65
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 29 points 9 months ago

Probably build a lot of public housing. Plus fix zoning to not make high density housing impractical.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 20 points 9 months ago

Would also need to invest in trains, density can be much higher if you don't have big roads and garages for everyone.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

No city in the world has that budget

You could make a big dent though

[-] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Are we starting from scratch here or working with what capitalism has given us?

[-] sumofchemicals@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

I'm interested in actual approaches. Not saying I want to perpetuate capitalism, but asking how you would tackle the problem, and could be from the viewpoint of any of those entities.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

This is how my cuntry does it:

  1. Make it mandatory for housing developers to build a % of low cost houses for every luxury development at their own cost or not get approval for the luxury development.

  2. The government builds high density 3 bedroom apartment complexes that are rent to own for the low income group. These complexes easily house 15,000 people or more.

  3. The government subsidises larger terrace houses specifically for young families first house by covering the 10% deposit and tax exemptions.

My cuntry also give free healthcare, schools and subsidised universities.

[-] Delphia@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Buddy, theres an O in "Country".

Normally I wouldnt correct spelling on social media but if you didnt know "Cunt" is a pretty rude word. So "Cuntry" reads kind of funny.

[-] forensic_potato@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

It also depends on which cuntry you're from lol. In the UK and Australia for example it's a very widespread word

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Giant roof over the whole thing

[-] sumofchemicals@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Lol are you inspired by Buckminster Fuller? Dome over Manhattan

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 months ago

See also: The Simpsons Movie

"I was elected to lead, not to read."

[-] Stowaway@midwest.social 4 points 9 months ago

No dome, just one of those sheet metal roofs that are stupid loud when it rains.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

There are two kinds of homeless people: those who desire shelter, and those who don't. Usually the latter group is in the grip of psychosis, drugs, or both. There needs to be some form of involuntary commitment to deal with them.

For the former group: keep building shelters until there's no more waiting list. There should always be an excess of beds available.

Once that's the case, the only people left on the street are that group I mentioned earlier. But that's a pretty complicated issue to deal with.

[-] sumofchemicals@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Can you share sources about the idea that some people don't desire shelter? My understanding is more that drugs or mental illness make it difficult to retain housing. Their behavior towards others and their inability to pay means they end up homeless, but seems like people universally want a roof over their heads. My understanding is that among professionals working in this area, the view is that having a place to live is the first step in addressing issues like drug abuse and mental health. I'm aware of one organization in Philadelphia, Project Home, that others view as a model.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

In 2023, HSOC teams approached and engaged with 2,344 unsheltered people living on the streets. Of those 2,344 people, 1,065 accepted shelter services. Fifty-four percent of people experiencing homelessness — or 1,278 people — declined offers for shelter.

Housing is exponentially more expensive than shelter. Sure, in an ideal world, housing should come first, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world of budget constraints. We need to practice harm reduction.

[-] sumofchemicals@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Some others here have highlighted that "shelter services" is not the same thing as an actual shelter. People can't stay as long as they want, they don't have a secure place to store their belongings, and they can be dangerous. Here is a post with sources that outlines why permanent supportive housing is more cost effective than temporary overnight shelters

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sure, overall. But the cost of someone living partially or fully on the streets is spread between public and private. The cost to the State is typically less.

I can't follow the links to any of the sources in that post, btw.

[-] sumofchemicals@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah, not sure what's up with that. Here are the working links as best I can tell:

  • "A recent HUD study found that the cost of providing emergency shelter to families is generally as much or more than the cost of placing them in transitional or permanent housing"
  • "All the residents at this Housing First styled residence..."
  • "A cost study of rural homelessness from Portland ME found significant cost reductions when providing permanent supportive housing as opposed to serving the people while they remain homeless"
  • "A study from Los Angeles CA... found that placing four chronically homeless people into permanent supportive housing saved the city more than $80,000 per year"

Lastly this link did seem to work but I thought the statistics and the FAQ were helpful.--

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sorry, finally got around to reading your links. I can't find the LA study, but the Portland comparison is a bit of an outlier compared to the homeless problem in most cities. The cost of acquiring housing in large cities is much larger.

Most of the studies seem to compare the cost before and after placing people in permanent housing, but not factoring in the cost of the housing itself. And they speak about the benefits to individuals placed in housing, not the society wide impacts. If we could vastly improve the life of one person a year at the expense of all other homeless people, that's a terrible bargain.

