Homelessness

[mdgv2]

I find myself again coming back to abandoned, derelict buildings.

In town, we’ve a big office block left from when Saga pulled out to another office.

Now, someone owns that. And they’re not doing anything with it.

Whilst it wouldn’t be a cheap project, with its plumbing and other amenities? It could be converted to housing. So again I argue councils need the power and right to seize abandoned property. Don’t want to lose your asset? Then do something with it. Put it to use, changing its purpose as needed. Make it social housing, and you’ll see some kind of monetary return - and social benefits, given empty buildings attract and invite vandalism, which is shown to increase overall crime rates in the area.

[Haighus]

Nov 16, 2023 7:01:26 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

I find myself again coming back to abandoned, derelict buildings.

In town, we’ve a big office block left from when Saga pulled out to another office.

Now, someone owns that. And they’re not doing anything with it.

Whilst it wouldn’t be a cheap project, with its plumbing and other amenities? It could be converted to housing. So again I argue councils need the power and right to seize abandoned property. Don’t want to lose your asset? Then do something with it. Put it to use, changing its purpose as needed. Make it social housing, and you’ll see some kind of monetary return - and social benefits, given empty buildings attract and invite vandalism, which is shown to increase overall crime rates in the area.

To be honest, I think a good wealth tax would serve the same purpose and have other benefits.

But broadly in favour of measures to increase building use.

[mdgv2]

Tax can be dodged in other ways. Having your rotting asset taken off you lock stock and barrel…can’t. At least not in my hypothetical.


It’s frankly sinful that so many properties, including new builds, sit there unoccupied when even without considering homelessness, we’re in a crisis of housing shortage, leading to higher prices and rents.

Right to Buy was the kernel of a good idea, but saying Councils couldn’t replace stock was Fucking Stupid.

[redchimera]

Nov 16, 2023 7:31:30 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

Right to Buy was the kernel of a good idea, but saying Councils couldn’t replace stock was Fucking Stupid.

It's almost as if that was the main objective.

[Haighus]

Nov 16, 2023 7:31:30 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

Tax can be dodged in other ways. Having your rotting asset taken off you lock stock and barrel…can’t. At least not in my hypothetical.


It’s frankly sinful that so many properties, including new builds, sit there unoccupied when even without considering homelessness, we’re in a crisis of housing shortage, leading to higher prices and rents.

Right to Buy was the kernel of a good idea, but saying Councils couldn’t replace stock was Fucking Stupid.

A wealth tax cannot be dodged if your wealth is in property. It is a land tax that also hits non-property assets.

[herzlos]

Right to buy was a terrible idea, even before the inability to replace the stock. Some people made a fortune for it; buying a house at 25% market value, sitting on it a few years and selling at 100% value, but many other people suffered from it due to maintenance bills etc.
I can see the benefit in giving people guaranteed stable housing and an eventual reduction in rent, but council/social housing is easily as stable as a mortgage and you could always drop the rent at retirement age or something, whilst still keeping the stock in the public hands.

But then the aim wasn't stability; it was turning renters (Labour voters) into owners (Tory voters).

I'd be all for compulsory purchase of derelict property to turn into social stock, as well as some teeth in dealing with the new build estates that 'forget' to build enough affordable housing. Instead of fining the developers virtually nothing, the council should be able to compulsory purchase as many houses as they need to satisfy the requirement at the affordable price. So for instance if the builder agrees to build 5 affordable houses at £100k each, whilst the rest of the estate costs £200-300k, and fails to deliver, the council should be able to buy 5 houses of their choice at £100k each. If it means the builder loses £1m in property sales and has to piss of 5 buyers then that's entirely the builders problem, and the council then has 5 family sized houses added to the stock.

As soon as that started to happen, the builders would suddenly be a lot better at fulfilling the agreements.

I'm really getting much more lefty as I get older.

[herzlos]

Nov 16, 2023 8:06:27 GMT -5 Haighus said:

Nov 16, 2023 7:31:30 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

Tax can be dodged in other ways. Having your rotting asset taken off you lock stock and barrel…can’t. At least not in my hypothetical.


