The Answer:

Build more housing.

Quote from: K-Dog on Aug 17, 2024, 12:23 AMThe Answer:

Build more housing.

Astoundingly obvious.   

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 28, 2024, 10:34 AMMerica, do you still love it?

Anyone still living here must not think it is all that bad, otherwise they would have left for greener pastures already. How about that for a measure of how a citizen thinks about America? If you think of how the current slow movign American invasion is happening, it is because conditions elsewhere are intolerable enough to leave everything behind and make a bold leap into the unknown, and hopefully better. It was how America came about, and applying the same logic, if it was as bad as some think it is, why are they still here? If Venezuelans can vote with their feet across all the dangers between them and the US southern border, how ball-less are Americas to do it as well? Canada perhaps, it is a nice place, half of its speaks English. Some European countries would be nice etc etc.

3.1 million is near enough to 1%
of population.

I would spend more time outside under an annex, not just the small space inside. Have drop down zip up sides to an annex on the side, so you can enjoy breeze or block winds depending on weather

Problem is if you need place to have a desk and files, or a workshop and tools.

https://youtu.be/WA9bXY2QXaA?si=SILtR8MgTJVvQNae

As long time readers know, I've always been a strong supporter of having a "Bugout Machine" as a collapse prep, not so much for civilization collapse asfor the more common local disasters or personal ones like losing your job and not being able to afford rent.  I kept my BMs continuously from 2008 through to after my amputation.  Always gave me an extra sense of security.  One of my best interviews was with Van Dweller, who had been living in his van since the 1960s.  He even lived here in Alaska for 3 years.  3 5 gallon cans of kerosene got him through the winters.

The subculture of people living this way is quite large, they have periodic meet ups each year in Arizona and Georgia  to share ideas, strategies, good locations and meet new people.  Sort of like nomadic HGs in prehistoric times.

Far as tools go, usually they carry quite a few,, many are itinerant construction workers.

Here's a nostalgic video from when I ran my food truck in the parking lot of my old apt.


Many more still up on the Diner Utube Channel.
.

RE

As you can see here in this article, the housing situation continues to deteriorate at a rapid pace, from an already pretty bad baseline.  Far as political issues go, this one SHOULD be #1 on the Demodopes agenda and step up to the plate with a national plan for building affordable housing.  If they start hammering on that and drop letting trannies compete in girls sports, they might actually win some elections.

Leading Anchorage homelessness group raises alarm over 'affordable housing emergency'

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2025/03/08/leading-anchorage-homelessness-group-raises-alarm-over-affordable-housing-emergency/#

RE

Quote from: RE on Jul 19, 2024, 01:17 AMNow, the question is, what type of housing and where do you put it?  I think the Modular shipping Conex Tiny Home type housing is ideal for most locations.  It can be stacked to get good density and use of real estate.  It would come bare bones with just a cot to sleep on, a table and chair, a toilet, sink and shower.  Well insulated with heat and electricity.

The Brit Housing Councils must have read my suggestion for homeless housing solutions!  You heard it here first! 😁😎



https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/property-home/article/asylum-seekers-prefab-homes-portakabins-homelessness-uk-r8mxq9lkq

'Portakabin villages' plan to solve emergency housing crisis

RE

Quote from: RE on Nov 11, 2025, 06:38 AMhttps://www.thetimes.com/life-style/property-home/article/asylum-seekers-prefab-homes-portakabins-homelessness-uk-r8mxq9lkq
'Portakabin villages' plan to solve emergency housing crisis

RE

The pictures make the accommodations look nice. But is it meant to cure only the homeless people equation, versus the homeless and addicted to drugs part? Don't current homeless shelters exclude the drug addled, who then end up being just...homeless that can't have indoor housing regardless of whether or not "homeless" housing exists?

And when the homeless have nicer pads then what a McDonalds worker can afford, won't there be some kind of backlash related to "be homeless and live better than working on minimum wage!" campaign? Which would seem to make perfect sense, the picture of that room looked pretty similar to my first apartment out of college, and I was making a couple bucks an hour more than minimum wage back then.

 

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 11, 2025, 07:53 AMThe pictures make the accommodations look nice. But is it meant to cure only the homeless people equation, versus the homeless and addicted to drugs part? Don't current homeless shelters exclude the drug addled, who then end up being just...homeless that can't have indoor housing regardless of whether or not "homeless" housing exists?

My guess would be they would prioritize, with women/families with kids getting them first, then non addict women/men and addicts last.  Since there's bound to not be enough to meet the demand, addicts will likely be either on the street or in the nightly warehouse group facilities the longest.

QuoteAnd when the homeless have nicer pads then what a McDonalds worker can afford, won't there be some kind of backlash related to "be homeless and live better than working on minimum wage!" campaign? Which would seem to make perfect sense, the picture of that room looked pretty similar to my first apartment out of college, and I was making a couple bucks an hour more than minimum wage back then.

A problem of course, but most people wouldn't risk giving up their digs to qualify, since the waiting list would force them to live homeless likely at least 6 months to get a placement.