Shelters are not a cure-all, they're harm reduction. And I still suspect they're massively cheaper (in cost per number of people helped) than procuring housing for everyone.

[-] barrage4u@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I would start with immediate solutions - setting designated areas for camping and providing tents + basic amenities. I'd look into what the most effective policies that exist around the world are and why they work and select the one most applicable to our situation. Finally I'd try and solve the core issue(s) regarding why the majority of those individuals couldn't provide housing for themselves

[-] Electric_Druid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

This is a good answer imo, but that last point is truly the long-term key. Regarding other discussion in this thread, late-stage capitalism largely prevents housing and utilities from being separated from profits. Not to take personal responsibility out of the equation, but social mobility is quite low when the system is rigged for continual profits and ever-increasing ROIs.

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Public housing. What I am would really make the difference as to what I could do.

If I was a community I would try to acquire property and build the highest density property that made sense and make sure it has a park or land close to it.

Could build a farm next to it to provide jobs and healthy food to the community as well as potential vocational training.

Would focus on getting sane public transit to and from the area. Hopefully after a time private sector would start building up the area and we could locate another area to bring the model to.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Farms only need like 2-20 people to work em, not a great source of jobs

You could provide regular buses to nearby towns fairly cheap, depending on the geography. Then people could live in your community and commute to other ones where the jobs are.

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Some do, some don't. Non mechanized crops require tons of manual labor that is paid at sub minimum wage during harvest.
We could think of ways to use more people by expanding it to more than simply growing food. Perhaps a coop that sells the food too? But yeah not perfect.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If you take it out to its logical extreme, you're just reinventing existing society. Which is how all anarchist/libertarian/etc thought experiments always end

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 7 points 9 months ago

Focusing on supply, start encouraging the building of higher density housing, including cheap studio apartments that poor people can afford. This includes changing zoning policies, getting rid of parking minimums, and taxing more of the undeveloped value of land instead of the developed value.

[-] xkforce@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Id kick the speculative investors out of housing. No more leveraging billion dollar hedge fund resources to outbid home buyers driving the price of housing to the moon. No more nimby regulations that prohibit building above a certain number of stories, building certain types of homes or the number of unrelated people living in a house. The only regulations left on the books would directly tackle legitimate safety concerns and thats it. Id make it as easy as possible to upgrade or build new housing while enforcing the regulations necessary for housing to be safe to live in. Id encourage the formation of cooperative housing i.e the people living in a complex are part owners and so the management of that building is incentivized not to screw them over. Id dump money into public housing and bolster the occupants' ability to take care of themselves with job training, education and support they need to dig their way out of poverty.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

A partnership between private equity and co-op style ownership is an interesting idea for condos/apartments. Like say corporations retain a 30% ownership stake in each parcel, lowering the costs to purchase but also requiring a small bit of "rent" every month forever.

[-] bigdog_00@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That could be interesting, as then the corporations would still be paying for a percentage of repairs directly

[-] RBWells@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In my own city, with an unlimited budget?

Take 1/3 the office buildings and make them housing. That gives us the density we need inside the city. Keep going, we do have enough space here. Keep going until rent and housing cost drops to be more in line with wages. Restore transit so that transportation cost is not such an enormous expense (where I am, 2 cars can easily cost $1k a month, say one car payment, insurance x2, and gas and maintenance) so people in this more tightly defined space didn't need cars so desperately.

(ETA: I would also buy back the electric company from the out-of-country conglomerate that bought it & create a cheap city fiber optic internet service. Do the things that cost up front then reduce everyone's cost over time. We already have city run water & garbage)

Then would need to tackle the actual homeless - are you saying we'd need to house even people who do not want an indoor space? People who will never have a job and don't want to be part of the system? This is a small but non-zero number. For those I think more widely distributed facilities at every single park in the city, well maintained and clean, so it would not be so terrible trying to just get a shower. And lots of outreach to get those who do want a place, into a place, and the help they need to have a good enough life.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Make house scalping illegal. Aka no rented homes.

[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

Deport everyone without a house? Very obviously?

(obviously a /s)

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago
  1. Individuals can own a maximum of two properties.
  2. Corporations can own a maximum of X rental properties (enough to allow a dedicated team to find a career servicing them, maintaining them, etc but not many past that point - I'd like wager in the low single digits).

