• mrchuckles@beehaw.org
      31·
      1 year ago

      the land is being developed, and crime was getting out of control. and they only had to move three blocks to a different one, supplied by the city. to cite the very article you posted:

      There were more than 100 emergency calls for drug use, sex acts, theft, vandalism and unresponsive people in and around the camp. A number of neighboring American Indian nonprofit organizations urged the city to close it.

      it’s a little more nuanced than mean people kicking out poor defenseless citizens.

      • guyrocket@kbin.social
        2·
        1 year ago

        I agree that the situation in the article is complicated and that these homeless people were not exactly saints.

        My point above is that these homeless people living in tents in an empty lot in January are worse off than the homeless people in the article that OP references. Those homeless people live in cars in a protected lot which I think is a big improvement from tent life.

        • mrchuckles@beehaw.org
          11·
          1 year ago

          theft and vandalism? don’t conflate the issue this isn’t about the cruel treatment of the addicted. it’s about keeping the law abiding citizens safe. empathy has been granted for years, this didn’t happen overnight. coupled with the fact that there were calls for closure from non profit organizations… maybe read the article

  • ChildOfTama@startrek.website
    17·
    1 year ago

    I think step one is universal healthcare. For many reasons that we all are familiar with by now. (being tied to a job that has income limitations because you need the healthcare(ish) it provides, becoming bankrupted by healthcare costs, getting kicked out of your housing due to medical costs)

    The revolutionary silver bullet to begin increasing housing availability is to eliminate the ability to depreciate assets via the tax code if they are single family detached homes. Many of these rentals are already fully depreciated and will remain rentals. But recently purchased (within 10 yrs.) rentals will likely be sold and importantly they will not be purchased by ‘investors’. That shift will provide a flood of homes into the market which will apply downward pressure on prices. More people being able to afford to purchase those homes will free up rental availability, thus applying downward pressure on rental affordability.

    Now that only addresses single family homes; there remains multifamily housing to be addressed which will be more complex. A robust government regulatory agency for housing is not something we currently have in the usa, obviously. (see picture) Reforms of those regulatory bodies are needed whereby penalties they assess would have actual teeth. I imagine penalties that remove ownership. I also imagine the countless tax incentives used in constructing and rehabilitating these structures being negotiated quite differently, to include public ownership.

    Just a few thoughts here; I haven’t all the answers. I’m curious when the last housing project was built in the usa.

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      302·
      1 year ago

      No, people being homeless in the first place is cringe. Quit being obtuse.

      • 11181514@lemmy.world
        313·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. That’s not what the second panel said though. OP said cringe about safe parking spots. That’s like saying cringe about giving homeless people food. Yeah no shit people shouldn’t be homeless.