1,600,000 homes are sitting vacant in Florida alone. Tell me again why we have a homeless problem?

[KamaAina]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-20-of-Florida-homes-cnnm-2507768369.html

It's not always easy to feel sorry for sunny Florida. But it just got hit with another blow.

On Thursday, the Census Bureau revealed that 18% -- or 1.6 million -- of the Sunshine State's homes are sitting vacant. That's a rise of more than 63% over the past 10 years....

The vacancy problem is more dire in Florida than in any other bubble market: In California, only 8% of units were vacant, while Nevada, the state with the nation's highest foreclosure rate, had about 14% sitting empty. Arizona had a vacancy rate of about 16%.

In Florida, the worst-hit county is Collier -- home of Naples -- with a whopping 32% of homes empty. In Sarasota County, 23% of the housing stock sits vacant, while Lee County (Cape Coral) has a 30% vacancy rate. And Miami-Dade County has a vacancy rate of about 12%.

:wow:

[pipoman]

1. Because the homeless, by definition, don't own or rent a home..

[supernova]

2. No, but some people could

be placed in some of these homes ... in exchange for agreeing to housesit and take care of the property for the owner, even if it is the bank.. This would make vandalism and neighborhood gang activity less likely.

[badtoworse]

5. How would you provide security for the owner?

A homeless person is unlikely to have any assets. The owner would want security in case the person in question trashes the place.

[supernova]

10. So you view all homeless people as criminals

bent on destroying property?

[badtoworse]

31. Why do landlords usually require at least a month's rent as security?

Answer: In case you damage the place while you're living there. Would you let someone live in your house without requiring that person to post security? Didn't think so.

[woo me with science]

33. Oh, c'mon. Don't throw away a valid question with a strawman.

The poster didn't say anything about ALL homeless people.

The question is a valid one. It is not bigotry against the homeless to realize that people are not going to open valuable property to just anyone without some safeguards in place. Even you, I daresay, would not pick someone at random off of Craigslist, homeless or not, and welcome them to stay in your house for you for six months while you are out of the country. What actual steps could be taken to make this work in the REAL world, rather than a rhetorical pissing match at DU?

[pipoman]

51. How many homeless (or non-homeless for that matter) strangers

are you willing to put up? How about let borrow your car? Yeah, didn't think so.

[AllyCat]

144. How long have you worked for the banks?

So the homeless person needs assets to live somewhere with a roof and a door with a lock and key?

Since the owner is the BANK, they have plenty of cash to spare. They could give the person a paying JOB to watch the house, mow the lawn (instead of waiting for me to call the city every month when the lawn is a foot high or the sidewalks hasn't been shoveled AGAIN), get it ready for showings to prospective buyers.

The banks don't care about the houses anyway, they got them for free. Better than free. But hey, they have assets so they aren't responsible for their crimes. Oh wait, but the homeless aren't really criminals so it's an unfair analogy.

But then they don't have any stuff... so maybe in our society, they are criminals after all.

[badtoworse]

160. Nice strawman!

Why should a homeless person be treated any differently than a person who rents? No landlord would rent property to someone without security being posted, so why would a bank allow anyone, homeless or otherwise, to live in their house with no security? Do you think a homeless person would be in a position to post security? The banks have an obligation to protect the assets of their shareholders and what you are proposing would most likely jeopardize those assets.

You should spend some time in the real world. If you did, you'd find that things are a lot more complex than, "Hey, the banks caused this; they should let the homeless live in their foreclosed homes and watch them. They should also pay them for it." There have been plenty of real problems with the idea posted on this thread already - liability, insurance, utilities, security, ability to sell the property. How about coming up with some real solutions to those problems before you accuse me of shilling for the banks. If you can't, then you are just blathering.

[AllyCat]

170. It is DISGUSTING that people live in the streets while homes sit vacant

At no expense to them, the banks have these assets just sitting there.

I spend LOTS of time in the real world and have adopted one mantra: tax the rich. Letting people live in empty houses is a tax on the rich that solves a "real world" problem like homelessness.

[badtoworse]

171. This issue is way more complicated than "tax the rich"

If you can't understand that, then you're hopeless and it's a waste of time communicating with you. This issue is about private property rights (which the banks have)and making a deal that would be acceptable to everyone (them included). If you just go to the banks and say, "we want this; you have to give it to us", they'll tell you to go to hell and you'll wind up with nothing. Pass a law to make it happen? Lots of luck with that. Even if you get such a law passed (a very big if), it would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional unless the banks were compensated for the use of their housing.

You remind me of myself when I was a teenager. I used to look at inequity and say the problem is easy to fix if we just did this (a lot of times it was some variant of "tax the rich"). I'm close to retirment age now and I've learned over the years that most problems, especially longstanding, big problems, are complex and involve many competing interests. Solutions happen when reasonable people work through problems and come up with an approach that everyone can live with. When one side refuses to acknowledge the other side's issues and won't deal with them, the processs breaks down and nothing happens. Unfortunately, that is where you are right now.

[Enthusiast]

148. Yes. And we all know that

poor people and the homeless would not be poor and homeless if they had been responsible, you know, like wealthy people, Republicans and investment bankers.

[badtoworse]

161. Another strawman! See Post No. 160.

[Occulus]

168. If owned by a corporation, the corporation should bear the majority (or all) of the risk.

If they don't want to take that risk and pay the property taxes, it's simple. Don't foreclose. Work with the borrower to the best the bank is able to. Make a fucking effort.

We need to make it in their financial best interest to prevent them from foreclosing, among other things. My suggestion would be but one part of that plan.

Yes, that means the bank would be in effect a landlord. We need to make this a serious consequence to their being both banks and insurance firms and investors (AND property owners!), and in that way thwart that part of intent of the Glass-Steagall repeal if we're not going to reinstate it. It will take bluer Democrats than what we currently have in Congress and the Oval Office to achieve this goal, but corporate power in general (and bank power specifically) desperately needs reduction, before multinationals decide to turn us all into the economic serfs they so desire.

We are in a radical position at the moment. We don't need bipartisanship; what we need are radical solutions.

[YvonneCa]

95. Tell me why we have a HOMELESS VETERANS problem in this country...

...??? Here's one solution... ;)

[bobbolink]

106. Tell me why it is necessary to pit one group against another.

HOUSING FOR ALL!

[YvonneCa]

112. Was I doing that? If I did...

...that was not my intent.

[bobbolink]

118. REally? You do know that there are other homeless people besides vets, right?

To paraphrase Sojourner Truth, "Ain't a human, too?"

When we pick a pet group like that, we end up fighting among ourselves for dominance, which is just what the RW wants.

[YvonneCa]

126. Of course. You are assuming a lot...

...in your posts. I have no desire or intent to pick a fight.

