92
If you were a rich man... What would you do?
(lemmings.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
92 points (91.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27268 readers
3000 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
From the linked article:
What're you basing that on? Because the US census bureau disagrees:
Point is, there's plenty of housing, but greed - either people who own multiple houses and do not rent them out, or people who have them up for rent or sale but have priced out a large part of the nation, is creating an artificial scarcity.
I'm talking about vacant homes in the city. Where the housing supply is most desperately needed. There are no such things as habitable off-market ready-to-move-in vacant homes in the city.
Holiday homes at the beach or hunting cabins in the woods aren't useful to consider and the way your article presents it as a solution to homelessness is irresponsible clickbait. All of the jobs and economic opportunity is in the city. A house in the forest or in a beach side community of 5,000 people does nothing to alleviate the housing crisis. You would do better requisitioning hotel rooms than trying to use these buildings for housing.
Just look at the link, man. Everything under 'Seasonal' is habitable and off-market.
Just looking at the numbers for Los Angeles, at the top of my list, shows that I'm substantially right.
16,889 units out of a total housing stock of 3,591,981 units amounts to less than half of one per cent. That's quite literally a rounding error. That number also utterly decimated by the homeless population in Los Angeles County, which is 75,518.
You are moving the goalposts every time you post. First there's not enough housing to give everyone a unit. Provided a link that counters that claim. Then the vacant housing is derelict / decrepit. Provided link that counters that claim. Then the housing isn't in the city. Provided link that counters that claim. Then there's not enough housing in LA specifically to cover the homeless population (which I will note includes a lot of folks who were sent to LA from elsewhere in the country after becoming homeless).
You can keep making excuses and changing your argument all you want, but the fact of the matter is, there's a lot of housing that isn't being used, or that's being priced too high to accommodate the people who need it. In fact, if you include that latter statistic, there's plenty of vacant housing in LA, even - 171,353 homes vs. your stated 75,518 homeless. You're going to an awful lot of trouble to attempt to find an argument supporting your view, and you haven't linked a single source for any of it.
Maybe consider that perfect doesn't need to be the enemy of good?
The goalpost remains where it was at the beginning of this conversation. I claimed, and maintain, that requisitioning vacant housing units is not a good solution to the housing shortage.
What you're describing is not the goalposts moving; it's that you are attacking very specific peripheral claims without realising that if any of them are true then the overall conclusion is true. So when you attack one and I point out that another exists, you accuse me of moving the goalpost.
In order to be useful towards alleviating a housing shortage, housing units must be habitable, located where housing is needed, legally available, and in significant quantity, among other things that I can't think of immediately. If any one of these is false, the solution doesn't work. it is absolutely not useful in the slightest to suggest that pointing out holes in a solution one at a time is "moving the goalposts" and use that as a pretext to dismiss criticism of that solution.
It should not require explanation that for a chain of reasoning to be sound, you do not need to link to someone else saying it. I can adequately use your own sources to attack your conclusion.
Vacant housing that is for let or for sale is already on the market and will eventually be let or sold. Nobody wants to have an empty house earning no money but still have to pay tax and utility bills for it. If it really is priced too high, then nobody will rent or buy it and they will decrease the price until someone does. If you want units to become cheaper, you can't do it by mandate with rent control ordinances or by requisition (at least not the US without paying compensation out the ass). This would be like trying to swim upstream. The only viable solution to bring down the price in this market is to create more supply (by building more units) or to depress demand (by driving people out of the city).
I'm countering the claims you're making. I'm not going to intuit your arguments. If you want to clearly state your argument in its totality, I'll address it in its totality.
Your original claim was:
The article you linked above did not support this argument, as it said the majority of people in that age range living with their parents are doing so because they don't make enough money or don't want to give money to a landlord, not that there isn't housing available to rent.
The fact that you're trying to exclude houses that are available for rent (presumably for prices that people can't afford) from the above stated numbers is yet another example of moving the goalposts because, based on your original stated argument, those should be included in the discussion.
If you narrow your argument enough times, you'll find something that's not easily countered - obviously. "There's 20 million people who want to live in Manhattan, but there's not enough units for them!" would technically be correct, but it's a worthless argument to make. Yes, some people will end up living outside of their ideal best case scenario, but you know what? I think getting everyone into houses is the first step, and we can work on improving the location of those houses second. Someone who's unemployed and unhoused in LA could be unemployed and housed in San Diego and their situation would be immensely improved.
Okay, you win
To Nate's point though, the OP said he was going to rent units for cheaper than other landlords, most of the "supply" (which isn't actually supply since they're not being sold) isn't for sale and therefore have nothing to do with OP's plan. My main point, is I would like to join OP's sex cult in the woods.