And if you let people live in them they might depreciate in value. So...

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

collapsed inline media

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

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

It's also the huge amount of housing that's built that's not affordable. We have had 5 neighborhoods built within 4 miles of my house over the past 5 years. Nothing is below 500k starting price.

It doesn't need to be an either-or situation. We can attack the problem from multiple sides, since there's isn't a silver bullet. New housing absolutely has to be part of it, but obviously it's not super helpful if the new stock isn't affordable or practical for average people.

Counterproductive regulations (restrictive zoning, vetocracy setups) have prevented environmentally sensible and affordable housing from being added in sufficient quantities in most of the US for a long time. We have more people living in smaller households than we used to; it just doesn't math without adding new stock.

I've said the same thing. More housing will just be bought by more speculators. I also think a massive tax on owning more than 5 properties would be helpful as well. Put the revenue from that into affordable housing subsidies.

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

So is there any statistic that excludes unlivable places?

they are an investment.

here in boston, chinese people buy up apartments for their children to go to college, years ahead of time. several vacant buildings near my own place. even if their kid doesn't go to school here, it's still an asset that appreciates. chinese landlord that lives half a globe away doesn't care about renting it out either. it's just a place to park their money.

Because a lot of the homes are uselessly far away for them. No job, no charity coverage, no panhandling opportunities. A house is of little comfort if you are hungry and can't get food.

Yeah they do that in my city and neighborhood, unfortunately they often set the homes or apartment buildings on fire, using coffee cans full of gasoline as heat/light, or straight up cooking meth.

I wish homelessness were a problem so simple as "give them a home" but it's not. The original cause of their homelessness must be addressed for it to work. Strong safety nets must be in place, a strong welfare state, mental healthcare, training, substance abuse treatment.

Of course we could pay for that as a country but we're instead focused on multiplying the unimaginable fortunes of the ultra rich instead.

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.

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

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.