• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I’ve said time and time again that “building more houses” is not the solution.

    I mean, it’s also been said that a lot of these empty houses are in rural/suburban neighborhoods outside of dying industrial centers. We’re effectively talking about “Ghost Towns”, with no social services and a deteriorating domestic infrastructure, that people are deliberately abandoning.

    And we’re stacking that up against the homeless encampments that appear in large, dense, urban environments where social services are (relatively) robust and utilities operate at full capacity around the clock.

    Picking people up from under the I-10 overpass and moving them to

    doesn’t address homelessness as a structural problem. It just shuttles people around the state aimlessly and hopes you can squirrel them away where your voters won’t see them anymore.

    At some point, you absolutely do need to build more apartment blocks and rail corridors and invest in local/state/federal public services again, such that you can gainfully employ (or at least comfortably retire) people with no future economic prospects. You can’t just take folks out to shacks in the boonies and say “Homelessness Resolved!”

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        …But nobody wants to live there.

        You could give a bunch of homeless people housing, but there’s simply no structure around it. They have no money, and there’s no jobs. There’s no services around. They won’t be much better off than homeless in a big city tbh. Might be WORSE off.

        There needs to be available housing near the places where there’s actually things to do, jobs to hold, services to use.

        Worst part is, I bet a LOT of those ghots towns are suburban, not urban - so it makes it more difficult and expensive to build up a new community there. Everything is spaced out

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        They need economic activity to be livable. Shoving broke people onto a reservation doesn’t accomplish that.

        • zaki_ft@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          They create the economic activity.

          More people living in an area means there’s more to do and more people to do it.

          On average, each additional person contributes more than they take out.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            They create the economic activity.

            You have to go back and actually read Kapital.

            More people living in an area means there’s more to do and more people to do it.

            Visit a refugee camp and explain that to the locals

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        A lot of those places suck and they’re not going to turn into vibrant cultural centers with social services quickly.

        • zaki_ft@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It won’t happen overnight.

          If homeless people would prefer living in tents under highways, that’s their choice.