[bobbolink]

128. I'm making an important point that has a lot to do with whether ANY of us get what we need.

Seeing that as "picking a fight" is rather narrow.

[YvonneCa]

132. We are not communicating here. You said...

..."When we pick a pet group like that, we end up fighting among ourselves for dominance, which is just what the RW wants."

To me, you seemed to be saying that I had 'picked a pet group' (veterans) and as a result of my doing so, creating a situation (wanted by the RW) where we are fighting among ourselves. So...from my perspective...it seemed you were accusing ME of picking the fight.


I did not accuse you of doing so.

FWIW, I think homelessness for anyone is criminal.

[bobbolink]

134. wow... no, I didn't say that, but thank you for explaining. whew...

Let me try to say it differently.... they WANT us to fight, and that is counterproductive.

I reacted to your statement about vets... and mainly for that reason.. it is pitting one against another.

And there is another reason...I always belong to the group that doesn't count.

I'm not a Vet, so my homelessness doesn't matter.

I'm not middleclass, so there are no protests concerning the issues that are hurting me.

And on and on and on.

After a while, being the "out group" and the one ignored grinds a person down.

So, lets go to your last sentence, and from now on, work for HOUSING FOR ALL.

OK? I don't want ANYONE left out, anymore than I want to be left out.

We really are all in this together, and until there is a real movement for HOUSING FOR ALL, it will be a disaster for all.

[YvonneCa]

135. bobbolink, I just had a feeling...

...we were in agreement. :) NO ONE should be homeless. Thank you for this post...it helped me to understand. :hug:

[bobbolink]

143. Thank you, Yvonne, I really appreciate you saying that!

I guess the point I really want to make is that we keep dividing ourselves into little factions, and it is hurting us.... it is destructive.

We need to remember that we are all in this together, and to WORK together. That is so hard for us 'Murkins, because we are steeped in Rugged Individualism, and those walls are very difficult to break through,

I will continue to speak up to people who are preferring one group against others....people think it is reasonable to do that, and they have their own rationale for their groups of preference, but it is counter-productive, to say the least. I hope you understand now why I spoke up about it, and I hope you will join me in speaking about this. We need to break through this divide and conquer habit.

I so much appreciate that you say you understand now. There is so much vitriol on DU, and people not willing to hear a fact they are not used to hearing. I give you a lot of credit for being willing to do that! :pals:

We who are without homes need your help in this educating project! :hug:

[Cid_B]

108. The homeless often have a history...

... of being unable to take care of themselves let alone someone else's property. Not to mention an influx of drug and alcohol addicts...

[Little Star]

114. Well, the friggin banks often have a history of being unwilling...

to take care of empty property they own,not to mention an influx of drug and alcohol addicts taking over the home.

[Cid_B]

116. Sometimes to the first...

... not sure where you are going with the second.

Take a deep breath and try again...

[Little Star]

122. Huh? What you don't think.....

drug and alcohol addicts take over bank foreclosures?

Just because people are homeless doesn't mean they are addicts. In fact most are not!

Sooooooo, the idea that the homeless should be allowed to live in those empty properties makes a lot of sense. It is when the banks abandon those houses that the addicts take over the houses and trash them.

You need to re-think your argument with a few more details/facts added to it.

There, I took a deep breath and tried once again to help you see that your thinking on this subject is way to narrow. Maybe you just are looking out for those banksters though, who knows.

Good Night.

[RKP5637]

136. +1000 +++ n/t

[AllyCat]

145. +1

House next door to us is case in point.

[RKP5637]

139. Perhaps in some cases, but given the times IMO that's a pretty broad generalization. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

37. it means that "the economy" produces more than enough goods to house people.

[DBoon]

3. Because Americans don't believe in organized squatting

A combination of a pathological respect for private property and an aversion to self organization prevents the logical response to this problem

[leftstreet]

11. +1

[joshcryer]

45. +1000

It'd be so trivial, hell, the government would have to pass a law giving that property to the people, if we had enough numbers. You can't just attack (physically) a million people without there being political backlash.

[DBoon]

124. We would have anarchists threatening to occupy the properties

and the government would have to do something just to prevent this from happening.

Militant direct action always precipitates incremental reform

[nolabels]

142. The homeless camps prove that theory wrong

It's our capitalist entrenched ideas about property value that keep things like they are. It's the same ideas that built all those extra houses in the first place

[rgbecker]

4. Report today house prices have dropped again.....

The sunshine realtors report that they'll stabilize soon then shoot up....buy now!, buy now!

Simple arithmetic shows house prices need to drop substantially to reflect the median household income...which is tanking as sure as the number of union jobs are going overseas.

[RKP5637]

14. We don't have a solution for any of this other than to prop up wall street and

banksters, and let jobs go out of the country. Really bold changes need to occur, but the the country is run by corporate America and none of them give a F about the country unless making a buck. It's a pathological society today in many ways.

The priorities of this country are Qtr to Qtr earnings per share, that's all that counts in the US today. People are an inconvenience. I think in a few more years this is going to be a really dismal place, so very very sad.

[RKP5637]

6. And on top of that some people get upset because new construction isn't booming. n/t

[Blue Owl]

7. The future of America

Millions of homeless, with millions of empty homes.

Have you thanked a Republican today?

[bobbolink]

20. Please, homelessness is not only the fault of Republicans.

I know DUers want to believe that, but it simply isn't true.

The Homelessness Epidemic was caused by Raygun's decimating the low-income housing fund.

Please name a Democrat since then who has reinstated the low-income housing subsidies.

[KillCapitalism]

107. You are exactly right.

Can you recall a time when Obama has spoken out against homelessness? I can't.

[bobbolink]

110. Certainly not since his campaign, if even then.

:cry:

But I'm supposed to bust my homeless butt to vote for him, because he will be better for middleclass people.

:nuke:

[KillCapitalism]

113. LOL had to laugh at that one

The only people he has been better for are the haves and the have mores, just like Bush.

[bobbolink]

119. Yeah,, I guess it would be funny.... except that I'm damned tired of living in my car.

And getting blasted by some on DU.

[Angry Dragon]

8. Just waiting for the next bubble

[RKP5637]

165. It's going to happen, definitely. I was just commenting earlier today they're all

back again, banks, credit cards, deals on this or that, bigger cars, buy this, buy that, just watching the crap ads on TV. When you run everything based on growth, and make the nations' priority qtr to qtr earnings, it's a fools paradise.

[bobbolink]

9. Who is going to subsidize the cost of the housing?

Homeless people can't even afford the price of the cheap apartments... which is why we are homeless.

How are we going to afford a HOUSE?

[Horse with no Name]

19. In a perfect world which we don't live in

since the banks own the homes and our tax dollars bailed out the banks, it would seem that some type of barter could be used for the homeless to use sweat equity (for those that are able) to become home owners.

How in good conscious can we have people and entire families in cardboard boxes and cars when we have homes sitting unused?

