• PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is still a resource problem. There’s a reason NIMBYs exist. Homeless populations have substance, legal and mental issues. The property is pretty much a write off the moment you hand it over.

    • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is probably where we’ll disagree: I believe that all people living in a humane way is more important than investors’ real estate portfolio valuation.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t even talking about investors or the homeowners you’d plan to confiscate from. I was talking about turning neighborhoods into slums overnight. Pest infestation and drug use.

        • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Again, there are more vacant homes than homeless. It’s not taking away people’s homes. Homes where people actually live in, I mean. Most real estate investments, the owner hasn’t visited once in years.

          And you’d be surprised at how much people improve once they have stable housing. Finland has had a “housing first, no conditions” programme for a while now with very impressive results.

          Obviously people will initially be afraid of “bad people” coming to their neighbourhood. I understand this. But I believe their feelings of discomfort are less important than the immense suffering of the homeless.

          Would you seriously place property valuations as more important than humanity and human dignity?