My understanding of homelessness in the US is that it is primarily driven by the lack of mental healthcare for people. Which isn't any given state's fault but is rather a consequence of poor or non existent policies at the federal level since mental healthcare was basically phased out in the 70s and 80s.
To my understanding there is also the reality that homeless people move to cities because surviving there is simply easier than outside. Places outside big cities being less attractive to homeless people out of fear of freezing to death during the winter is not exactly something any place should be proud of.
you have people living in their cars in the cities... that's on the rise in the city... you hear weird stories here, some people buying a boat and having it harbored in the piers in SF while using the gyms for shower and cleaning, just to save rent and having great tech jobs, and on the other hand people living in their cars, or setting up tents outside their work... these are people who could afford to live and make a living, but just not in the city. That is also concerning...
Shelter is a basic human right not reserved to teh rich.... that's something big cities need to adopt.
you have people living in their cars in the cities... that's on the rise in the city... you hear weird stories here, some people buying a boat and having it harbored in the piers in SF while using the gyms for shower and cleaning, just to save rent and having great tech jobs, and on the other hand people living in their cars, or setting up tents outside their work... these are people who could afford to live and make a living, but just not in the city. That is also concerning...
Shelter is a basic human right not reserved to teh rich.... that's something big cities need to adopt.
I mean, sure, but if you are homeless because you choose to be homeless to save money then that's not as big as issue as being homeless because you simply ran out of options and money.
I don't think the government in general can do that much about this sort of thing. Policies meant to drive down housing prices usually cause more problems than they solve. IIRC california is planning on doing price control or was considering but that is just a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Options cities have is building affordable housing themselves... On the immigration side stop giving out residencies or investment visas to rich foreigners who own homes.
Housing as a right sounds weird to me. When it comes to rights if you have one you can pretty much go to the government and its a duty to provide it for you. But that's not something that is exactly viable. I can understand healthcare as a right but housing as a right has weird implications. That said, it absolutely is a right, just not one i understand how it could be met by governments.
Cities are also spending money on making spaces homeless-proof instead of providing shelter for them. I mean, that's one of the most fucked up things the government could do, given it'd be more humane and much easier to help the homeless find places to live instead of making it harder for them to sleep.
you have people living in their cars in the cities... that's on the rise in the city... you hear weird stories here, some people buying a boat and having it harbored in the piers in SF while using the gyms for shower and cleaning, just to save rent and having great tech jobs, and on the other hand people living in their cars, or setting up tents outside their work... these are people who could afford to live and make a living, but just not in the city. That is also concerning...
Shelter is a basic human right not reserved to teh rich.... that's something big cities need to adopt.
I mean, living on a boat does indeed sound weird, but I don't think it can really be compared to living out of a car or under a bridge, etc. Having a house boat can be oddly cozy, especially if you're in a warmer climate.
But I guess it is a way to dodge property taxes as well perhaps.
Ah, there's also that, boats can actually be a comfortable space to live in... Though it's hard to imagine living on a boat on a pier being cheaper. I would assume a boat costs some money to begin with, there would be a maintenance costs involved and space at a pier is probably not cheap either.
I mean, sure, but if you are homeless because you choose to be homeless to save money then that's not as big as issue as being homeless because you simply ran out of options and money.
I don't think the government in general can do that much about this sort of thing. Policies meant to drive down housing prices usually cause more problems than they solve. IIRC california is planning on doing price control or was considering but that is just a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Options cities have is building affordable housing themselves... On the immigration side stop giving out residencies or investment visas to rich foreigners who own homes.
Housing as a right sounds weird to me. When it comes to rights if you have one you can pretty much go to the government and its a duty to provide it for you. But that's not something that is exactly viable. I can understand healthcare as a right but housing as a right has weird implications. That said, it absolutely is a right, just not one i understand how it could be met by governments.
I am just trying to say how people who can otherwise afford a good house are taking steps to save money... this is not a norm and just a few people do it... There are similar stories of people buying a transport truck, setting up beds and parking at their office space to use the showers and gym and save on rent by living in the truck. Both of these and other similars are not examples of homelessness, they dont count either, its just to illustrate that when rich techies do this stuff, imagine people with median jobs or minimum income.
THE point i am trying to make is, who we consider as homeless is expanding. The people with daily wage, living of their trucks, families reduced to asking for money on the streets, all these are on the rise.
Why shouldn't housing be considered as a right? the 3 basic needs for survival are food, clothing and shelter. I am not talking about homeless shelters alone either. I am talking about affordable housing not limited to the edges of the city. The government must dedicate equal housing opportunities by constructing affordable housing for lower income groups equally distributed across the city. Right now, affordable housing is always on the outskirts and away.
So it's full of disingenuous grifters? For a good laugh? Don't get it.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I mean, living on a boat does indeed sound weird, but I don't think it can really be compared to living out of a car or under a bridge, etc. Having a house boat can be oddly cozy, especially if you're in a warmer climate.
But I guess it is a way to dodge property taxes as well perhaps.
Yea,the boat, the truck to live in are all cases where people are being smart and making money. In 5 years, they'll be able to easily afford a million dollar home.
Living out of your car is a different story. Unlike the above example, its a clear case of homelessness. People literally have their car stocked with supplies, look for public parks to use on a daily basis and manage to scrap through for bits. its all sad at the end of the day.
I am just trying to say how people who can otherwise afford a good house are taking steps to save money... this is not a norm and just a few people do it... There are similar stories of people buying a transport truck, setting up beds and parking at their office space to use the showers and gym and save on rent by living in the truck. Both of these and other similars are not examples of homelessness, they dont count either, its just to illustrate that when rich techies do this stuff, imagine people with median jobs or minimum income.
