this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1233 points (84.7% liked)

Memes

45728 readers
1104 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BB69@lemmy.world 135 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don’t think anybody thinks that.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 91 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not explicitly, maybe, but implicitly, absolutely, and in multiple ways:

  • Supporting the system that creates one over the other
  • Having 'bootstrap' attitudes about the poor
  • Worrying about property value over utilization
  • Complaining about the homeless rather than the lack of action on housing
  • Voting against people who run on public housing

In so, so many ways, people say they prefer the latter over the former. Usually just with the caveat that the homeless people also be invisible.

[–] Goodbyeworld@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe we should institute a tax on underutilized land in metro areas.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Land Value Tax 👀

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a simple law that if there is a building, it must be in a repaired state.

In St. Louis a person opened large portions of the city where they’ve let the holes decay.

He should have to keep them in a proper upkeep or tear them down.

[–] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fuck anyone that uses money to buy things and let them rot. That's a purposefully broad statement.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. I wish I could find an article on this guy but he is just hoarding and letting it rot. Has something to do with taxes.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder who is doing this voting? Oh, it's people who live in the areas we can't afford to live in. And capitalists add lobbying power to those voters selfish interests.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 68 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In the United States at least, your local government's public hearings for new housing developments kinda begs to differ.

People will demand the homeless be eliminated from their area while simultaneously opposing development of housing or shelters for the homeless in their area.

So maybe you're right though: they don't hate the apartments more, they simply can't make up their mind on which they hate more.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I agree but want to say everyone jumps to homeless. There are a ton of normal people that are suffering from high rent, lack of options, etc. We need to think about way more than homeless.

[–] snaf@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So it sounds like zoning laws are the problem?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In some cases. But even proposed changes to zoning laws can get this kind of opposition.

[–] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aside from zoning laws, there's the lack of a unified federal intervention. This prevents any one area from addressing the local homeless issue because any area that takes steps to address it will consequently absorb more homeless individuals from other places in the country. For example, if a city in California develops a program to house any homeless individuals, then homeless individuals from other cities and states will be more likely to go to said city to get housed. Even worse, there are states that would actually pay for their transportation. What would happen is that either the city would have to solve a much larger homeless problem as new homeless move into town, or the initial wave of homeless people will be house while the new arrivals and homeless will stay homeless, leaving a continued homeless problem.

[–] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Succinctly put.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So conservative NIMBYs are the problem?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

There's definitely an "I got mine, fuck you." component, yes.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not far off what many think. Many think apartments are, oh so many adjectives, dirty, poor, unsanitary, inhumane, cruel, unusual, etc.

[–] BB69@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Who is “many”? Do you have surveys and data to support this?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Go to/watch any planning or proposal meeting and watch the pearl clutching and nimbyism. I think you know this but you want to demand "studies" instead of engaging in good faith.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you want to demand "studies" instead of engaging in good faith.

Said the ocean gate sub captain.

[–] instamat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

jiggles keys Who wants to go see a shipwreck??

[–] minorninth@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Sure they do. Look at all of the posts from my neighbors on Facebook and Nextdoor every time a developer tries to build an apartment building instead of a single family home in our neighborhood.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're not building homes, we're not focussing on density. But apparently our elected officials have no problem letting people set up shanty towns. Where do you think the priorities lay?

[–] BB69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What do you mean we’re not building homes? I have plenty of homes and apartments being built in my city that cater to lots of strata of incomes.