Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HA! You think NV is liberal? It may be called 'Sin city' alluding to a liberal stance but we are very much a conservative city/state.
It's a blue state, but yeah, I agree it is not liberal by any standards of the definition. We haven't had any true liberals in control of this country since the 1930s/40s. Which was a good time. FDR wiped out homelessness at that time. Which lasted until Ronald Reagan decided to destroy the working class.
It's a blue state, but yeah, I agree it is not liberal by any standards of the definition. We haven't had any true liberals in control of this country since the 1930s/40s. Which was a good time. FDR wiped out homelessness at that time. Which lasted until Ronald Reagan decided to destroy the working class.
Lol, FDR did not wipe homelessness out, what did Reagan do, force people to become addicts and make poor life choices? You forget about the states? What is your precious Democrat ran California doing about it?
How would you deal with rentals to college students, who have no income, and retirees, who have no income but are living on their lifetime savings?
This would cause an absolute nightmare for people who are offering to subsidize a family member for awhile while they get their feet under them, and are willing to pay for someone's rent for 6 months or so.
In my observation, landlords usually can't lower their rents to what the poorest can afford - rather, they'd just sell the property instead of rent it at a loss and have what is probably a more difficult than average tenant to deal with for a low rent.
If the students have no income then how are they paying their rent? If it's their parents money, then their parents income would apply. As for retirees, it would be 1/3 of their social security, and whatever other investment income that have. The system could be tweaked for people who are independently wealthy, but I don't think it would be necessary. Even now most landlords will not rent to people without verifiable income.
Also as I said in an earlier post, the basics to solving the homeless problem, should be to rebuild the mental health system, and build as much affordable housing as necessary to house everyone. Right now cities like LA, San Francisco, New York, don't have enough housing at any price, to house everyone.
Exactly. I think I have fingered out a solution. We should have a law that prohibits landlords from renting to anyone who doesn't have a verifiable income 3 x higher then the monthly rent. No one in this country should ever pay more then 1/3 of their income for rent. Personally I would make it 1/4, but 1/3 is the standard, so I would go with that. This would force landlords to lower their rents to prices most people can afford, or their rental units would sit empty. That would be their choice, but I'm pretty sure most all landlords would rent out their property for a price people can afford, rather then letting them sit empty.
It wouldn't force anything; it would just perpetuate the status quo.
Many private landlords and property management companies already stipulate that. After all, it's in their best interests to make sure tenants earn enough to pay the rent. The rental market is so tight in many places that there's more than enough applicants for vacancies who earn three times the rent. Those who don't would be left out in the cold.
Lol, FDR did not wipe homelessness out, what did Reagan do, force people to become addicts and make poor life choices? You forget about the states? What is your precious Democrat ran California doing about it?
You need to study history. First he started the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to give everybody a job. Then he started the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and United States Housing Authority (USHA) to give everybody housing. He started building public housing for those who still couldn't afford housing. Then to top it off he started Social Security, to provide for people in their old age. He had everybody covered. That is liberalism. And it worked, and to a limited extent his programs are still working today. Unlike more recent political ideologies, that just fail, and fail, and fail, and no matter how long they fail, some keep ramming more of it down our throats anyway.
I'm still waiting for Reaganomics to trickle-down to me. But I haven't seen one penny of it, and at this point I'm pretty sure I never will. But at least I'm sitting here with a roof over my head, thanks to public housing and my Social Security. All thanks to FDR. My life and I think most people's lives are still benefiting from FDR's programs, even through all of these years of Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump kicking us while we are down.
It wouldn't force anything; it would just perpetuate the status quo.
Many private landlords and property management companies already stipulate that. After all, it's in their best interests to make sure tenants earn enough to pay the rent. The rental market is so tight in many places that there's more than enough applicants for vacancies who earn three times the rent. Those who don't would be left out in the cold.
Yes, they do, unless they can't find renters. Then they lower their standards, but they never lower the rents. In LA the average rent is $2,500 a month. So by that formula a renter would have to make $7,500 a month. Many people there work in minimum wage jobs. A full time minimum wage job pays about $1,900 a month. So even a renter with three full time minimum wage jobs (which is impossible), would not qualify.
Even the cheapest rentals in LA are about $1,500 a month. If the landlord was catering to low income renters with two full time jobs, they would have to lower the rent to at least $1,250 a month, or they would have a 100% vacancy rate. Because no minimum wage workers would qualify. If my plan was a reality, landlords providing housing for low income renters, would have to drop the bottom line rents to under $1,000 a month. Which wouldn't be a big improvement, but it would help lower the homeless population.