It’s frankly sinful that so many properties, including new builds, sit there unoccupied when even without considering homelessness, we’re in a crisis of housing shortage, leading to higher prices and rents.

Right to Buy was the kernel of a good idea, but saying Councils couldn’t replace stock was Fucking Stupid.

A wealth tax cannot be dodged if your wealth is in property. It is a land tax that also hits non-property assets.

Presumably it can if the property is owned by an offshore corporation?

[Haighus]

Nov 16, 2023 8:15:45 GMT -5 herzlos said:

Nov 16, 2023 8:06:27 GMT -5 Haighus said:

A wealth tax cannot be dodged if your wealth is in property. It is a land tax that also hits non-property assets.

Presumably it can if the property is owned by an offshore corporation?

That is a ridiculously easy loophole to close, by legislating for wealth in the UK, rather than entities registered in the UK. If you don't close that loophole, you didn't want to close it. It isn't like the property can just be moved to the Bahamas.

For reference, the US successfully taxes citizens that live abroad. A lot of these loopholes are not actually difficult to close if the political will is there.

[easye]

An Ohio church is suing a city over not being allowed to house homeless people

www.npr.org/2024/01/23/1226214707/an-ohio-church-is-suing-a-city-over-not-being-allowed-to-house-homeless-people

A church in Ohio, whose pastor was criminally charged for allowing unhoused people to sleep at the church, has filed a federal lawsuit on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Dad's Place is located in Bryan, Ohio, about an hour outside of Toledo. Last year, the church began to offer temporary housing for people living on the street. The city ordered the church to stop, citing zoning and safety concerns. But the pastor, Chris Avell, refused.

Now, he faces 18 zoning code violations which are punishable by fines, up to six months in prison, or both.

In a suit filed Monday, the church argued that providing food and shelter to those in need is a religious activity and that has been jeopardized by the city and its top officials under the guise of zoning laws.

[mdgv2]

Well bugger me sideways. I’m actually in agreement with the god botherers!

[easye]

www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1251405278/homeless-camping-ban-texas-cicero-states

www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1251405278/homeless-camping-ban-texas-cicero-states

Florida is among a handful of states that has passed tougher laws on homelessness in recent years — including Kentucky and Texas — and lawmakers in about a dozen states have debated such legislation. Most all of them are taking guidance from the lobbying arm of a conservative Texas-based think tank, which aims to upend homelessness policies that have had bipartisan support for two decades.

The Cicero Institute was founded by billionaire tech entrepreneur Joe Lonsdale, whose data mining products have been used by the CIA, the U.S. immigration agency, and local police departments. He derides a "homeless industrial complex," accusing advocates of prolonging the problem so they can keep their jobs.

"The foremost goal is not to punish," says Devon Kurtz, who oversees Cicero's homelessness policy and pitches its legislation to state lawmakers. But he says the common practice known as Housing First — which prioritizes getting people into permanent housing without requiring them to get sober — has made the problem worse.

"There are situations where we just can't accept the status quo. It is too dangerous for everyone involved," he says.

A documentary Cicero produced with the conservative content creator PragerU blames Housing First for streets littered with needles and other drug paraphernalia. Kurtz says with the opioid crisis, people are dying every day from drug overdose. Cicero's model bill calls for shifting money away from housing, and toward substance abuse and mental health treatment.

Oh look, a billionaire who is arrogant enough to think he can solve this problem! Can we get out of this Guilded Age II yet? It sucks.

[bobtheinquisitor]

So, if housing isn’t an option, and tent camps must be destroyed, where do we store the homeless? Jail?

[easye]

"Relocation Camps"

I wish I was kidding.

[crispy78]

Do these camps by any chance conveniently gather the homeless in one area? Concentrate them, you might say?

[Haighus]

Housing first is proven to work better than abstinence first. But cruelty seems to be the point for these rich dipshits.