First, I agree with the general sentiment. However, there are some devilish details.
Take a look at some pictures of Gary, Indiana. It’s an entire city that’s been mostly abandoned since the collapse of the industry that built it. There are entire boarded up neighborhoods, and some quite fine large, brick houses where wealthy people used to live. It’s all just sitting there. I’m sure that Gary would love to have people start moving back in, and revive the city.
So, say Gary just eminent-domained all those properties, and said to America: you want a house? All you have to do is come, pick one, and move in. You live in it for 5 years, it’s your’s.
The problem is that it costs money to keep up a home. Home maintenance is stupid expensive, and most of these abandoned homes need repairs: new windows, new roofs, new water heaters, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs. Do you have any idea what a new window costs? And even if it’s sweat equity, and you’re able to repair a roof yourself, you still need materials. Where does this money come from?
Are the homeless in California going to move to Gary, IN? Are the homeless in Alabama? There are homeless employed folks, but they’re tied to their locations by their jobs. They’re not moving to Gary.
Finally, it’s a truism that it’s often less expensive to tear down a house in poor condition and build a new one than it is to renovate. If these people don’t have the money to build a new house, how are they going to afford to renovate a vacant one.
The problem is that people need jobs to live in a house (unless someone else is paying for taxes, insurance, and maintenance). And the places with jobs aren’t the places like Gary, that have a abundance of empty homes. All of those empty homes are in inconvenient places, where the industry and jobs they created dried up.
It may be that a well-funded organization could artificially construct a self-sustaining community built on the bones of a dead one. But I think it’s oversimplifying to suggest that you can just take an empty home away from the owner (let’s assume you can) and just stick homeless people in it and assume it’ll work - that, even given a house, they’ll be able to afford to keep it heated, maintained, powered, insured. Shit, even if you given them a complete tax exemption, just keeping a house is expensive.
I’m sure there are some minority of homeless for whom giving an abandoned home in the area they live would solve their problems. And I’m sure that, for a while at least, having a bigger box to live in would be an improvement for many, even if the box is slowly falling apart around them. But I think it’s naive to be angry about the number of empty homes, and that homelessness could be solved by relocating the homeless to where these places are and assigning them a house - whatever state it’s in.
We don’t need to move them, there are vacant homes everywhere. Even in San francisco the residential vacancy rate is 6%. The unhoused in San francisco make up about 1% of the population, so assuming the unhoused population takes up the same amount of housing per person as the housed population, we could house every unhoused person here and still have 5% left over.
That’s the worst case too, the rest of the country has a higher vacancy rate and a proportionally lower unhoused population.
so, the biggest reasons why the california unhoused population is so big are because social workers from the rest of the country send their high needs people our way. it’s called ‘greyhound therapy’-california is warm enough you won’t freeze in winter, nobody thinks about heat stroke, and a bus ticket is better than a month of shelter beds. we also get all the children they throw away for being queer, at least the ones who don’t just join the military, which isn’t going to be a thing anymore, for pretty similar reasons.
so the opposite of that actually happens. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would like to go home.
except… even in los angeles, there are so many empty units. I don’t just mean for turnover-the half dozen or so big landlording companies make more money keeping a unit empty and recursively leveraging it like tesla stock than renting it out to a tenant with good income and dubious credit. so we are being stared at by a thousand blind windows at all times. many of them in large buildings that are partially occupied, and even the single family residences are well maintained, because they exist as financial instruments. I doubt it’s enough, but not everybody actually wants to live in los angeles-the food is great, the culture is good, I adore the mild winters, and so much else, but the hills, the traffic, the ground constantly shaking, the noise, the fact one of our seasons is just ‘fire’ and the smoke sometimes drops the temperature by a degree or two so it’s not even a net negative every time, the amount of funding we give to the gangs, and the fact it’s just so fucking big and so fucking city just isn’t for everyone. I’m sure there are people who miss snow.
the concept is more sound than you would think, and it’s not like there’s any down side.
