No…. The immigrants stole them all
This article claims a lot of these are foreclosures and banks don’t want to be landlords
landlords
the easy way to solve this is TO GIVE THE DAMNED HOUSES AWAY instead of retaining ownership of property that could house people. don’t want to be landlords? give it the fuck away
Corollary: this is also why we have squatters rights.
throughout the US?
if so, they don’t seem to be used successfully that I see; really the only squatters I’ve encountered were the pack of meth heads who moved into a neighbors house while they were working overseas. claimed they had a lease, even. And even they were gone in under a week.
just curious, thanks.
throughout the US?
Well The US is a patchwork of laws, so mileage may vary.
Still, perhaps we need to strengthen them. They are in the spirit of “this is who actually lives and contributes here”
Squatters shouldn’t have rights wtf. That’s not their property, lol it’s like lemme me just steal some shit from the store, they’re not using it.
There was a case study about how bizarre squatter rights existed in NY if the owner was away for 30 days and there so many cases of primary residence people going on extended vacation, and coming back and then they become homeless because some asshole just decided to move in until the court finally reviews these frivelous cases.
There are major things wrong with housing, but squatter rights are effectively allowing you to steal from others. They should look into limiting hoarding and lvt which has been shown to be more effective in places like Singapore.
Squatters shouldn’t have rights wtf. That’s not their property, lol it’s like lemme me just steal some shit from the store, they’re not using it.
If the owners don’t figure that someone moved in on the order of years then clearly they don’t care either. Thus the squatters have a right to claim the property.
Massive property tax increase. Owner-occupants are exempted from that tax.
As soon as a bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they owe the full, non-exempt tax rate. That stick gives them a strong incentive to work with their borrower.
That article also talks about a lot of the properties being tear downs. It’s easy to say that a homeless person would find just about anything a step up, but realistically it has to be habitable, salable, maintainable. No one would want the liability of a below standard house, nor the PR hit of giving a junk house
I’ve been homeless. Give me a shit house I can call mine and let me work to improve it. Let me put money into replacing the pipes and removing the mold instead of into rent. With the prices landlords are charging these days, it would be easy.
That’s what I was thinking, too. The article says 116 houses per homeless person in Detroit. Has this person ever been to Detroit? Vacant houses there aren’t even safe to look at.
I’m from a rural area in New York, and it’s similar. My brother considered house flipping because some were so cheap you could do it by credit card. However they tended to be abandoned for years, not really salvageable, plus the population was dwindling so not much hope for a sale, ever
As other two have said. The carrying costs for banks is just too low to incentivize liquidity in housing supply. Put them on the market and watch home prices and rent fall
Jesus. I remember the figure being like, 10. Which was already absurd.
11 was the number I remembered it being. Been quoting that for years. Jesus Christ, it’s more than doubled. Wtaf is wrong with humanity
Fuck me, I only knew it was greater than the number of homeless people, didn’t realize it was by that much
Stupid people keep supporting their oppressors and getting mad at anyone who calls it out.
I think if you consider is as a percentage of all homes, the number doesnt look as insane. There’s about 133m homes and 17m are vacant according to the article which is roughly 13% of homes are empty.
I’m not sure what the average vacancy rate is in other countries is so not sure how bad 13% is but it doesnt sound as crazy as 27x.
Update: According to this article the US does rank pretty high in vacant properties. Im actually surprised Japan is 1st.
https://realestatemagazine.ca/canada-ranks-11th-for-the-highest-proportion-of-empty-homes/
Bwahahahahahahah! Holy shit, this article is the epitome of doomerism and conspiracy theories. If anyone actually read this article and didn’t immediately peg it as brain rot… idk what to tell you. Go read a book. Not to say that homelessness isn’t a very real problem - but if your interpretation of a complex and multifaceted problem is to boil it down into a handful of evil people doing evil things who could be stopped by a few good people with courage and determination, then you aren’t understanding a real problem. You’re describing a Marvel movie.
How many of those are within walking distance of a grocery store? Many of them would likely not be suitable for a low income resident without a motor vehicle.
They should never have been allowed to become gambling chips.
Noone should be allowed to purchase a home without agreeing to live in it full time for at least a year afterwards. Split it into a duplex to become a landlord? Another year. Wanna be a landlord? You must live in that building full time along with your tenants. Outrageous? Not nearly as outrageous as homelessness because of the prices.
You shouldn’t be allowed to own residential property you don’t live on. There needs to be a way for people to move so after 3 months of owning a property that is not your primary residence taxes go through the roof and double every year.
“What about renters?”
Basement suites / duplexes exist. An apartment building will be better taken care of when the owner has to also live in the apartment building.Another good idea would be to require every rental to include a rent-to-buy option. If the renter wishes, a substantial portion of those rental fees would count as equity, and at any time they can afford it, they can exercise that option to buy. If they decide to move out, that equity does not revert to landlord but goes into a special trust which pays for more affordable housing.