I know the answer is that we do NOT have good conscience. Therein lies the reason that people are homeless and houses sit empty.

[bobbolink]

22. (for those WHO are able). Which leaves out a whole lot of us.

And right there, is a big problem.

[Horse with no Name]

26. For those that are able

simply means that ones that can, could and the ones that can't, wouldn't be required to.

[bobbolink]

32. I realize that is what YOU meant. The reality is much different, and I have been trying to make

people more aware of that. Language matters, and in this case, it matters a LOT. Widespread use of the term "working poor" has had a very negative effect on housing.

Then there is also the problem of single mothers who are working 2 jobs, and still expected to do all the motherly duties. Where would the time and energy be to do physical labor on property?

I understand that people see homeless people and empty houses and think... AHA.. there is the solution.

But it doesn't work that way.

Unless and until all of you start agitating for low-income housing, the situation will only continue to get worse.

[supernova]

28. ^^This is more what I was getting at

some kind of barter system where you could live in the house and take care of the lawn, do MINOR repairs and in exchange live rent and utility free or at very reduced utility cost. I'm not saying anybody has to be a master carpenter, just the usual DIY that any homeowner would have to do. It's a damn site better for the bank and the neighborhood if a place is occupied and not vacant and dark.

Also, the meager social services that we do have most depend on you having a fixed address just to be able to apply. Being able to live somewhere would give you an address at least.

If at anytime the house is finally sold, then you could 1) apply to own it yourself 2)move to a new place that needs a caretaker.

[bobbolink]

36. So, you would leave out people too old and too physically incapable?

What about single mothers who work two jobs and have no time or energy left? (Unless of course, you think she should do EVERYTHING, in which case, she will be reported for neglecting her children.)

Take out those groups, and you have removed a very sizeable population of homeless people.

[pitohui]

99. try this supernova, it won't work, but try it yourself to see what the problem is

the folks who have it together enough to figure out a sensible barter system and keep the house in repair/occupied so the owner can keep the insurance (which is closed by the insurance co. if no one lives in the home)...doesn't work

reason it doesn't work, those folks who are well organized enough to do that "stuff" get jobs and buy their own homes, why should they sit and care take some landlord's property?

i have not known of such an exchange to end well or to work at all, the renters are substance abusers and do fuck all (except sometimes burn down the property) and the landlords who take such offers aren't much better...it's crackheads mutually exploiting crackheads and if it doesn't end in a hurricane it ends in a fire

when i was fucking homeless at some point i could put up a fucking tent or get somebody to give me a couch...and i think that's true of every homeless person who doesn't have very serious issues that can't be dealt with by individual effort, most homeless have severe physical or mental illnesses and sometimes both of these, you can't just hand them a house, you have to come by and fry the fish for them every damn day, they're that damaged

our solutions to problems need to acknowledge that there are a lot of people out there with very serious brain and body malfunctions that can't be fixed with "logic," a concept they can't understand

it would be nice to say, look dillweed, there's an empty house over there, MOVE IN, but when they do (if they do) they then get all stupid and burn it down, people with problems that severe they have to be told to get in out of the rain are beyond simple solutions

we need group housing for that crowd, with a fire engine on call 24/7

ronald reagan is the problem here, some folks are just too broken to live on their own AND IT CAN'T BE FIXED, some broken bones don't heal, the reality is we need a different solution other than pretending the houses are out there to be occupied (which is a damn lie anyway, maybe in nevada they are, in florida, give me evidence...)

now you are sitting here reading this and thinking, she's nuttier than a squirrel full of acorns ==now get out there and see for yourself, i'm mental health week itself compared to the average long term homeless person -- THEY'RE CRAZIER THAN PITOUI!!! PICTURE THAT...then figure out how you'd deal w. someone crazier than me, not so easy, is it?

[AllyCat]

152. As I've stated earlier, the banks can pay for it and pay the people for living there

They have PLENTY OF CASH and have stolen it probably from the people who are homeless.

[badtoworse]

154. Can you make a case that it is in their interest to do so?

If not, your post is ridiculous

[AllyCat]

157. As a bank supporter, I don't expect you to understand

I don't feel it is in their interest. It is in OUR interest which is completely at odds with the bank mentality of "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine". They've taken our tax dollars and not done rat poop with it to help the housing/foreclosure fiasco. They can now use our tax dollars to put up the poor who have few benefits and will have fewer in the not too distant future...so that we can afford war and propping up the banks.

[badtoworse]

162. See Post No. 160

The idea has real problems associated with it and if you are serious about making the idea work, you can't just blow them off - you need to find solutions to the problems. This is about understanding the business world, not just supporting the banks. You are dealing with BUSINESS people and whether you like it or not, if an idea doesn't make business sense, it's not going to happen. I'm sorry, but that's reality.

[brooklynite]

12. Homelessness is not solved simply by providing homes...

I'm willing to best most of the vacant house stock in FL is in suburban developments that 1) are no place near available job sites and 2) require a car to get almost anywhere.

[KamaAina]

75. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Florida from having decent transit

or any of these other areas, for that matter. In fact, Miami-Dade does a pretty decent job of it.

[mrcheerful]

13. Why don't they put homeless in these houses, mainly because the homelesss

don't deserve homes, food or jobs. The right has made them scape goats for everything wrong in the US, why food stamps alone account for half the federal deficit according to the talking heads on the right. Just like unions forced the big 3 to build auto's no one wanted, see it is easier to blame poor or workers for problems rather then take steps to solve the problems. Why haven't you heard? It was poor people who caused the housing market collapse by forcing banks to give them loans they couldn't afford, so they deserve to be homeless, besides homeless are homeless because they want to be, it's easier then working. Don't get them started on how medicaid and medicare forced health insurance companies to drop more people and how that takes up the other half of the US budget, why Glenn Beck showed them how that worked on his magic black board.

edited because jouses is not a word

[bobbolink]

25. What you are leaving out is the Democratic side of this equation.

Unless, of course, you are saying that all those reasons are also what some Democrats say.

And you would be correct.

[mrcheerful]

35. Parties don't really mater though the R's have a lot more of those types then

the D's have and mostly those D's come from majority of R districts, but humans are pretty screwed up on beliefs so your going to get crossed lines on subjects. the difference is the R's don't tolerate dissenter's in the ranks whereas D's do.

[bobbolink]

39. Then its not necessary to keep stipulating "Republicans", is it?

The constant knee-jerk reaction to keep blaming Republicans when the Democrats have been just as much at fault needs to end.

You DO know that Obama's budget proposal contains another large cut to low-income housing, right?

Yet, he is not technically a Republican.

[anarch]

15. this can be the model for the whole country

just a bunch of empty houses that nobody can afford, and hundreds of millions of unemployed people living in the streets.