called ‘greyhound therapy’-california is warm enough you won’t freeze in winter,
I live in Minneapolis, where we regularly have winter days that reach -30°F. Not frequently that bad, but rarely a winter without one of those, and in the past 7 years I’ve lived here, we’ve had a couple of days where it’s hit -50°. You don’t survive that very long, even with a lot of good clothes; any exposed skin gets frostbite within minutes. It’s not been as bad the past couple of years, what with global warming, but the winters here can well be described as “brutal.” I can’t imagine being homeless here, and if I was, and someone offered me a free trip to California, I’d take it. I grew up in Santa Cruz, and while LA is rather hotter than I prefer, I’d still rather face that than a Minnesota winter.
We have family in Dana Point. Everything around there is stupid expensive. I don’t know about LA housing prices, but I haven’t heard it’s cheap. And you still have to maintain, if you own, especially in apartments, where your problems can trivially become your neighbors’, too.
like I said. warm enough you won’t freeze in the winter. because a ticket to california is cheaper than a shelter bed
that’s the thing. you live there. so clearly a person can live there, but sending their surplus population to us, half compassionately, half throwing them away, is cheaper. it’s cool. we can just be an externality, and at least nod at having a society so you don’t have to. or at least we could til we got a san francisco guy in sacramento.
yeah rent is the problem. too many empty units while people are dying on the streets, and landlords are squeezing us all, trying to drive us to slavery.
edit: I’m saying there are people who will want to go home. who like the cold, or at least would rather deal with the cold than with the earthquakes and fires and heat stroke and being in a huge fucking city all the time.
I am not defending the practice; I was just saying I wouldn’t be in a rush to come back. I love the cold, I like having seasons, but I would hate it here if I had to live in a drafty house and couldn’t afford to heat it.
so you help them out with that. maybe provide insulation or some shit. I dunno. everything needs a little scaffolding to make it work. this seems like less than most stuff.
To compound matters, the US is currently moving all the new manufacturing jobs into southern red states, which will be interesting. Red staters are pissed because they are experiencing major cost of living adjustments, particularly in housing prices. Which is partly why they voted maga.
First, I agree with the general sentiment. However, there are some devilish details.
Take a look at some pictures of Gary, Indiana. It’s an entire city that’s been mostly abandoned since the collapse of the industry that built it. There are entire boarded up neighborhoods, and some quite fine large, brick houses where wealthy people used to live. It’s all just sitting there. I’m sure that Gary would love to have people start moving back in, and revive the city.
So, say Gary just eminent-domained all those properties, and said to America: you want a house? All you have to do is come, pick one, and move in. You live in it for 5 years, it’s your’s.
The problem is that it costs money to keep up a home. Home maintenance is stupid expensive, and most of these abandoned homes need repairs: new windows, new roofs, new water heaters, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs. Do you have any idea what a new window costs? And even if it’s sweat equity, and you’re able to repair a roof yourself, you still need materials. Where does this money come from?
Are the homeless in California going to move to Gary, IN? Are the homeless in Alabama? There are homeless employed folks, but they’re tied to their locations by their jobs. They’re not moving to Gary.
Finally, it’s a truism that it’s often less expensive to tear down a house in poor condition and build a new one than it is to renovate. If these people don’t have the money to build a new house, how are they going to afford to renovate a vacant one.
The problem is that people need jobs to live in a house (unless someone else is paying for taxes, insurance, and maintenance). And the places with jobs aren’t the places like Gary, that have a abundance of empty homes. All of those empty homes are in inconvenient places, where the industry and jobs they created dried up.
It may be that a well-funded organization could artificially construct a self-sustaining community built on the bones of a dead one. But I think it’s oversimplifying to suggest that you can just take an empty home away from the owner (let’s assume you can) and just stick homeless people in it and assume it’ll work - that, even given a house, they’ll be able to afford to keep it heated, maintained, powered, insured. Shit, even if you given them a complete tax exemption, just keeping a house is expensive.
