• Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is already an order of magnitude more unused housing than unhoused people- the problem is that the market is involved and that requires winners and losers.

    That’s why you have people dying of exposure in the richest country in the history of the world. God damn america.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      G-give…away? N-n-no money for me?? But money me, now. Money now. Money! House = money! Empty house, no money is ok, full house no money NOT OK!

      CoMmUnIsM!!!

      -Landleeches

    • Sarmyth@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are the homeless people where the empty homes are? That’s the concern I have. There are really cheap empty houses throughout the country, but the homeless are congregate in large groups in some of the most expensive states/cities in the country. I dont think there are that many empty homes in San Francisco that are available for rent/purchase that are just being left empty for months at a time.

      Where are people sourcing that information from?

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s off the aggregate numbers. I’m sure that there’s a lot of useless suburban sprawl pumping the numbers up. The “most efficient system” is an abject failure when it comes to housing people unless the only metric you care about is revenue generation for shithead inheritors.