[bobbolink]

52. It isn't just "unemployed".. THAT is a current issue, not the real picture.

By stating it that way, it makes those of us who have been homeless before the current crisis easier to ignore.

Who you have forgotten:

1. Old people.

2. Disabled people.

3. Working people who don't get enough wages to afford a place to live.

[onenote]

137. hundreds of millions of unemployed living in the streets?

How many people do you think live in the US?

[anarch]

140. a couple hundred million

don't worry, given time, nearly all of us will be disenfranchised.

[Modern_Matthew]

16. Adequate housing has yet to be recognized as a human right. It's overdue. nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Because the neighbors don't want homeless people loitering around.

Don't take it personally. They don't want anybody looking too happy.

[StarburstClock]

18. We live in a corrupt country, price-fixing, fraud and accounting tricks reign.

Until financial and other criminals are held accountable with arrests, trials and convictions, homes will remain vacant, people will remain uninsured, war and torture will continue in our names and widespread cultural fraud will remain the norm.

[RKP5637]

40. Exactly what is going on. n/t

[NightWatcher]

21. who would pay the utilities, groceries, upkeep on these squatting houses?

and how would you like to have the home next door to you full of homeless people?

that would turn neighborhoods to squatter colonies with people burning fires for food and warmth.

[yardwork]

44. If people were living in the houses then they wouldn't be homeless anymore.

Do your neighbors burn fires for food and warmth? Why do you assume that previously homeless people would do so? It sounds like you think that all homeless people are irresponsible.

[WatsonT]

65. So they'd pay for utlities with . . .

what exactly?

"It sounds like you think that all homeless people are irresponsible"

How many are you currently rooming with?

[Tsiyu]

70. Jayzuss

it's here, just like bobbolink says.

Homeless are often viewed as "savages" - until YOU get really, really sick and can't pay the mortgage/rent and then you find out YOU are the homeless.

Do you pay your light bill if you have the money?

Do YOU sit around lighting twig fires in your living room and roasting skinned sqirrels you trapped in your attic?


Jayzuss.

If, by some terrible twist of fate, you lost everything tomorrow, WatsonT, would you rather hear the stuff YOU are saying right now? Or would you rather people treat you like a human being?

Maybe you would like someone to find you a place? help you with utilities? feed you? Not view you as some sort of feral sub-human incapable of functioning?


And yes, homeless people have lived with me. And have gone on to find other homes. And they lit no fires in my living room and they helped clean and pay bills.










These sorts of posts just amaze me in this place and time....

[bobbolink]

72. Just because YOU roast squirrels in your living room, don't assume that EVERYONE does!

:rofl:

Thanks, Tsiyu! With choking on the damned smoke from the fires (yes, getting close.....), I really needed that laugh, and you caught me totally off guard.

There really are some amazing thoughts here, eh?

:hug:

[Tsiyu]

74. Woman, I will grill you some hickory-smoked trout or venison

but I leaves them squirrels alone. :P



What a naive bunch sometimes...with the "us" and the "them" cuz they saw some After School Special once about the homeless and they've seen a few obnoxious homeless (or maybe not homeless, just obnoxious :shrug: ) people up the street, so ALL people without access to adequate housing are barely able to grunt out one word responses and are covered with a thick, downy fur.

Jayzuss i want to wake up where people have woke up.


I'm gonna get some more coffee going and contemplate the dusk

[bobbolink]

78. Yummm, trout! Yes, pleeeez! But, for now, please leave the smoke out of it....

the fire is a bit tooo close for comfort, and the smoke does a nasty on my lungs.

As for the other... welcome to my world.... its what I deal with day in and day out. People who think of themselves as being very intelligent..... totally lose it when it comes to homelessness.

And speaking of shovels.... one woman who considers herself my intellectual superior, when I was saying I was really afraid of a heavy snowfall and getting trapped in my car actually (yes, she really did) said to me, "Don't you have a shovel?"

That cracked me up... I just said, "I realize it may look like I have everything in my car, but its not possible to have implements of destruction (to quote Arlo)"

I mean, really.

She could have said, "If we get a lot of snow, I will come check on you, OK?"

That's what I would have done for HER.

But, no............ :crazy:

[Tsiyu]

83. I hear you

I live in a place where people don't wait for you to ask for help; they see you need it and they offer it and follow through.

But i have been in situations where neighbors would rather judge than lend assistance. It's rough.

I enjoy helping people; I'm not afraid of the human race.

Some people haven't been out of their subdivision nest/work cubicle/strip mall forage cycle in a while, I gather.

Scary homeless people!!!!!!AHHHHH RUN for your lives!!!! :)


I hear you bobbie.


And sorry about the fire. Stay safe as you can and I hope the air gets cleaner.
:hi:

[WatsonT]

104. You do realize that a great many homeless

suffer from mental illnesses and substance abuse?

They need to be treated and taken care of, but giving them a house no questions asked is not the solution.


"Do YOU sit around lighting twig fires in your living room and roasting skinned sqirrels you trapped in your attic?"

No. I'm also not homeless.

"If, by some terrible twist of fate, you lost everything tomorrow, WatsonT, would you rather hear the stuff YOU are saying right now? Or would you rather people treat you like a human being?"

I wouldn't expect anyone to assume that due to losing my job I am somehow a saint and a pillar of the community, free from all the problems that everyone else has.

"Maybe you would like someone to find you a place? help you with utilities? feed you? Not view you as some sort of feral sub-human incapable of functioning?"

No exaggeration there. Why stop half way? Why not claim I'm in favor of rounding them up in to camps and gassing them?

"And yes, homeless people have lived with me. And have gone on to find other homes. And they lit no fires in my living room and they helped clean and pay bills."


And you just let in any old average person off the streets? Color me skeptical.

[Tsiyu]

167. Now, the truth

The homeless as a population do not suffer from drug abuse/mental illness in any greater proportion than the "housed."

(many of the homeless are children.)

Nowhere did I advocate 'giving homes to the homeless no questions asked.'


I am sure all the newly homeless Japanese appreciate your comments.

I'm even more sure that if an earthquake/flood/hurricane whatever destroys your home, you will have an entirely different view of the homeless.

All I'm asking is that you assess your opinion of the homeless based on facts, not on some "us" and "them" mentality fed by the media.

[yardwork]

97. You're assuming that all homeless people have zero money, zero resources, and are totally useless.

[WatsonT]

105. I'm assuming they don't have much money and are limited in resources

yeah. Millionaires don't need assistance.

[yardwork]

141. Millionaires are the ones getting the assistance. We've spent billions bailing them out.

[KamaAina]

77. Who's paying them now?

Well, not groceries, of course. But there are entire subdivisions, here in CA as well as in FL, that are on the verge of becoming modern-day ghost towns.

[AllyCat]

146. The banks would pay. They have PLENTY of money

I'd take someone living next door to the empty shell with the gate flapping in the wind and people walking up and down our driveway trying to get into it ANY DAY.

