Homeless in warehouse

SuperSean11

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah crazy assumption that it contributes to homeless problem. And i didnt say that the majority are addicts. I just think its not as straightforward as made out

Who’s making out that it’s straight forward, definitely isn’t?

AllForIt

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are missing the point. Even if every single person who is currently homeless suddenly became a well-functioning, contributing, gainfully employed member of society, we would still have a serious problem. (In fact, a very large proportion of the people who are homeless are well-functioning and contributing.)

The fundamental cause of the crisis is that there are more families than there are homes.

That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

Yes, but that does not mean that even if their were a physical building for every person in the land that the rents would be affordable for every demographic. I don't doubt that it would help a bit.

Keeping rental availability smaller that what is required from the market creates competition that allows the landlords to up the rent to the highest bidder. Who is going to build to cater for the ppl who can pay the least. Nobody, if they are in it for financial gain.

I think that if their weren't such a divide in terms of pay one would find that all of a sudden you'd see houses being built all over the place to cater for those ppl where the providers were sure to make a profit.

Stigura

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Our current crisis has at its core that there just aren’t enough homes for the number of family units who live here. You can give them as much counseling as you like and find them a job and all the rest, but there still won’t be enough homes.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The fundamental cause of the crisis is that there are more families than there are homes.

That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

EU diktat? Import More people!

Corvo

We’ll deal with the homeless once we deal with the cultural and housing needs of the travelling community.

antoinolachtnai

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, but that does not mean that even if their were a physical building for every person in the land that the rents would be affordable for every demographic. I don't doubt that it would help a bit.

The difference could be made up with a social protection payment.

Keeping rental availability smaller that what is required from the market creates competition that allows the landlords to up the rent to the highest bidder. Who is going to build to cater for the ppl who can pay the least. Nobody, if they are in it for financial gain.

If there were enough homes, this really wouldn't be possible.

In practice, what happens is that you build new homes and wealthier people move into them. This frees up older homes and less wealthy people can afford to buy them or rent them.

See http://humantransit.org/2017/11/learning-for-portlands-for-rent-signs.html for a discussion.

I think that if their weren't such a divide in terms of pay one would find that all of a sudden you'd see houses being built all over the place to cater for those ppl where the providers were sure to make a profit.

This is basically the same way the car market works. As people with more disposable income buy new cars, they sell their own ones and they become available to people with lower disposable income.

c_man

I say let's have less homeless and more speed cameras.

NinetyTwoTeam

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

Think veiled 'sure they're all druggies and alcos'

Was thinking of the couples ban, actually.