RE

QuoteIs it meant to cure only the homeless people equation, versus the homeless and addicted to drugs part?

It is interesting the bicameral conservative mind always has a speaking voice to find problems with any proposal that benefits other people.  Of course free housing has to be managed properly or there will be abuses.  People never stop doing bad shit, that is a true fact.  But to find fault with a social program that does not even exist yet is unreasonable projection, and a negative judgement.

QuoteA problem of course, but most people wouldn't risk giving up their digs to qualify, since the waiting list would force them to live homeless likely at least 6 months to get a placement.

A good answer to a spurious question, ⬆️ but the point of the question was to put you on the defensive and 'explain'.  But why should you.  Not every question deserves an answer.

Advocating housing requires no explanation.

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 06:28 AMAdvocating housing requires no explanation.

It should be self-evident that a society that provides affordable housing for everyone would be safer and way more pleasant for everyone to live in.  Unfortunately, the property ownership  and rentier model goes back to the very beginning of civilization, and the profiteering core to the model is a foundation of capitalism.  The biggest obstacle in changing this model is not Mickey Ds workers, but Banks and REITs which would see a devaluation of RE as a capital asset.  Maintaining a shortage of affordable housing  keeps the property values up, thus all the obstacles to building it.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 06:28 AM

QuoteIs it meant to cure only the homeless people equation, versus the homeless and addicted to drugs part?

It is interesting the bicameral conservative mind always has a speaking voice to find problems with any proposal that benefits other people.

Good thing  this exclusive albeit small forum has fully qualified registered independents, and certified and proven professional critical thinkers with decades of experience so we don't have any of these "bicameral" (had to look it up!) conservatives hanging around!

In th real world sometimes critical thinking through a concept isn't called "finding problems", it is considered "stress testing" an idea. For example, lots of folks would LOVE the government to give them all a "do with it as you please" cash award of $50,000 every year! Isn't that a great idea! I like it! But someone in the government looks at this wildly popular idea and says..."and how do we refill the government coffers!". And they raise taxes higher than all the free money they just handed out!

So was the idea a good one or a bad one? Dunno. But SOMEBODY has to ask obvious question.

Quote from: K-DogOf course free housing has to be managed properly or there will be abuses.  People never stop doing bad shit, that is a true fact.  But to find fault with a social program that does not even exist yet is unreasonable projection, and a negative judgement.

"Finding fault" isn't not asking a logical question BEFORE a good sounding idea becomes a boondoggle. For example, "has to be managed properly". WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. What in the WORLD do they have to do with "managed properly" 90% of the time? Is that not a reasonable question, BEFORE A PROGRAM EXISTS?

Quote from: K-Dog

QuoteA problem of course, but most people wouldn't risk giving up their digs to qualify, since the waiting list would force them to live homeless likely at least 6 months to get a placement.

A good answer to a spurious question, ⬆️ but the point of the question was to put you on the defensive and 'explain'.  But why should you.  Not every question deserves an answer.

Advocating housing requires no explanation.

Quite true. BUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT...AND IF THAT CAN SUCCEED.....IS

QuoteNot asking a logical question BEFORE a good sounding idea becomes a boondoggle.

Is your intent to establish that public housing for homeless people is a boondoggle.  This is a yes or no question.  Any elaboration at all dodges the question and will be considered evasive.

Quote from: RE on Nov 13, 2025, 10:48 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 06:28 AMAdvocating housing requires no explanation.

It should be self-evident that a society that provides affordable housing for everyone would be safer and way more pleasant for everyone to live in.

Didn't the Russians try that out during the Stalin era and...."safer" might have worked out...and by pleasant did you perhaps mean....meager? Small? Cold?

Quote from: REThe biggest obstacle in changing this model is not Mickey Ds workers, but Banks and REITs which would see a devaluation of RE as a capital asset.

Not just them. You think k-Dog would be thrilled to see a major capital asset of his suddenly be worth a bunch less? Or me? We EARNED the value of these assets, loved how they appreciated, watching it all go up in smoke might be more than a little disconcerting.

Quote from: REMaintaining a shortage of affordable housing  keeps the property values up, thus all the obstacles to building it.
RE

Zoning and building laws that discourage/slow down new home building does the same. Great article recently on housing making a good argument that as suburbanites build out suburbia, and like it, they don't want just MORE folks building shit around them, so they pass local construction and zoning requirements that push new home builders further down the road because they can make more money in a less stringent regulatory environment. Add that on top of private equity making homes rentals (we've got one of those in our neighborhood, the place was built this spring, sold to a company, rented out to a nice couple) and it all adds up to faux shortage, or semi-induced, rather than malevolent behavior as opposed to just the market doing what the market does. And me and K-Dog sure like what the market does when it comes to our major physical assets!

Quote from: TDoS on Nov 13, 2025, 12:57 PMQuite true. BUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT...AND IF THAT CAN SUCCEED.....IS

You have a better idea?

RE