This discourages using housing as a financial asset past owning where you live. This alone should reduce the cost of housing significantly. Housing gets cheaper, more people have housing.

  1. Create programs where people or cities can get stable, low cost loans from the government to construct housing ranging from detached single family homes to high density apartment complexes.

  2. If you live somewhere with restrictive zoning laws, revise them for the modern age.

This should allow communities to solve their own housing issues via lowering the financial burden of various solutions.

  1. Continue to offer free shelter for homeless who want it and need a place to get back on their feet, provide amenities that make that transition easier.

  2. Create a research task force to determine any other causes of homelessness and propose solutions. I'd wager: legalizing most drugs, forced mental rehabilitation, and sunset laws for criminal records would get rid of the rest.

[-] Fogle@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

For point 2 does one location with 3 buildings count as 1 or 3

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Are you asking about the difference between land and buildings? If that's the distinction you're attempting to clarify I mean rental properties. I didn't clarify land rights in my original comment but they'd follow the same concept. A single entity can only own so much, with harsher restrictions towards renting. Land and what's on it should be owned by those who use it.

If you mean the distinction between like a mall and it's shops, I think additional barriers can be created around classifications of said properties. 4 homes, 2 apartment complexes, 1 massive shopping center. That sorta thing.

[-] Fogle@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Do you mean apartment complexes should all be owned by the people there like condos?

What I meant was usually the apartment buildings will build 2 or 3 buildings in one lot. Would that count as one rental property for a company or multiple.

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Ideally everyone owned the space they lived in, transferring ownership was as simple as finding someone else to move in, and the community invested into their own infrastructure at a more impactful rate than today.

I'd say each building counts, with rules that discourage things like "connecting" three buildings to make it classify as 1. An apartment complex with X number of flats is a lot to manage on its own, multiple more so. With that reasoning we want rules to limit the amount they own.

[-] Fogle@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

I generally support not actually owning land in general.

As a side note my house growing up was classed as a duplex which as I understand it is basically one big house where it's just split with interior walls into 2 houses.

However what I lived in was 2 completely separate houses with a wall built in between the garages out of bricks. Maybe 6 feet deep or something. Literally 2 separate houses with a pile of bricks between them and they classified it as a duplex for taxes and shit. Always thought that made no sense.

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Ya, that's odd. I don't know the specific regulations but wherever we draw a line it's going to create edge cases that feel weird.

Land ownership is odd in my opinion as well.

What I really care about is the system we have now incentivizes increasing the cost of housing and that's not how any society should be designed.

[-] Fogle@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

Yes the problem is we view housing as an investment and people use their primary residence as a means of funding their retirement. Even if we individually set housing prices and people "lost" 3/4 of their home value they would still be able to buy another home with the value remaining because it would also be lowered. It would only affect using your equity to pay for life services. And even then, if we controlled rent prices and retirement home prices none of that would matter at all.

The thing with homes and the stock market going up is that it doesn't create value. All it does is take money from people working and trade it to people who "own" things.

[-] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

Campground with three-walled shelters with twin bunk beds around the perimeter. It should also have potable water, electrical outlets, flush toilets, hot showers, laundry, and trash service. The showers and laundry could be funded by dollar coins. Any resident or camper can earn dollar coins (no paperwork required), by doing work (litter collection, landscaping, cleaning bathrooms, roll call, etc). There should also be lockers to secure belongings. It should be near transit and with plenty of secure bicycle parking.

Build very basic shelters wherever land is cheap. They will have tiny private rooms with locking doors, and if people want to use drugs in there, fine. Tax land values severely enough that speculation is no longer a good source of income. Allow people to build more housing.

[-] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Tree houses for all!

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

Housing with 1 to 3 doors meant for renting can be owned by regular people only, 4 to 8 doors for rent must be owned by a corporation (with the financial implications), any more then that is owned by a non profit crown corporation. That doesn't prevent condos from existing.

All properties come with a 50km radius in which people can't own a second property. That means you can't buy a house and have a rental property in the same city, it also means if you own a multi units building you must live in it.

Have the previously mentioned crown corporation buy/seize lots (especially unused lots) to build more high density buildings with cheap rent.

Increase taxes on single family housing based on the size of the lot it's built on. Want to own a single family house on a lot big enough for two houses? Pay the taxes for two houses.

And all the normal stuff, public transport, parks, homeless shelters, social services.......

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
65 points (94.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

25225 readers
2954 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS