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

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 13, 2025, 01:46 PM

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. 

No.

How about I get to ask a yes or no question?

Has anyone posting on this forum ever experienced homelessness before, for a significant period of time? Say, 3-6 months?

That way those who have can discuss it from a common perspective. And maybe pass along tips and tricks!

Quote from: RE on Nov 13, 2025, 01:47 PM

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

I am not who I am without having better ideas.

As these ideas relate to homelessness, maybe?. But my ideas would be probably considered more draconian than are generally acceptable, primarily because they might butt right up against individual liberties.

For example, the entire drug component of homelessness. When I was homeless, it was entirely an economic issue, it started off as living in car homeless, and that didn't last a week, it being a bitch sleeping in a car. But there were no drugs involved, or crime, so I wasn't afraid of being kicked out of parking somewhere, I had money for food, the entire point was trying to SAVE money to move elsewhere.

I can see housing, similar to a dormitory that worked fine for college kids, 4 rooms on a common hall, common bathroom at the end. No drugs, no animals, a place to sleep, a fridge and hot plate for basic meals. No Taj Mahal needed.

The instant drugs and families and animals become involved it gets trickier. And once the minor drug users are in jail you'll need "bigger than a college dorm room" housing for families". And those might look more like the pictures posted, small self contained apartments.

And of course to pay for it I'm sure the oligarchs will happily raise taxes on all those making less than $100k/yr and require that construction of these new facilities are steered to their wholly owned affiliate businesses.

QuoteThe entire drug component of homelessness.

Won't qualify for housing.  All they get is a free rehab.  There are plenty of other homeless to help before the drug component of homelessness is a concern.


Now isn't it something to ignore millions in need and concentrate on the Ne'er-do-wells.  Which are a small minority that will never really go away.

It takes serious mental gymnastics.     

Quote from: K-Dog on Nov 14, 2025, 01:26 PM

QuoteThe entire drug component of homelessness.

Won't qualify for housing.  All they get is a free rehab.  There are plenty of other homeless to help before the drug component of homelessness is a concern.

Depends on how often the drug addicted ones break into your house, sleep on YOUR street corner (ever had that in your neighborhood K-Dog...we have) drop those little empty bottles of whiskey near the local elementary along with the needles they use...and so on and so forth.

I understand, and agree with the idea that getting the others handled first is far more reasonable, but they aren't usually the ones giving homeless folks a bad name.

Quote from: K-DogNow isn't it something to ignore millions in need and concentrate on the Ne'er-do-wells.  Which are a small minority that will never really go away.

So if they are a small minority than what is the objection to locking them up for whatever law they happen to be breaking?

Do the drunk/high homeless in your neighborhood ever spit on your windshield, wipe it off with a sleeve and then begin hammering on your car window for compensation? I watched that one down in Houston with fascination, wondering at what point it might reach the level of some crime or another, or inadvertently turn deadly when the terrified car occupant felt threatened enough to defend themselves with that firearm they kept under the seat.