This is somewhat similar to how the right to buy initiative worked with council housing in the UK till they sold them all off and stopped building more.
To do something like that you’ll need to introduce public housing, maybe nationalise blackrock? 💀
Easiest way is to ensure the unit isn’t vacant for more than a year, else they will get taxed extra. Also rent shouldn’t be x% higher than the mortgage.
Good idea. There are plenty more conditions that could be added on to make becoming a landlord/gambler much less attractive. Like: you can’t even begin to buy another until you’ve finished your year and sold the place.
Yes, the government can actually do something about it if they want, and imo that’s the issue, because taxes from property sales is much more attractive to them.
Don’t forget brib…sorry, I mean lobbying from rich people and corporations owning a lot of properties.
Some cities in Australia have a vacant property tax. It makes sense in some areas.
The first rule seems likely to work. The second guarantees no property will ever be renovated.
Make the tax on properties you don’t personally inhabit a percentage of unrealized capital gains of all assets. Limit untaxed property size to an area the median person reporting for jury duty can circumnavigate on foot within one minute. Is the untaxed property size too small for your preference because the people of your county are too unhealthy? Maybe improve your local healthcare system.
Basically, tie metrics coupled with the well-being of the median citizen with taxes on the wealthy. Eventually, the metrics will be framed or rigged by a corrupt charlatan or strongman (e.g. by exiling the sick and homeless), but to the extent that the laws are updated and enforced, people will be healthier.
it’s called a vacancy tax.
landlords already get tax discounts for living in properties they rent out in most communities.
One of my doomsday fantasies is to simply take one of the empty homes I see whenever I commute to work, since the fall of the government would probably make it hard for them to enforce the law. I’ve even worked out multiple options, it’s amazing how many mansions are simply empty because the right seller hasn’t come along to pay 30M for it or because it’s a summer home. Easily one half, I’ve counted.
You can even try now, but there is a ton of private security lately so you would need to wait until the fall of the empire first, I bet. Plus hey, it’s mountain side property so you’ll have the high ground in combat!
Plus probably solar or a generator, so you could keep that infinity pool warm.
Hell yeah, infinity pool / basic survival generator when the power plants are all derelict. But I’ll probably need to add an engineer to my post apocalypse stronghold to keep it maintained.
I thought we were told to call them, “unhoused”. Did I miss something?
Because quibbling over labels is how to restore their dignity
Now those homes slowly rot and lose value and become dangereous to live in.
As a result, rich people can’t run airbnbs. Capitalists are losing in long term for pride/greed/incompetence.
At this rate they will require government subsidies to rebuild them later. All because those selfish low-to-upper middleclass people are refusing 50 year mortgages.
Doesn’t cost much to keep some upkeep temp in the house, that keeps away mold at least
the houses don’t lose value. the land goes up faster in value than the deprecation on the physical house.
the price of the land is what matters way more than the house on it.
To an extent. But I can buy a house for like 25% of the typical cost around here for a 1986 property versus a recent build, even with comparable location and land area.
Varies by locale, in LA the value of structures are likely a rounding error, in the middle of nowhere, the structure is nearly everything.
yes, but most of the population lives in urban centers. they don’t live in the middle of no where. and it’s not viable for them to move there.
there are houses 2 hours from my city that cost like 200K. i could easily by them. but I can’t live there because it would mean spending 4-5 hours in a car every day. there are no jobs in those towns. anything that’s an hours drive or less, is closer to a million dollars. which i can’t afford.
We prefer to call them investment properties.
Also we have more churches than homeless people. If churches aren’t even helping one of the most disadvantages and the individuals damn near every holy book says to help. What are they doing? They don’t even help the homeless children.
Yes, these are built for investors only.
We need a land value tax to stop real estate speculation.
And if you let people live in them they might depreciate in value. So…
or you cant rent them out in perputuity.
I’d love to ensure everyone has an acceptable home and access to clean water and food. It seems like we could do that.
Conversely, I’ve seen people’s living situations and people are fucking gross. This includes home owners and non homeowners.
People get shit on and then just repeatedly shit on. I’m not sure what I would do, had I held the power. Probably let people have smaller homes and start there. Like those little mini homes? Still homes, still have housing, but limited. Earn more?
Idk. I’m not a politician.
That’s true, but also inversely generally being gross on a property does not outweigh the value of the property over time in most cases. Even having gross tenants over time at market rent generally results in net profit after they leave and any additional cleanup costs incurred, plus you still own the property at the end of the day, and if we’re talking about houses, you probably own the land too.
I’ve seen what you’re describing and I think what you’re getting at is more of a societal systemic issue related to mental health and income. Most people I think would like to live clean and healthy lives, but they either need mental health support they aren’t getting/can’t afford, etc, and/or are spending more time working/taking care of family/battling addiction or whatever and end up not taking care of themselves or where they live
But at the end of the day this is all anecdotal and the whole thing should be addressed by a governing body made up of compassionate voted-in representatives using available resources and a scientific approach that want to fix the problem rather than arbitrary individuals chatting about it
Are you trying to make a case that a gross tenant who doesn’t pay rent is the same as a nice tenant who does pay?