[BobbyBoring]

149. Unless

It was someone like my homeless BIL who would have the place in ruins within a week.

[AllyCat]

151. Hell, regular "asset holding" HOMEOWNERS do that.

I don't think being homeless necessarily means they can't live anywhere.

[Ikonoklast]

23. Homelessness and empty houses are two different problems.

Until we solve for one, we will never be able to solve for the other, in fact, it will get worse.


The sad part is that many of those houses will not get sold, just decline in value from neglect under bank ownership until they are uninhabitable, instead of being sold for whatever current market value is (and that ISN'T what they say it is).

[Horse with no Name]

24. Curious. I know someone has the answer. What is the rate of homelessness

in Venezuela? What about Cuba?

[closeupready]

27. Because Oliver Twist was too much fun once not to do twice.

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

29. Hmm. I own a house outright. The cost of living in it is

substantial, even though I don't have any house payment. Homelessness is not solved simply by moving a homeless person into an empty house. Far from it. It's a much bigger problem than that. Think about it for a bit.

I'll give you just a tiny, tiny example. Across the street from me is a young man from Chad, who is renting a house, where he lives with his wife and child. I'm not sure how they manage the rent, but this house in in Minnesota. After our blizzard of last December, this young man was out trying to clear his driveway and sidewalk with a flat piece of metal. I took a snow shovel over for him, and suggested that he get one. "No money," he said. So I gave him that one and bought a new one for myself. One tiny example of how just being in a house does not solve the problem.

Without some way to pay for electricity, heat, water, and repair broken stuff (and stuff is always breaking), a house is more of a drag than a benefit.

[yardwork]

42. It sounds like your neighbor from Chad is doing ok, though. His neighbor (you) helped him out.

Yes, houses require upkeep and that is difficult for people with no jobs or money. As you say, it can be a financial drag. However, if we step back and look at the picture from an even larger perspective, it is much more cost-effective for our country to help people live in houses than to house them in homeless shelters or let them die on the streets. That is, it is more cost-effective if we believe that the value of a human life is more than zero. Factor in the disruption that homelessness causes to children and project the costs to our society of those children as they grow and reach adulthood without having had a stable home life and we get an inkling of how expensive it really is to our society to keep people on the street. Again, that is only if one agrees that a human life has value.

I think that most everybody on DU would agree that human lives have value and none of us want to let people die in the street.

Once we agree on that bedrock principle maybe we can start looking for solutions that require some paradigm shifting. Like maybe the CEOs of banks shouldn't get everything as a default.

[bobbolink]

50. Very good points.

[Tsiyu]

71. "One tiny example of how just being in a house does not solve

the problem."


Okaaaay.

So the guy hadn't have the proper snow-removal implement, so it would be better he live out in the street with his family? In Minnesota?

Again...Jayzuss.

At least the home he is in provides shelter, warmth, a place to rest, hopefully running water and a place to cook. That's the basis for life.

The rest of the stuff comes later, hopefully with help from people who don't judge.

And with allocations set aside for the weakest, the way we set aside plenty for the very strongest.

[bobbolink]

73. If you don't stop being so damned RATIONAL, I'm going to hafta... I'm gonna....

I'lll be forced to give you a :hug:

[Tsiyu]

79. I'm really fed up with all the merde

Few can see the forest for the trees.


But you do, so I give you a :hug: right back.

Here's to critical thinking skills :toast:

[bobbolink]

80. Is that Greek? ^_^ Just remember, people keep telling me not to give up.

I think you are seeing why so many homeless people DO give up, right?

It just goes on and on and on and on... topped with nastiness.

:loveya:

[Tsiyu]

81. Swearese

or Cursish :)


Keep on keepin on...in between the sighs.

[dogday]

30. We have a homeless problem because others do not wish to

help or even be near a homeless person. It is freaking sad as shit that people feel that way. Now if those houses were needed by those who have money, then no problem, we as a public don't mind if "those kind of people" lived in those houses but homeless people, well that's a different story altogether. :sarcasm:

[badtoworse]

41. "we as a public" don't have a say in what happens to those houses.

The houses have owners - it's their call.

[yardwork]

47. The owners of the houses appear to be the banks that we the taxpayers bailed out.

I think that we should have a say. Why should we bail out banks with billions of dollars of taxpayer money and then let the banks let the houses sit empty?

[badtoworse]

53. Because loans have terms and conditions.

When the government loaned money to the banks to keep them afloat, there were terms and conditions associated with the loans. I doubt there were any provisions for the government dictating what the banks should do with their assets (such as vacant houses). In any case, those the bailout loans have largely been repaid, so even if the government had a basis to step in, that window has most likely closed.

[yardwork]

91. I disagree that we no longer have any say. We came to their rescue. They can be asked to reciprocate

And if there weren't any provisions exacted by the government in return for billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, then shame on the government for making such a poor bargain and shame on us for letting it happen.

We have got to start thinking beyond the terms laid out by the for-profit corporations.

[bobbolink]

93. "shame on the government for making such a poor bargain and shame on us for letting it happen."

:applause:

[yardwork]

98. High five. I can't believe the things I'm reading in this thread.

Bobbolink, I have to tell you that I am appalled. I know that you've been telling us this for years, but I had no idea that there were such deep, deep prejudices and misconceptions about people who have had the misfortune to lose their homes.

Parts of this thread have left my jaw hanging open.

[bobbolink]

100. Thank you so much. You have no idea how much that means to me.

But, Elie Wiesel was correct.. the worst is the not caring.

"The Perils Of Indifference".

audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLsi1OV8GA0

transcript
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/wiesel-transcript.htm

The just not caring is frightening, and totally invalidates a human being.

Again, thanks!

[badtoworse]

101. "asked" being the operative word

Assuming the government asked to set up such a program, then it's possible that a mutually acceptable arrangement could be negotiated. There would be numerous issues to be resolved before the banks would (or should) agree to the program. Other posters have pointed out a number of them: Who's legally responsible for the property if someone is injured on it? Who pays the utilities? Who pays for the insurance? Who posts security in case the property is damaged? If the property is sold, what happens to the homeless tenant?

The properties in question are part of the banks' assets and the banks have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to protect those assets. A poorly designed program would jeopardize those assets and should be rejected by the banks.

Just because the government loaned bailout money to the banks, it does not have the right to make the banks act against the interests of their shareholders.

[yardwork]

102. Then maybe the government should not loan bailout money to for-profit entities.

[badtoworse]

103. We can at least agree on that - nt

[bobbolink]

55. Oh, there is "help". There are plenty of people who will tell you they "donate".

How people think they can "donate" enough to build the necessary 3 million units of housing that constitute the shortage.... it is just amazing.

