politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Kinda… There’s not so much need to build, though, as there are currently 28 vacant homes for every one person experiencing homelessness in the U.S., many of which are owned not by individuals but by large corporations. The same corps that took advantage of the housing market collapses over the last several decades.
Large corporations are sitting on ridiculous numbers of vacant homes rather than make them affordable for people who need them. Fixing that would help.
Yeah, it's kind of insane. They buy them for the value, but they only have value because there's perceived scarcity, and there's only perceived scarcity because they buy them. It's an incestuous system that harms us all and creates nothing of value.
The ouroboros of capitalism.
Just because there are homes, doesn’t mean that the homes are in desirable locations.
1k empty homes in Iowa doesn’t do any good for someone in New York
Where do you think these tens of millions of vacant homes are? They are in every single city and suburb across the country. I'll bet even Hawaii has homes sitting vacant. I know for a fact that there are almost 25,000 homes sitting vacant between downtown and the greater San Diego area, which happens to be 10,000 more than our entire county's homeless population. The county of San Diego is larger than the smallest two or three states, BTW.
Ah yes, the Tankie-Nimby zombie myth that California already has enough homes if not for the evil capitalists hoarders at Blackrock. Note that 25,000 housing units is around 1% of the total housing supply in the SD metro area; i.e. about the number of empty homes we would expect just due to normal turnover and renovations.
Did you look at my link?
These numbers are not referring to temporarily vacant homes that are in between buyers, but longer term vacancies, often held by investment firms. From the article:
These homes can sit abandoned for years, causing neighbourhood blight and increased crime, in addition to removing opportunities from people who need housing.
Yes, it’s an uncaring capitalist thing, and no, it’s not a NIMBY thing – quite the opposite. The neighbourhoods with these homes would be far better off with residents than simply letting these homes rot .
Without even clicking I knew what the links would be, because they are the same ones that always get posted. And because this is a zombie myth, it doesn't matter how many times they get debunked people still post them anyway. Your United Way "Study" is especially silly; for example it claims more than 25% of San Francisco housing units are vacant which is obviously not true.
Okay, how about actually presenting data to support your argument rather than just ‘nuh-uh’ and vague aspersions?
San francisco has around 50,000 vacant residencies and around 8,000 unhoused people. There is supply in these "desirable" locations, it's just that under the logic of capitalism this supply isn't made available to those who need it.
There are solutions, and most vacant houses are in major cities, which is also where many homeless people already are.
Detroit, for example, has large numbers of homeless people and also large numbers of these houses. Same with New York, large cities in California, etc.
There are ways to solve this, but there’s no way these large corporations will participate in a solution out of the goodness of their heart.
Right there must be a wealth transfer.
They're desirable enough for large financial firms to hold as investment properties.