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.
Owners of “ flop houses” are in a for profit business. The owner may or may not own the land. Why would a land owner, anywhere, choose to sell property for less than current market value? That’s not greed.
In some instances, eminent domain is used to acquire property so that the land can be put to better public use, whatever that means. The acquiring entity pays fair market value. If the seller wants more or has a sentimental attachment, it goes to court. At the end of the battle, property is usually taken.
No shortage of gentrified/ gentrifying communities in large cities. Areas that were once plagued by blight and crime morph into attractive neighborhoods. While owners complain about being taxed out of their community, they usually realize a substantial profit when they sell at current fair market value.
Renters scramble to find “ affordable housing” in other blighted communities, not yet gentrified. When more want housing than the supply of housing, market values increase. Some may end up homeless. They do not however comprise the majority of unsheltered homeless in urban areas.
By your own admission you see value in forcing the poor into very limited areas because of your perception that "improving" blighted communities justifies pushing out those that cant support such improvements. Well then where do YOU want them to go? Govt charity housing?
I think there are far more sane rational non drug addled homeless than you want to admit. And its worse some places like Bay Area where you have people with tech jobs living in cars cause the rents are obscene. Its the old wild west mining boom town mentality of charging whatever the market will bare. At least back then it was more socially acceptable to live in a tent on your claim.
I am not saying there arent mentally ill people living on streets, obviously there are. But whether sane rational employed but low income, or mentally ill, there still are not any legal cheap spaces provided. A few charity "dorms", and the "public green" to survive rough, but no flop houses or cold water flats that somebody on bottom end can afford by the sweat of their brow. Why, cause the wealthy want to gobble it up as an "speculation investment" then pass bunch laws to protect that investment, meaning only barn size McMansions allowed. Nothing new, many of founding fathers of this country speculated in Indian land in an attempt to make an easy fortune. But much lower population back then and they got the land for free forcing off the former owners. Population has zoomed and no more land created.
Time to limit the speculators. One home or apartment to any adult citizen. The person has to have actual residency in that house. If you want to pretend a corporation is a person, then make that person live in the house it owns, meaning running a day to day business. Not holding it for speculation. Persons running a rental service are limited in number units they can own. Make it impossible for the corporate speculators from sucking up endless properties and playing tax games with them. There is no social value in home speculation anymore as it only stockpiles housing for the rich.
....the homeless issue. This has seemingly gotten way worse than ever before in many areas.
I'm not interested in some poster on this forum saying "here's what I think about homlessness" I don't really care. I'm saying, I want to know that taking care of this problem, taking care of these citizens is something on the forefront of the minds of people who are trying to become the President.
....the Police. We are reminded over and over and over again about "missteps" and "overreaches" made by the police. We have seen videos of cops murdering innocent people. There is clearly an issue. The police are necessary. MANY of them are great individuals who do an incredibly difficult job. But clearly there are problems that need to be dealt with. Better training. Better care for mental health of police officers. Weeding out those that have obvious prejudices against races/religions/etc.
The democrats own the homeless issue.. all liberal areas run by democrats.
Yes, it is a local issue, just like homeless and "welfare" are local issues, but the effects are national, and that is why I think it needs to be addressed on a national level.
I do agree with the rest of your post, though!
" but the effects are national" OK, explain to me how homeless in San Fran affects me on the East Coast. This ought to be intereting.
Get real. Democrats caused homelessness? There have been homeless people since forever. Always will be.
don't move the goal post.
not homelessness.... but the major problem we are seeing in places like California? yep. absolutely. democrats caused these issues to be vastly greater than they should be.
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.