When people all take it seriously that adequate low-income housing is needed, then things will begin to change.

Until then..... we have a Homelessness Epidemic.

[bobbolink]

82. Promise, you don't have to be anywhere near me to work for low-income housing.

I promise.

Really.

:hi:

[ArcticFox]

34. Because the rich are stealing America

First, they run up prices by offering low interest rates, even negative interest rates for some period. Second, they crash the economy. Third, mortgage rates adjust per plan. Fourth, they take the homes of all those people they knew would be forced into foreclosure. Fifth, they don't care.

We gave them trillions after they crashed the economy. We believed our government would help those of us forced into dire straits by lower wages and higher mortgage rates. And we are silent as our government turns a blind eye to the massive fraud perpetrated on us.

Who's to blame? Can we fault the rich for taking full advantage of our ignorance, complacency and foregiveness?

We are to blame. We should be actively bringing down the rich, the banks, the corporations.

There are millions homeless because we are afraid to rock the boat.

[csziggy]

38. And the developers are still building MORE houses

That they don't have buyers for.

[RKP5637]

46. Frankly in my lifetime it's become a totally F'ed country. The priorities in the US

are absolutely asinine and the way we handle problems is deplorable. The reason being is the cornered wealth in this country, for the most part, really doesn't give a F about the country, the people, unless making a buck.

And that cuts across all political parties. We act like someone cares ... they don't give a F. George Carlin was the most on the spot and correct person to publicly call the US for what it has become. And now basically with 20% unemployment. Ridiculous.

This is la la land.

[yardwork]

48. It's very discouraging how unwilling people are to question the status quo.

I agree with you. In my fifty years on this planet the country seems to have been taken over by greedy pigs, and the vast majority of the people are standing around wringing their hands.

[RKP5637]

62. A start would be if all Americans even knew who the VP of the country was. Apparently

about 1/3 of the country doesn't even know the name of our VP. I just find it difficult anymore to make excuses for my fellow citizens and their apathy for about everything. The reality shows attract more attention than the future of the US. People sit around and expect everyone to do stuff for them, even vote for them.

[yardwork]

90. I agree. Freepers obviously know how to use the internet, so there's no excuse for their ignorance.

And it's not just the extreme right-wing. Millions of people in this country take for granted their rights and as a result their rights are slowly disappearing.

[Rage for Order]

43. In a word: lawyers

Lawyers set up the current system that caused the economy to crash. If we suddenly opened up all of these empty houses for homeless people to live in them for free, what do you think would happen anytime someone got injured on one of these properties? I'll give you a hint: personal injury attorneys would be lined up to sue the property owner (or someone, anyone) for negligence.

[bobbolink]

57. .

:rofl:

[Rage for Order]

61. Is there a substantive argument in there somewhere?

Because I've worked in both residential and commercial mortgage finance, and the people who draw up the loan agreements go to law school before they become bankers. Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns & Lehman Brothers (before both went under)...the vast majority of the executives in those companies went to law school. Also, who do you think wrote the laws that favor the banking industry? It wasn't welders and electricians.

[bobbolink]

63. So sorry you don't like lawyers. So very sorry.

:rofl:

[Rage for Order]

64. It's not lawyers per se; I'm just going to the lowest common denominator

And anytime you go to the lowest of anything you'll usually find a lawyer.

:rofl:

[Vanje]

153. If they die of exposure outdoors, they can't sue you

Its a win / win!

[Marblehead]

49. ain't capitalism grand

[bobbolink]

58. Well, that certainly solves it.

[FLPanhandle]

54. Too many legal barriers to put homeless people in them.

If a house does sell, how do you get them out? Evictions can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.

What if someone is injured on the property? Who's insurance covers any lawsuits?

Damages to the property. Who's paying for that?

The threat of lawsuits would keep the few owners who are willing to let the homeless stay in an empty house from doing so.

[badtoworse]

59. All very valid points

This OP is a good example of an idea that sounds great until you start to work through the details.

[grahamhgreen]

86. GIVE the houses to the homeless. They are abandoned and should be treated as salvage.

[FLPanhandle]

92. The homes still have owners.

They may be empty but they have owners. Either people who bought them as investment properties and can't unload them, owners trying to rent them, banks, or mortgage companies.

They are for sale or for rent. The legal issues still remain unless the government buys them from the owners.

[grahamhgreen]

127. Most civilized countries allow for abandoned properties to be homesteaded. They are salvage.

Most of the properties are owned by financial mobs.

If you abandon a ship at sea, anyone can claim it.

Its time for squatters rights: After 1 or 2 years of languishing, any property should be forfeited to squatters.

Abandoned properties are a blight on Communities, and we have a right to protect our properties by preventing this blight.

[Tsiyu]

169. A good portion of this land was settled by homesteading

it was common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to give land grants to soldiers in lieu of pay, (even when many of those grants were illegal due to treaties, but I digress.)

if these homes are only going to rot due to inoccupancy, why not have the government take them by eminent domain and disperse them to those who need them?

our nation was founded on this principle of homesteading...it can work today..

These homes can also be made into group homes, multi-family housing, daycare centers, elder-care centers, etc.

They can be put to good use rather than becoming eyesores.

[Vanje]

155. Good! Freeze em out.

Dead people can't sue you.

[ChiciB1]

56. I Live In Sarasota County & It REALLY, REALLY Is THE PITS For People0le

who have lost their homes. Many have just walked away, but THIS is not something that can be lumped into "homelessness." To put homeless people in many of these homes they'll have to have INCOME to keep them running.

Sarasota county is a VERY RICH county, #2 or #3 in per capita income and yet MANY of the upper class homes are up for sale and some sitting idle! So many people can't even afford the electric bills, much less keeping the places up to par! There are fees and deed restrictions that go along with so many homes.

However, they HAVE finally decided that we could have a tent city, but it's growing bigger and bigger every day! My anxiety level living here in Florida grows day by day, even IF the weather if great right now. In just about 1 month we are going to have some very, very hot weather and ELECTRIC bills have gotten higher and higher! I'm not sure I'll be able to afford to run my AC because of it! Putting it off as long as possible, but we have 2 chocolate labs and the temperatures inside my house can "wilt" many of us Floridians.

But, to move homeless people in many of these homes doesn't seem like a plausible solution because the local GOVERNMENT isn't going to pay the costs. I HAD ONCE thought several months ago that things might turn upward, but it's gotten MUCH WORSE! Many, many homes all around the county are vacant as many people have LITERALLY walked away and decided to rent instead. My neighbor who moved in across the street is now renting having left his home because it was too expensive to keep. And he's a MORTICIAN! Florida is known for older people, so if a MORTICIAN is having problems paying his bills that should be a real RED FLAG! Just 2 weeks ago a woman who had cancer died (maybe 40 yrs old) and then her husband killed himself. They had one son who is 19 and was about to further his schooling, but he can't get ANY funds until he's 25! So the house is now up for sale and the kid has to move in with relatives up north! That makes 8 houses on my street up for sale and it's only about 3 short blocks!

