And why were they homeless?
Why were they homeless???
Source? Did it actually work? Very cool if so.
If you give a homeless person a home, then by definition, they are no longer homeless.
On a less pedantic note, yes, it should. Some countries (like mine) provide a secure place to live as step one, when helping the homeless. Having somewhere safe to sleep, keep your property, etc. makes all the other steps involved in solving your problems much easier, leading to a better success rate in getting people back on their feet.
Further it enables them to apply for all manners of documents as they have an address to their name. Try getting any sort of document from a bank or governmental branch without an address. Trying to get a passport without address? Nope. No address no ID, no Bank account and mostly no employment anywhere without either of the two.
My city does something like this as part of our homeless program and we’re at “net-zero” homeless. It doesn’t work on it’s own, but the tiny homes give people a stable place to keep their stuff safe and the elements off their bodies, it gives them an address they can use for things like mail and applications, and it gives social workers a place to find them reliably. It’s the start of a long process to help them back to their feet.
Being on the streets is also incredibly dangerous. Putting drug users around other drug users as well doesn’t keep them off drugs.
This is what I found: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/12-neighbours-founder-transitional-housing-1.7510785
But basically, this is something that works in Finland well enough https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/look-finlands-housing-first-initiative
Here’s one article about it.
https://macleans.ca/society/tiny-homes-fredericton/
I don’t remember where I saw this the first time, but it did mention that this had become a thing in a few American cities too (this story was from Fredericton, Canada)
I used to live in a town that did something very similar to this. It sorta worked but mostly did not. But as another commenter pointed out you need more than just homes. Obviously they help a ton but a lot of people need more help than just a roof over their head. Financially, medically, mentally, employment… It’s a bigger, more complicated problem.
But it goes without saying that this is a step in the right direction and absolutely better than collectively shrugging our shoulders and walking away.
Housing is the basis for addressing most of those other issues.
i hope it works and contains a forever lease and not just a month to month where the land will be improved by these houses then said millionaire sells the land for a profit and the people living there are screwed yet again.
I hope the opposite: that these are more transitional, with associated services to help people get back on their feet for an eventual move to more standard housing when they are ready
all are good things imho!
A forever lease dude? If that’s in the deal then imma be honest with you and tell you me and my hommies are declaring homelessness and moving to wherever this meme is from. We can rebuild our lives from a point of never paying rent again.
If you have a hatred of hierarchy and a love of nature send me a DM. I’m interviewing people for an intentional community.
The first 5 people that pass the vibe check will get a one dollar, 99 year lease, on .5 acres to call your own. As long as you also partake in fixing/improving central infra.
Oh and one heavy caveat… You gotta be cool with winter. We are in Canada.
I mean that homeownership. i pay prop taxes but own my home. Forgive me. i was pooping and reading and forgot my words. 😂
Millionaire? Nice. Billionaires should follow suit, but 1000x
(With ~800 billionaires in the US, that’s 79,200,000 homes)
They didn’t become billionaires by being charitable.
Quite the contrary. You CAN’T accumulate that much money except by exploiting others, creating issues like homelessness.
That’s my takeaway. The positive effect of the charity of this mere millionaire really does a great job showing just how fucking evil billionaires are. So much potential for positive change in the world siphoned into yachts and propaganda
How many homes do we actually need?
Drive through a small town, and all of your questions will be answered.
This is not a housing problem, it’s not a mental health problem, it’s a fucking unadulterated greed problem.
Please arm yourselves. The opposition will.
Analysts think we’re about 4.5 million homes short of what we would need to a well-functioning housing market. I’m not sure exactly how they’re defining that.
I would assume that figure takes into account not just how many homeless there are, but renters and home prices vs wages as well. There isn’t a single county in the US where a worker with the average annual wage can afford to buy a house at the average price range in that area, for example.
Funny story, we actually have enough housing for everyone. It just isn’t always where people want to live, and corporate landlords would rather leave a space vacant to drive up rents than make all of their inventory available, so there is a shit ton of residential (and commercial) property that is basically abandoned.
There’s also the fact that many of those houses have sat vacant and have been left to rot for many years, meaning that plenty of them need to be demolished and rebuilt before they can be lived in. Small towns have been dying for decades as suburban sprawl consumes ever-increasing amounts of land and bleeds our cities dry of tax revenue, forcing them to continue making more suburbs to pay off the previous ones.
What we need is tax on vacant property. Make it a ladder system so its worse based on number of vacant units and value.
It would have to take into account how long it’s been vacant though.
I don’t want to punish property owners the literal second someone moves out, and it’s technically vacant. I also don’t want to punish them if they need to make repairs or updates to the property in between tenants.
So lets call it a tax forgiveness period of 1 year. I figure thats enough time to get the property renovated, and advertised as being available for rent.
And yes, I’m sure theres going to be someone who abuses the rule by just keeping it vacant for 11 months, and trying to rent it that last month. But here’s the thing. Those minded people will get burned. Because it takes time to rent properties. They’ll find it may take 2 or 3 months to find a tenant. Or maybe on the 11th month, they’ll realize they can’t rent it because in the time the property sat abandoned, uninspected, rats infested the property. Now it needs extermination services and renovations which will take 5 months. Oh well. There’s always SOME delay if you wait until the last minute. Which is why I gave it a generous year. Honest landlords won’t get burned with that grace period. Scammers will.
I’d say 3-6 months vacant is considered empty. Especially in high COL areas.
This forces property owners to lower rent to get the property filled if they can’t get a tenant. Thus bringing down rates.
The problem with that is, sometimes renovations take longer than 6 months. I don’t want to punish honest landlords, because then that incentivizes honest landlords to seek out ways to cheat the system, because the system cheated them.
It’s the same reason piracy is so popular in times when the official sources are either too convoluted or expensive to follow the official way.
Most customers would be happy to follow the rules, but if you want to watch 1 single NFL team through all 17 regular season games, my local team would require you to have access to an OTA broadcast tv source, and 5 different paid subscription services. Most of which are only broadcasting 1 game.
And now the NFL is seeing a MASSIVE rise in piracy. Yeah. No shit.
Same concept here. If you punish the honest landlords for undertaking a major renovation, then you push them to seek out other ways to cheat the system. And once they start, theres nothing saying they’ll stop.
And eliminate corporate ownership of residential property. Tax the shit out of anyone owning more than three residences, and bring property values back down to earth. Bail out homeowners who owe mortgages for more than the value of the properties, and let the market self-correct.
I’d go so far as to attack the idea of a corporation. Letting a business own property or act as a liability shield for human choices is clearly bad for society.
It goes both ways though. I have a corporation for my contracting business to shield possible frivolous lawsuits from unscrupulous people. I do my best to screen clients and not work for wackos, but that’s not necessarily enough to protect myself and family.
Same. Different entities for different concerns keeps each siloed WRT finance and liability. But that should have no bearing on what I believe is true.
TLDR: Thomas Jefferson asked us to “crush” them. Better late than never.
Corporate entities in the USA are out of control and absolutely must be reigned in at every level of government. Their overreach is not a new problem. Thomas Jefferson said it had already begun in a letter from 1816:
I hope we shall take warning from the example [of the lawless English aristocracy] and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations (emphasis mine) which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country.
Spoiler, we didn’t. We just let them bribe legislators to change the laws so they no longer even had to defy them. And of course a few of the largest corporations recently purchased the republic outright for a relatively paltry sum, as if it were a startup acquisition.
It’s obvious to anyone who owns corporations that they make nearly everything easier. So much about the economy and government has been hugely optimized for them, while the real flesh-and-blood citizenry experience greater friction year over year.
Edit: TLDR because no one reads walls of text
Some estimates say there are as many as 12 vacant homes per homeless person this country.
Last estimates I saw before the pandemic had the rate above 30:1. I haven’t looked since then, but I’m certain it’s only gotten worse.
Yeah, we were gonna do that anyway. After covid, I lost faith in humanities ability to be decent.
Took you that long? Wow. I had lost faith by the late 80s. For context I was only born in the early 80s. Once I went to kindergarten I realized society was awful and this planet sucks.
Unfortunately I haven’t found another planet that hosts life I can move to.
Well, I wasn’t alive in the 80s, so hard to lose faith in humans pre-emptiness. Lol
I’ve heard elsewhere that we already have enough vacant homes being reverse squatted by property management companies to house every homeless person.
Vacant homes in general, yes. Similar numbers of people have second homes for vacations as are homeless in the US. There are also quite a few abandoned homes in dying rural communities with no jobs.
Property management companies are managing rentals, not squatting. Some investors hold properties empty, but they aren’t in large enough numbers to be THE problem.
The official homeless number for 2024 in the US was 771,480. That’s probably just reported and not actual.
Except it would be unethical for a billionaire to throw that much power around. They should relinquish the value back to the communities from where they took it.
The wealthy do not deserve praise for spending the money they leeched from society to solve problems that could have been paid for by taxes they avoided paying. The wealthy are NOT going to solve society’s problems long term, just drag them out so society relies on them instead of solving it themselves.
Do you chuds ever get tired of repeating the same drivel over and over?
Yeah I’m am pretty glad my taxes totally went to buy more missiles and tanks. /s
No, we want taxes to help the homeless and other members of society in need dumbass.
Yeah, ok. Look at our governments since the dawn of time and tell me when that’s happening moron.
Look at the wealthy aince the dawn of time and tell me that they are a net benefit to society.
Such a problem that has yet to be solved by any government.
And you expect those same governments to just magically spend that money wisely.
Hilarious.
He’s a millionaire, not a billionaire. Calm down. A millionaire most likely worked hard and earned their wealth. It’s billionaires who cheat.
Millionaire covers everyone from having a million or two due to home equity all the way to 999 million because they just haven’t hit a billion yet. Someone who can drop a million dollars or more and still be a millionaire has multiple millions.
Equating the two is “not all millionaires”.
Inbe4 the starter-home priced housing is bought up, demolished, rebuilt, and sold as luxury housing on the market, as airbnbs, or rentals with no rent control.
I think the term “homeless” is really a euphemism that makes it easier for wealthy people to talk about poor people (if you have shelter, food, and are not living paycheck to paycheck you count as wealthy), and it results in misunderstandings about what the real problems are.
Giving a house to someone who lives on the streets is a nice gesture but it doesn’t address the underlying problems - unemployment, unemployability, health problems, psychological problems, lack of social support structure, lack of supportive relationships (e.g. friends and family) - you can’t just fix someone’s life with a building.
It’s like a grade-school-level understanding of the problem (“just give the homeless people homes! then they’re not homeless anymore! problem solved!”). Without putting in a real effort to support these individuals’ lives, to understand and address what put them in that situation in the first place, this is a temporary patch that will end in relapse.
It’s still a huge help. You don’t have to solve all of a persons problems to help them with one of their problems.
Arguably the most immediate of their problems, that gets in the way of them addressing ALL of their other problems.
I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.
This is obviously way better, come on. Why involve middle men in something like this? Add more layers and it becomes less efficient. Less of the money goes to helping people and it gets spread around to different agencies, or even worse goes to government contractors who can charge ridiculous rates because they know someone and didn’t have to compete for the contract. I worked at a place once where we got a couple hundred thousand dollars for a useless study because if the money didn’t get used it would make their budget smaller for next year. That kind of thing happens all the time.
I see one: he actually did something instead of a council that blows all of the money on meetings
Corruption could make that money go to some people’s 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???
So we’re so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?
Corruption already makes most millionaires’ and billionaires’ money go to that anyway. At least if it’s taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it’s not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.
I did not understand what you said, sorry
You’re worried that if we collect money from the wealthy through taxation, it might not be used to reduce homelessness. However, if we don’t tax the wealthy, they’ll spend the money on their own goals, which definitely won’t be to reduce homelessness. While you’re right that taxes are largely wasted, they do still fund important things such as fire departments, medical research, and yes, government housing. It’s true that we need to implement better tax management systems, but we also need a wealth tax.
Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.
Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.
Dont let perfection be the enemy of better
Man, Im starting to think I’m tarded. Something about this isn’t letting my brain work, please do more sentences
People are downvoting because “retarded” is increasingly considered a slur or hateful term (just providing context, do with that what you will)
Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.
No one is saying it’s better for rich people to independently spend money on charity pet projects. Appropriate taxation is better but this was still a good way for him to spend his money, it’s still good for him to help his community (he could have just spent that money on a yacht)
Dont let perfection be the enemy of better
This is a variation on the saying “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”. Which means don’t reject good things just because they aren’t perfect. Perfect is an ideal that doesn’t exist, and good is still worth celebrating.
In this case, the commenter is saying that perfect would be better taxation and government programs that provide this service to the people. But a private citizen helping people with their private wealth still helps people. That’s a good thing even if it’s not the perfect ideal solution
Personally I am a huge advocate of the “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” mentality :) hope this helps and I hope you have a good day!
I probably shouldn’t have said that. I’m gonna double down though a little and say I’m not out here to hurt anyone or make anyone feel hurt, I’m just trying to add voice to my writing. Sort of a tension cutting tool. Some of my favorite people are tarded, like my wife. She’s a pilot now.
Joking aside though, I appreciate the effort of you ELI5ing this to me, and I should have been more direct. I just don’t get why this guy commented this when what he’s commenting on essentially said the same thing. I’m just more surprised that almost the same amount of people upvoted both. They’re both valid in the same way.
If you carefully read the negatives and positives he’s saying kinda the opposite of the first guy :)
I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.
“I don’t believe letting them just spend their money this way is better than doing it with taxes”
And then even more simplified (obviously loosing nuance)
“I don’t think this is as good as doing this with taxes”
Dude, you are just a gem.
I’ve been drinking a bit tonight, and I’m going to look at this tomorrow. I imagine that it’s all going to flow together nicely, but it’s never going to be as nice as you’ve been.
Thank you, and just be proud of how kind you are. I’m astonished currently. I’ll see you tomorrow, and we’ll get to the bottom of this:)
Lol, I really appreciate that. Drink some water and rest well man!
millionares($) wouldn’t be able to afford multiple yachts, or even so large of a yacht. billionares, those who offshoring wealth makes sense for, are the problem.
not the docter nor lawyer, but the whale.
millionares pay about 48%-49%, at least where im from.
This statement might be true, but we’re not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?
I don’t even think you can do that.
What makes you think Trump’s administration will make better use of that money?
Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn’t be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?
If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won’t be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!
Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.
I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.
I’m chill with rich people as long as some of their money goes to helping people
$10k per house per million?
I hope he was a millionaire several times over…
what kind of math? you did 1 million/99?
that’s meaningless… yes, he would have had to spend several million to do this… they’re probably tiny homes…and hell the whole meme is probably fake
what kind of math?
Tap for spoiler
It was literally the first sentence of my comment 🤣
no shit, sherlock.
what i mean is: you’re using math wrong.
it’s real. the ‘millionaire’ sold a startup for $340m. the homes are in new brunswick and cost $50k ea to build and furnish. the land was $500k. the houses are ~ 240-300 sq ft tiny homes. rent (at the time that source was written) starts at $200.
Almost certainly. Having $1M is unremarkable these days. Technically a millionaire is someone with more than a million and less than a billion, but usually these days it refers to people with hundreds of millions.
A million could buy you like… Two houses. Maybe 3 or 4 at a push if they’re small.
House on my street recently sold for a bit over a million. 3 bed, 2 bath, ok view of the ocean, on a quarter acre. Ludicrous.
With an ocean view and that big a house? Damn cheap
(Crying in a town where lots are in “square feet”, because no one has lots that big)
Where I am in SoCal, it barely buys you one.
Yeah, not up here in the northeast. Maybe two condos if they’re small enough and old enough
This is my most common fantasy if I somehow came into a billion dollars.
It’s a fantasy, but I would create an apartment complex with mixed 1 2 and 3 bedrooms and set the rent below market value and then find a lawyer to draw up a legal document to turn it into a co-op so that after enough people moved in I could turn control over to them.
If I were a multibillionaire I would do this again and again until non market housing was normal In my city, and anyone wanting to build housing has to compete with a bunch of non market housing.
If the photo is accurate, those ‘homes’ are tiny. Barely bigger than a garage compared to the cars next to them.
My garage is bigger than my house and I’m very very happy with my house.
My garage is really not that big. Just that our house is 12 ft by 24 ft…
A safe place to sleep, store some shit, shower. Could be better, but sounds great to me.
Okay, and? Infinitely better than being on the street. Someone does something nice and people like you still complain.
Sure, I guess as a starter to get off the streets they’re definitely better than nothing.
Are there better, more efficient ways to accomplish this? Yes. Am I glad they at least did something though? Also yes.
Americans will build literal shoeboxes instead of 1 apartment building
When dealing with homeless and mentally ill this setup of isolation from other units is better. Dealing with unsanitary living, smells, fires, sounds, are all are easier to mitigate in this setup. Also America is not hurting for wide open spaces to build this type of thing.
I dunno, wouldn’t it be cheaper to make and wouldn’t be easier to look after as well? (Having all the plumbing, heating, wiring, AC in one place)
Independent homes require a lot of work and maintenance, compared to shared Apartment buildings.
Sanitary wise, I could see it being a problem in both the cases. It really depends on the people.
Besides, just because you have land doesn’t mean you should use it. Trust me, living in a place where there’s virtual no trees to look at, I’d prefer to just live in a shared Apartment and enjoy the view (that’s going by the picture and if there’s one).
Americans are too scared of apartment buildings because it reminds them of the projects, imo. That apartments are a poor person thing.
There are cities where they have tried like in old hotels or old apartments that got refurbished. Usually just ends up in a broke down roach infested place. There are videos on YouTube. I went down a rabbit hole on YouTube about this very thing recently lol
Nor is Canada, where this is.
is it just me or anyone else thinking that row houses would have been way more efficent than these? giving everyone living there more than 1 room
Depends. Given this happened in North America there might very well be existing production lines for these tiny houses, and construction laws are also way simpler to fulfill with those basically anywhere (e.g. in Germany you’d just have had to make the whole place a camping site). They all look pretty standardized, including those solar panels.
Although I’d agree that a properly build big building would probably last longer. Not too sure about that though, I’m just happy to hear there are still people with money actually taking care of those who’re at rock bottom.
I think this is the correct answer, outside of large cities it is not legal to build apartments or row houses in many places in the States. It would probably be significantly easier to skirt the zoning laws to buy a plot of land and put 100 tiny houses on it, than to attempt to get some sort exception granted to the zoning in order to build an apartment or row house.
They are also a lot more expensive. The most expensive with these houses he built is probably the ground, but he might’ve gotten it for free from the town.
Might be, but those look cute as well to be honest.
You might be interested in the story of Tengelo Park.
Harris Rosen went from a childhood in a rough New York City neighborhood to becoming a millionaire whose company owns seven hotels in Orlando, but his self-made success is not his proudest achievement.
Twenty years ago, the Orlando, Fla. neighborhood of Tangelo Park was a crime-infested place where people were afraid to walk down the street. The graduation rate at the local high school was 25 percent. Having amassed a fortune from his success in the hotel business, Rosen decided Tangelo Park needed some hospitality of its own.
“Hospitality really is appreciating a fellow human being,” Rosen told Gabe Gutierrez in a segment that aired on TODAY Wednesday. “I came to the realization that I really had to now say, ‘Thank you.’’’
Rosen, 73, began his philanthropic efforts by paying for day care for parents in Tangelo Park, a community of about 3,000 people. When those children reached high school, he created a scholarship program in which he offered to pay free tuition to Florida state colleges for any students in the neighborhood.
In the two decades since starting the programs, Rosen has donated nearly $10 million, and the results have been remarkable. The high school graduation rate is now nearly 100 percent, and some property values have quadrupled. The crime rate has been cut in half, according to a study by the University of Central Florida.
“We’ve given them hope,’’ Rosen said. “We’ve given these kids hope, and given the families hope. And hope is an amazing thing.”
10M over 20 years to help a community of 3000 or $166 per person per year. USA is planning to increase the military budget by 150B this year or over $400 per US citIzen…
Yeah I was shocked by the math on that one too. It is ridiculously cheap to lower crime and poverty, while increasing graduation rates and college enrollment. It’s almost like keeping people poor and stupid and criminal is intentional.
You’re saying that as if investment into military was unnecessary these days
It is if you don’t use it when you’re part of a contract that got broken from another Partie of the contract.
So breaking contracts now justifies military intervention?
Who would have thought that the way to reduce crime was to reduce people’s need to commit crimes by giving them homes and a future.
Bruce Wayne but sane