Yes, they do, unless they can't find renters. Then they lower their standards, but they never lower the rents. In LA the average rent is $2,500 a month. So by that formula a renter would have to make $7,500 a month. Many people there work in minimum wage jobs. A full time minimum wage job pays about $1,900 a month. So even a renter with three full time minimum wage jobs (which is impossible), would not qualify.
Even the cheapest rentals in LA are about $1,500 a month. If the landlord was catering to low income renters with two full time jobs, they would have to lower the rent to at least $1,250 a month, or they would have a 100% vacancy rate. Because no minimum wage workers would qualify. If my plan was a reality, landlords providing housing for low income renters, would have to drop the bottom line rents to under $1,000 a month. Which wouldn't be a big improvement, but it would help lower the homeless population.
My point was that there's no shortage of renters in these high-rent areas. That's what's driven up the rents in the first place. Property owners don't have to lower their standards when there's 50 applicants for every vacancy.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 11-09-2019 at 09:55 PM..
They’ll all be coming out to CA where homeless can do anything with no repercussions. Anything that’s suggested that involves work or commitment to a program or educational in any way is deemed cruel and discriminatory.
What’s cruel and discriminatory is ignoring them when they’re sleeping on the sidewalk. Only the worst people would want to see someone living like that.
I watched a YouTube video, where they had a program back east to help get the homeless off drugs. Some of these guys were so grateful to be back on their feet, they almost cried.
I wonder how long they'll be able to hide the news stories when the jails get filled with more poor people than actual criminals.
Whoever voted for this is stupid beyond belief. This is a clear example of sweeping a problem under the rug instead of actually helping to alleviate it.
You have clearly never have had to deal with this, have not seen how bad it can get. This gives the police the ability to DO SOMETHING to force them into shelters and off the streets, not jail them. This is not just sleeping on the streets with a few belongings. In San Diego and Las Vegas, there are places that you cannot use the sidewalks for blocks because they set up tents and tarps, blocking the entire sidewalk.
They need to take out the problem by the root: poverty.
You have not been paying attention. "Poverty" is certainly not the root of the problem.
According to some stats, the homelessness rate the US is 0.17% of the population, or about 550,000 people. The root of the problem is severe mental illness - and that doesn't necessarily mean stupid either, some homeless people are intelligent, articulate and full of folk wisdom -, very often accompanied by substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) and little or no family support.
Now, making cheap political theater out of it is certainly stupid.
Here's a an excerpt and quote by an expert taken from a recent article on the problem in one warm-weather city:
Quote:
"Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust ... While no definitive figures exist, the Trust estimates that the majority of chronic homeless are mentally ill. Goyanes knows many in his neighborhood by name. “It’s a delicate issue because you can’t just round up people and make them disappear,” Goyanes said. “Some refuse to move to a shelter even when you offer assistance."
This is typical.
There are a lot more people than 0.17% in the US who live deeply below the poverty line, maybe some 18,500,000 people. Please compare 18,500,000 to 550,000, that's a factor of more than thirty times.
Most of these 18,500,000 still have on a regular basis food, running water, housing, electricity, maybe some fuel, jobs and access to credit to buy things like even cars and smart phones.
Or would you rather be deeply below the poverty line in Haiti or India? How about just a little bit below the poverty line in one of those countries?
To be sure, poverty is one aspect of a severe-mental-illness-accompanied-by-homelessness problem, but certainly not the root, and addressing it fully requires an integrated multi-faceted approach which, yes, does require money, but most of all sincere, dedicated, well trained people willing to help at below-market rates.
Another aspect of the problem is that even when such programs exist at least partially - and there are thousands of such programs -, often these mentally ill homeless people refuse help (see excerpt above, which is typical), for various and complicated reasons other than simple "poverty" because that's the easiest and cheapest word to throw around.
Second or third best, I suppose, is to herd such people into shelters by force or in any case away from public places in densely populated areas.
Not great, nobody likes it, but it beats whining and complaining and randomly throwing around a cheap and easy word like "poverty" because we like to make cheap and easy political theater because it makes us feel better momentarily.
Please read and re-read through this at least several times, and look up more comments and reports of experiences of experts really trying to help on the ground from throughout the country.
Then please read this and those reports again.
All the best!
Last edited by bale002; 11-10-2019 at 02:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