I’m sure there are some minority of homeless for whom giving an abandoned home in the area they live would solve their problems. And I’m sure that, for a while at least, having a bigger box to live in would be an improvement for many, even if the box is slowly falling apart around them. But I think it’s naive to be angry about the number of empty homes, and that homelessness could be solved by relocating the homeless to where these places are and assigning them a house - whatever state it’s in.
QFT
Don’t get me started on that one.
We don’t need to move them, there are vacant homes everywhere. Even in San francisco the residential vacancy rate is 6%. The unhoused in San francisco make up about 1% of the population, so assuming the unhoused population takes up the same amount of housing per person as the housed population, we could house every unhoused person here and still have 5% left over.
That’s the worst case too, the rest of the country has a higher vacancy rate and a proportionally lower unhoused population.
so, the biggest reasons why the california unhoused population is so big are because social workers from the rest of the country send their high needs people our way. it’s called ‘greyhound therapy’-california is warm enough you won’t freeze in winter, nobody thinks about heat stroke, and a bus ticket is better than a month of shelter beds. we also get all the children they throw away for being queer, at least the ones who don’t just join the military, which isn’t going to be a thing anymore, for pretty similar reasons.
so the opposite of that actually happens. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would like to go home.
except… even in los angeles, there are so many empty units. I don’t just mean for turnover-the half dozen or so big landlording companies make more money keeping a unit empty and recursively leveraging it like tesla stock than renting it out to a tenant with good income and dubious credit. so we are being stared at by a thousand blind windows at all times. many of them in large buildings that are partially occupied, and even the single family residences are well maintained, because they exist as financial instruments. I doubt it’s enough, but not everybody actually wants to live in los angeles-the food is great, the culture is good, I adore the mild winters, and so much else, but the hills, the traffic, the ground constantly shaking, the noise, the fact one of our seasons is just ‘fire’ and the smoke sometimes drops the temperature by a degree or two so it’s not even a net negative every time, the amount of funding we give to the gangs, and the fact it’s just so fucking big and so fucking city just isn’t for everyone. I’m sure there are people who miss snow.
the concept is more sound than you would think, and it’s not like there’s any down side.
I live in Minneapolis, where we regularly have winter days that reach -30°F. Not frequently that bad, but rarely a winter without one of those, and in the past 7 years I’ve lived here, we’ve had a couple of days where it’s hit -50°. You don’t survive that very long, even with a lot of good clothes; any exposed skin gets frostbite within minutes. It’s not been as bad the past couple of years, what with global warming, but the winters here can well be described as “brutal.” I can’t imagine being homeless here, and if I was, and someone offered me a free trip to California, I’d take it. I grew up in Santa Cruz, and while LA is rather hotter than I prefer, I’d still rather face that than a Minnesota winter.
We have family in Dana Point. Everything around there is stupid expensive. I don’t know about LA housing prices, but I haven’t heard it’s cheap. And you still have to maintain, if you own, especially in apartments, where your problems can trivially become your neighbors’, too.
like I said. warm enough you won’t freeze in the winter. because a ticket to california is cheaper than a shelter bed
that’s the thing. you live there. so clearly a person can live there, but sending their surplus population to us, half compassionately, half throwing them away, is cheaper. it’s cool. we can just be an externality, and at least nod at having a society so you don’t have to. or at least we could til we got a san francisco guy in sacramento.
yeah rent is the problem. too many empty units while people are dying on the streets, and landlords are squeezing us all, trying to drive us to slavery.
edit: I’m saying there are people who will want to go home. who like the cold, or at least would rather deal with the cold than with the earthquakes and fires and heat stroke and being in a huge fucking city all the time.
I am not defending the practice; I was just saying I wouldn’t be in a rush to come back. I love the cold, I like having seasons, but I would hate it here if I had to live in a drafty house and couldn’t afford to heat it.
so you help them out with that. maybe provide insulation or some shit. I dunno. everything needs a little scaffolding to make it work. this seems like less than most stuff.
To compound matters, the US is currently moving all the new manufacturing jobs into southern red states, which will be interesting. Red staters are pissed because they are experiencing major cost of living adjustments, particularly in housing prices. Which is partly why they voted maga.