So many, many people are hurting, and WHY those in power don't understand that the COUNTY LOOSES tax money because of this is beyond my comprehension!!! Instead the cost of water and electricity keeps going up, not to mention FOOD!

And there are so many garage/yard sales around that you can buy just about ANYTHING at basement prices! I've been shopping them for about a month now and have been able to stock up on lots of toiletries and cleaning products -- name brand products. Just bought 3 bottles of AVON liquid soap, never opened) for $1.50! Plus some other unopened items like toilet paper and paper towels for $1.00! This one was at an estate sale and they were practically GIVING the stuff away! Bought a coffee pot for $2.50 and a lamp with a shade for $2.00! Also bought a recliner chair, almost new for $30.00! I DID need a new chair because my other one was so old and falling apart! I only buy the "deals" but people can find fantastic buys from Friday to Sunday around here in this very rich county!

But I'm afraid they DON'T care much about HOMELESSNESS! And for those of us who used to be middle class, times are getting very tough! I started a garden but will HAVE to watch it like a hawk because of all the pests and small animals who will raid it. We also are seeing a glut of cats and dogs that people just left stranded. It breaks my heart to see them without homes, but if we start feeding them, other people get upset saying it only encourages them. I DO understand, but we are reaching crisis points.

ENOUGH, I have many stories to tell, but too many are depressing!!

BUT WAR... now THAT'S something that gets the moolah!

[Shagbark Hickory]

60. Why? For-profit housing.

[marions ghost]

66. I like this comment from the link

"Problem with Florida is it's being overrun by Burmese pythons that escaped and bred with each other. I'd never live there for that reason."

:wow:

McMansions surrounded by Burmese pythons. Might make good lairs for drug lords driving Hummers.

[marions ghost]

68. Another not so high on Florida living:

"Florida, flat, hot, humid and lots of snobs. You can keep it."

[Zebedeo]

163. Most of the pythons did not "escape."

They were set loose in the swamps by their owners after they got too big and too much trouble to take care of.

[timtom]

67. I just had this discussion with a woman today.

Of course we both agreed that it is an absurd situation, but that this great nation of ours would have to undergo a massive attitude shift away from "me first." And, since it hasn't happened yet, it probably won't.

I mentioned to another friend that, instead of pissing away trillions on mass destruction in three -- count 'em -- three sovereign nations, we could have done more for the people of Haiti. She wondered why "her money" had to be spent in that way.

It's called "missing the bigger picture."

[onethatcares]

69. could someone tell me what building more would accomplish

dickscott thinks it would be a wonderful thing to fill more wetlands and build more piles of crap for investors to be reimbursed for.

[fascisthunter]

76. because of greed and too many Americans sucking on that fetid tit called Capitalism

people are stuck in a system they do not know how to change. They are not seeing the big picture because right now Johnny has a second shift to work off a hospital bill that his health insurance policy won't cover.

[bobbolink]

84. That diagnosis is sure to change the homelessness picture for the better.

[grahamhgreen]

85. The selfishness of modern America will be stuff of legend.

[slay]

87. Capitalism

i think everyone's basic needs should be covered - food, water, shelter. Seems logical - no hungry, no homeless. We, as a species could make it happen. But not under capitalism. All capitalism cares about is $$$$, not people. :(

[badtoworse]

88. Sounds great! How would you get it done?

[slay]

89. I first heard about Basic Income Grants from Fred Block but check this out: "A Basic Income for All"

"A Basic Income for All
If you really care about freedom, give people an unconditional income.

Philippe Van Parijs

Entering the new millennium, I submit for discussion a proposal for the improvement of the human condition: namely, that everyone should be paid a universal basic income (UBI), at a level sufficient for subsistence.

In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations.

Yet, in those nations, productivity, wealth, and national incomes have advanced sufficiently far to support an adequate UBI. And if enacted, a basic income would serve as a powerful instrument of social justice: it would promote real freedom for all by providing the material resources that people need to pursue their aims. At the same time, it would help to solve the policy dilemmas of poverty and unemployment, and serve ideals associated with both the feminist and green movements. So I will argue.

I am convinced, along with many others in Europe, that–far from being utopian–a UBI makes common sense in the current context of the European Union.1 As Brazilian senator Eduardo Suplicy has argued, it is also relevant to less-developed countries–not only because it helps keep alive the remote promise of a high level of social solidarity without the perversity of high unemployment, but also because it can inspire and guide more modest immediate reforms.2 And if a UBI makes sense in Europe and in less developed countries, why should it not make equally good (or perhaps better) sense in North America?3 After all, the United States is the only country in the world in which a UBI is already in place: in 1999, the Alaska Permanent Fund paid each person of whatever age who had been living in Alaska for at least one year an annual UBI of $1,680. This payment admittedly falls far short of subsistence, but it has nonetheless become far from negligible two decades after its inception. Moreover, there was a public debate about UBI in the United States long before it started in Europe. In 1967, Nobel economist James Tobin published the first technical article on the subject, and a few years later, he convinced George McGovern to promote a UBI, then called "demogrant," in his 1972 presidential campaign."

much more at: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

[bobbolink]

94. Nixon proposed this, and since then it is only us flakes who talk about it.

NEVER going to happen until there is a mass movement that DEMANDS it.

[badtoworse]

115. Interesting article - he makes a good case on some points

On balance though, I don't think the idea could be implemented in the US.

He glosses over the matter of paying for it. It's pretty obvious that governments, both state and federal, do not have the resources to make good on all the contracts, pension plans, entitlements and other obligations they currently have because they are broke. Anyone who thinks they are going to get everything the government promised is either dreaming or smoking some pretty good shit. Many of these obligations will not be met as programs get eliminated, benefits get cut and perhaps some states will go bankrupt. Taxes will likely rise for everyone. Assuming a poverty level UBI, the cost would be about $4.5 Trillion per year. There is no way that could be layered on top of existing government obligations that can't even be met now. I don't believe it would be politically possible to cut enough programs to pay for such a UBI even if we transitioned into it over a number ot years.

By now, you're likely thinking, "let's just get it from the rich". First off, I believe the hole we are in is so deep that even if we confiscated all their assets, we'd still be in a deep hole - in short, I don't believe they have enough. Second, the rich didn't get that way by being stupid. They have already taken or will take steps to protect their assets from confiscation. Yeah, we could and should get more money from them, but it wouldn't be even close to enough.

In the long run, we would have to abdicate our role as a superpower to have a chance at such a scheme. I don't believe we should do that and I doubt such a concept would win politically.

Perhaps the biggest problem would be the American mindset. I believe it would be opposed by the great majority in this country, even by those who might benefit from it.