THE point i am trying to make is, who we consider as homeless is expanding. The people with daily wage, living of their trucks, families reduced to asking for money on the streets, all these are on the rise.
Why shouldn't housing be considered as a right? the 3 basic needs for survival are food, clothing and shelter. I am not talking about homeless shelters alone either. I am talking about affordable housing not limited to the edges of the city. The government must dedicate equal housing opportunities by constructing affordable housing for lower income groups equally distributed across the city. Right now, affordable housing is always on the outskirts and away.
Ok, I see what you mean. Still, to me it's weird to fixate on people who do financially well and are employing alternative housing methods.
Welp, "right" is not exactly a buzzword. It has meaning and implications. if you have a right to housing then the moment you don't have housing you basically would be able to sue to government or whoever is in charge and demand compensation for your violated right and also that the right isn't further violated, which in this case would imply specifically providing you with housing, on the spot, no questions asked. I am all for the government having affordable housing programs and even implementing policy to drive housing prices down (provided it's not price fixing) but a "right" to housing is in practice unworkable. If you have a right to housing then you'd have to be provided housing even when you are so broke you can't afford affordable housing.
Ok, I see what you mean. Still, to me it's weird to fixate on people who do financially well and are employing alternative housing methods.
Welp, "right" is not exactly a buzzword. It has meaning and implications. if you have a right to housing then the moment you don't have housing you basically would be able to sue to government or whoever is in charge and demand compensation for your violated right and also that the right isn't further violated, which in this case would imply specifically providing you with housing, on the spot, no questions asked. I am all for the government having affordable housing programs and even implementing policy to drive housing prices down (provided it's not price fixing) but a "right" to housing is in practice unworkable. If you have a right to housing then you'd have to be provided housing even when you are so broke you can't afford affordable housing.
The US ultimately does not have the mentality or will to actually implement this. Sure, make it a right... but in the end those homes won't be free, they will be tax paid. As would be any affordable housing project set up by the government. The US is a country where not even healthcare is considered as a right... throwing housing on top of that in the current state of the US where gathering money for a infrastructure that would remove FUCKING LEAD PIPES is even remotely debatable is just sheer insanity. US society as a whole is simply not at a point where this makes an iota of sense.
I would also make another point: Making housing a human right within the US won't fix any of the reasons people in the US can't afford homes. The US economy has structural flaws which are not addressed by this. Heck, this might make it worst. The US needs to fix its income inequality, its crumbling infraestructure, it's healthcare crisis.... All of which starts at taxing high earners and corporations at a fair rate and then also taxing the middle and lower class. Because shit costs money and everyone should pitch in. The US does not have the fiscal health or mentality to do the bare minimum, let alone making housing a human right. Personally I think that if the US got its shit together it probably wouldn't need to make housing into a human right though.
The US ultimately does not have the mentality or will to actually implement this. Sure, make it a right... but in the end those homes won't be free, they will be tax paid. As would be any affordable housing project set up by the government. The US is a country where not even healthcare is considered as a right... throwing housing on top of that in the current state of the US where gathering money for a infrastructure that would remove FUCKING LEAD PIPES is even remotely debatable is just sheer insanity. US society as a whole is simply not at a point where this makes an iota of sense.
Yea, i am not gonna argue on this cos you are spot on. USA is incapable of something like this atleast in the near future. But a discussion on a thing like this does shed light to the issue and perhaps will help bring a little more plausible solutions to the table.
A letter that has been signed by some 120 retired military leaders who served America in some of its darkest hours and places is warning that the nation may…
www.wnd.com
More "grifters"?
Hmmm.
...
If Joe Biden isn't responsible for fuel shortages or deteriorating conditions in the middle east.
Who is responsible?
I do a decent job following the news but haven't seen anyone cite a source for these problems.
Ok, I see what you mean. Still, to me it's weird to fixate on people who do financially well and are employing alternative housing methods.
Welp, "right" is not exactly a buzzword. It has meaning and implications. if you have a right to housing then the moment you don't have housing you basically would be able to sue to government or whoever is in charge and demand compensation for your violated right and also that the right isn't further violated, which in this case would imply specifically providing you with housing, on the spot, no questions asked. I am all for the government having affordable housing programs and even implementing policy to drive housing prices down (provided it's not price fixing) but a "right" to housing is in practice unworkable. If you have a right to housing then you'd have to be provided housing even when you are so broke you can't afford affordable housing.
Why it should be a right, then. At least, even if you're broke and are given housing by the government, you're still more likely to find a job or get assistance than if you were homeless.
Why it should be a right, then. At least, even if you're broke and are given housing by the government, you're still more likely to find a job or get assistance than if you were homeless.
i absolutely support people being given aid and an overall healthy social safety net. I just don't agree with housing being a right because of the implications that come with it.
i absolutely support people being given aid and an overall healthy social safety net. I just don't agree with housing being a right because of the implications that come with it.
It's cheaper to simply build new homes than do that. Unless you go full marxist but the point at which you do that you have already destroyed the country beyond fixing. At least for the next couple decades. On the upside for maga folk, all the minorities would probably go back to their own shithole countries if this happens.
It's cheaper to simply build new homes than do that. Unless you go full marxist but the point at which you do that you have already destroyed the country beyond fixing. At least for the next couple decades. On the upside for maga folk, all the minorities would probably go back to their own shithole countries if this happens.