They specifically said that a gross tenant paying market rate is better than no tenant.
Yeah that makes sense. I do wish the humans were more caring of each other. We’re all here together to live. Why not help each other?
Thats not what depreciation means.
If youre trying to say the wear and tear decreases the property’s value, it wouldn’t decrease much more than a rented property, and the investor would have all that rent income.
Also they already get a tax break for depreciation…
In most jurisdictions you cant claim depreciation if the property is not available to rent.
I say it is OK to own 2 houses.
But you guys should make it a crime to own more than 2.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s never okay to hoard more than you need while there others who genuinely need the things being hoarded. This is doubly true for housing.
Housing should be more controlled, but "need’ will always be a fuzzy term if you still want to allow individuals to have different levels of wealth. Nobody needs a huge home, either. Two or three rooms, actually…maybe a little more with kids.
if you still want to allow individuals to have different levels of wealth.
I most certainly do not.
So what’s the allowance for people’s homes in your world? Two rooms and one more for each kid?
What part of “according to need” was unclear?
The need part…
Do i need a home office? Do i need a living room? Do I need a laundry room? Do I need more than two sets of clothes? Do I need a room for my child when she could technically sleep in my room?
Need is a very squishy word
We have more than enough to meet everyones needs - food, water, shelter, clothing, health care - many times over. Conveniences are things that are nice-to-have, but that everyone would still enjoy after all their fundamental needs are met. Hoarding for personal gain while other people suffer is hoarding. This is not a philosophically complicated issue.
probably soviet style flats 2-3 rooms per family. and you can wait 10 years for your government issued car.
It’s not unpopular (at least on Lemmy), that is objectively the morally correct answer.
cool, so you’d be fine if someone came into your home and stole your shit because you don’t ‘need’ it, according to them?
I could be pushed to 3 homes. One person owns a triple-decker building, lives on one floor and rents out the other two to students. That sounds fine to me.
Rereading: you said houses, not homes. 2 houses sounds good. One main home and a mother-in-law unit seems reasonable.
And if you had 3 I’m sure you’d say it’s alright to own 3, correct?
“Those other guys are a part of the problem, not me!”
But hey, beats paying for a hotel in Malibu once a year amirite?
it’s it a solution or more that they’re are abandoned areas with empty houses in places with no jobs or investments which aren’t for for a community?
The housing market crash, I believe was a lost opportunity. When the US government had to bail out banks, why did it not ask for those houses that went belly up. Could have started a social housing aid, here it could sell luxury homes to buy low cost housing to give to its most vulnerable citizens. It paid for those houses using people’s tax dollars, why not use it for the benefit of the people
Because Republicans were in charge when the bank bailout happened. At least the automaker one under Obama had them pay it back with interest.
We can be real and admit that democrats also don’t have an appetite for government housing like that. They had the chance to hold bankers to account for the massive fuck up and decided to not to.
because that’s socialism.
the concept of federal public housing was basically made illegal in the 90s by the welfare reform acts.
the federal government can’t do this by law. legally it is not allowed to increase the number of public housing units beyond those that existed in 1998. it’s called the Faircloth amendement.
Bailing out companies is also not capitalism, ideally should have left them then to go bankrupt
yeah but it’s legal.
Like then at least their assets would have been sold to cover their losses. This way your government is not socialism but it is choosing who are the winners, since they cannot lose
The problem is many of them can’t manage themselves never mind a home. Sticking them in a house and walking off isn’t doing anyone a favor. How would they even pay for utilities, upkeep, and property taxes? We can’t afford to subsidize everything, many of us are struggling to get by ourselves. They’d need jobs to sustain themselves and I doubt many of them could hold a job or qualify for much. Also this just lumps every house in the US into a single category. If you are in CA and refuse to move to Detroit then it doesn’t matter how many available homes there are in Detroit.
I lost track of how many reasons you listed for not helping.
I challenge you to give us three solutions using the knowledge imparted in this post.
Unrealistic “solutions” are not helping. Everything I said has been pointed out even by advocates and those that work with the homeless. Post here how you would create a working plan.
You seem very determined to not have any solutions even if some very baseline options are offered to you.
“No you” is a silly response for an adult.
Well “No you” is essentially what you said so own it. Instead of addressing my points you attacked the messenger. A childish move.
Thanks for the chuckle. I see you’re a Reddit transplant.
We can’t afford to subsidize everything, many of us are struggling to get by ourselves.
You shouldn’t pay for it. Landlords with plenty of housing under their belt and billionaires, though…
If you are in CA and refuse to move to Detroit then it doesn’t matter how many available homes there are in Detroit.
I’m pretty sure plenty of homeless people would take what they’re offered. If they don’t - it’s up to them, but an offer must be made.
But then how else would those poor landlords could afford luxury SUVs? Or if they’re Russian, how else could they fund Russia’s genocide against Ukrainians?