[slay]

131. The super rich would pay

they have fucked over so many people and screwed up this planet so bad - they owe it. I know it is impossible under the current HORRIBLE political climate. Maybe if us humans actually survive the next 300 years our descendants can achieve this in the future and not make the same mistakes people in our time period are making. :shrug:

[piedmont]

123. That would be great in a perfect world. But what happens when some people squander the money?

I'm sure this would be a life-saver for those who are capable of managing money but have had some misfortune. But how many chronically homeless people fit in that group? Drug addiction, gambling addiction, bad decisions, and mental illness will keep some people from affording housing (and food, etc.) even with UBI. What will happen to them? Will they still be homeless? What success rate would justify having the program?

[slay]

130. You mean like the rich are now?

this is already a problem. What basic income grants do is ONLY cover housing and food. That's it. It's not money more like a voucher for a housing and month to month basic food. Anything else people can work for - just nobody will starve or go hungry.

[pitohui]

96. i'm going to suggest that this is not the truth, not to say the media would lie or anything like tha

think about it, if something is too good to be true, if something is unbelievable...it's usually at the end of the day because it's a lie

there are no empty homes in louisiana, five years plus after katrina, with massive destruction of the housing market so maybe this colors my thinking but please keep in mind in 2004, the year before katrina, florida was hit by FOUR hurricanes in a row, causing damage to 1 out of five properties in the state

a great many people in florida live in RVs and mobile homes

maybe there are all these magical empty homes waiting to be occupied and maybe they're aint, i'm saying...let's see somebody find one of these empty homes and show us how

i'm smelling the distinct scent of lie frankly...yah, the media lies, who knew!

[Amaril]

138. I'm willing to bet...........

...the vast majority of empty homes are condos. There was a HUGE condo construction boom -- all over the state -- right before the crash.

Until a couple months ago, I was living in south Florida (Palm Beach County) and there was a developer in Homestead (south of Miami) that was trying to unload brand new, never lived in condos for $40,000. Four years ago, those same condos would have probably sold for $200,000 or more.

[pitohui]

158. you almost have to be right -- these ain't "homes," these MUST be condos

this and the other poster saying these are not "houses" or "homes..." these are condos, maybe vacation rentals that proved to be big money losers when the actual cost of hurricane insurance is factored in and so on, not people's primary homes...

there are a lot of these condoes in las vegas as well, going for $20K a pop, i'm highly leery of getting involved in that, one of my friends bought one, but he's young and strong

i remember the 80s and the crash of the oil industry in new orleans, a condo that sells for $20K ends up being a community of drug cookers and so on, these were dangerous disposable "homes" indeed, fire, hurricane, and gunshot/murder have been the fate of many who have lived there since 1990 or thereabouts

now if somebody is truly homeless, squatting may seem attractive, but i would be quite cautious about other squatters (the drug cookers being the most obnoxious to your safety) and also what about a car, these condos in some areas are front lines of hurricane season

me, if i ever lose my home again, god forbid, fuck it, i'm keeping my car and putting up a tent in a nice hilly forest somewhere, not some condo out on a sandbar...not to call florida a sandbar or anything, we're damn flat around here ourselves!

[HEyHEY]

109. They had an issue like this in Vancouver once. They all just started occupying buildings en masse

[bobbolink]

111. That's not the climate in the US.

Tell me this... if I and maybe two other people were to do this, of course we'd be arrested.

Would you be there to defend us?

[lonestarnot]

117. It needs to get to be the climate!

[bobbolink]

121. I agree. If a bunch of you would stand together and give us cover, maybe it could happen here.

[lonestarnot]

125. Standing up in AZ.

:patriot:

[hunter]

120. These houses are worthless to people without cars, without jobs, without hope.

These empty houses are little more than fake assets on the bankers crooked books. They are actually liabilities because they have to be maintained.

If these empty houses were sold in a free market the entire housing market would come crashing down, rents would fall to zero, and the entire pyramid scheme would collapse.

It's already happened in some places like Detroit, beautiful old mansions abandoned and collapsing from neglect. It will happen even quicker in Florida when the banker rats flee the mess they created.

[Xenotime]

129. THank you. I have been saying this for years

[piedmont]

133. Who pays the bills?

Electricity, Water, Sewer, Garbage pickup, Yard maintenance, transportation, building maintenance, etc., etc. Who pays?

[Enthusiast]

147. Well, I heard it today on C-Span.

The reason for this is Clinton FORCED the housing industry to build too many homes to house poor people that had no intention of paying off their mortgages. Or something like that. Very simple. Poor people and liberals caused it. The banks and Wall Street? Not so much.

[voteearlyvoteoften]

150. Second homes read vacant on census

Many homes in Florida are vacation homes. The census counts that as a vacant home. You can only reside in one location.
Great buyers market now. Most of the foreclosures are new properties. So you get the low price and the almost new everything.

[Vanje]

156. What luck.

Que another housing speculation bubble.

[pitohui]

159. this may explain the unbelievable nature of the claim

yeah so they're technically correct, but the homes are not available to house the homeless if they're somebody's vacation property

1.6 million empty "homes" makes it sound like every house in the state is standing empty, it's probably mostly vacation homes/condoes that are empty during the off season

[onenote]

166. correct. Census definitions are very broad

For example, what people on this thread are viewing as "homes" are not necessarily multi-bedroom, detached houses. They are "housing units," which the Census Bureau defines as "a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters."

And a housing unit is considered "vacant" under a wide range of circumstances. Indeed, in general, a housing unit is considered vacant by the Census Bureau if "no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place."

Also, year-round vacant mobile homes (those intended for occupancy at any time of the year, even though they may not be in use the year round) are included as part of the year-round vacant count of housing units.

Other categories of "vacant" units:

Vacant units for rent. This group consists of vacant units offered for rent and those offered both for rent and sale.

Vacant units for sale only. This group is limited to units for sale only.

Vacant units rented or sold. This group consists of year-round vacant units which have been rented or sold but the new renters or owners have not moved in as of the day of interview.

Vacant units held off the market. Included in this category are units held for occasional use, temporarily occupied by persons with usual residence elsewhere, and vacant for other reasons. A housing unit that is held for occsional use is ione that is not for-rent or for-sale-only but is held for weekends or occasional use throughout the year. Time-shared units are classified in this category if the vacant unit is not for-rent or for-sale-only, but held for use for an individual during the time of interview.

A beach cottage occupied at the time of the interview by a family which has a usual place of residence in the city is included in the count of vacant units. Their house in the city would be reported "occupied" and would be included in the count of occupied units since the occupants are only temporarily absent. Units occupied by persons with usual residence elsewhere (URE) are further classified as seasonal vacant or year round vacant units.

[RKP5637]

164. The way we are headed many of these will eventually have to be bulldozed down, they won't

be worth renovation.