vacation home where
There are some legitimate issues with housing in the US. AirBNB is a problem, with an increasing amount of housing going to AirBNB instead of to residents. I’ve also heard about schemes where large investment firms buying up apartment complexes have figured out that a certain price will leave vacant units, but fetch a higher overall profit. I have heard one legislative fix to impose a tax on ownership of over X housing units.
So you just see a problem with a huge landlords. Guess what, it’s the exact same problem, just on the bigger scale, especially that capitalism does with rent seekers the same thing it does with rest of the bourgeoisie, big eat small. Property gets concentrated.
And about the “misused” statistic, i have another idea, very closely tied to the first and abandoning neoliberal dogma - how about creating jobs in those depopulated areas? Or maybe, since it’s so big difference, just giving the homes to people? Without rent eating 70% of their wages even those depopulated areas could surprise you.
I don’t see an intrinsic problem with landlords. In the ideal situation, they provide a service. People can rent a housing unit with a low commitment attached. There are serious downsides to ownership like the amount of concentration of a household’s wealth in a single asset, upkeep, and being tied to a given unit for a long period of time. It’s only when landlords aren’t providing appropriate value to tenants or are being abusive that I see a real issue.
More easily said than done. There are usually reasons those areas have trouble. Creating jobs is rarely a matter of waving some magic wand. There are efforts to get jobs into those areas for sure, but they’re often unsuccessful. Sometimes it really is better to let an area die instead of spending a bunch of money trying to get people to move to an unproductive area.
Some of those homes literally are just going for a pittance, something like a dollar. Clearly there’s something else going on. So why not just transfer ownership? Well, residing in a home is about more than just owning a structure. There’s sewer, water, waste management, maintenance, and so on. Also, many homeless people have at least one mental illness, either as the cause of their homelessness or acquired while homeless, so they need mental health resources. An area that is experiencing depopulation is unlikely to have that care available.
A housing first approach near appropriate services is designed to help provide the stability they need and stronger connections with services. A door that locks and some privacy goes a long way. Uprooting them and chucking them in some godforsaken town is not a real solution.
Well i know of the magic wand which was pretty good at “conjuring” housing, healthcare, jobs and other necessities. Hell, even two magic wands -☭ hammer and sickle ☭
Why not just give the property to the homeless? Risk averted.
It is not the county’s property to give and they do not have the resources to buy it at market prices.
lol
Here’s an idea that will blow your mind. Give money to people who can’t afford rent instead, or even better spend money to build affordable housing. US is such a deranged society.
The US does that through Section 8 housing vouchers. Various entities also build affordable housing, though that has a fraught history because it tends to concentrate poverty.
Concentration of poverty isn’t a product of affordable housing. And the context for the discussion is that a county is giving money to landlords which doesn’t directly translate into people being housed, instead of giving money to people who can’t afford rent. If you can’t understand why that’s backwards what else is there to say.