Homelessness-could this plan work?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

I just saw the video about St. Petersburg FL police destroying tents owned by homeless people--http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=13777&mesg_id=13777

In the discussion, it came out that many of the homeless do have jobs--they just can't afford housing.

So I have an idea, but I have no idea if it would work--would someone with more expertise let me know if it has merit? Here it is:

1. In many metropolitan areas, there are empty buildings, places where Wal-Marts used to be but are no more. They have been sitting empty for a long time, too--and it doesn't appear that anyone is going to rent the places soon.

2. Could the businesspeople owning this property be persuaded to sell them or rent them at a nominal fee to either the city or a charitable organization that has a plan for helping the homeless?

3. Could the buildings be fitted out inside with areas for living, a sort of SRO or dorm style area-with the "rent" being help with keeping the area clean, etc? Could other areas include a place for health care (physical and mental) and perhaps an "in house" business like recycling/thrift store that the homeless could use to earn an income/or obtain clothing they need?

Is this a hopeless idea, or could something like it work?

[quinnox]

1. too much money and good will required

Maybe a few business owners would do it but I doubt if many would.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. it is a fine idea...until

you try to get insurance on a thing like that. I don't think most business that own these properties would go for that. I know the cost would be little for most of the corps that own these building, but you gotta remember that liability in something like that could be huge.

sP

[graywarrior]

3. I heard a discussion about this on WMNF Tampa.

Someone suggested using storage spaces (Kramer on Seinfeld did that once) for living spaces. The homeless rep said they considered that, but the liabilty factor was too much to deal with.

Property owners would have to check their liabilities and insurance to see if your idea would work. Seems like a perfect solution til all the lawyers get involved.

[Bitwit1234]

4. Wrote a letter to our editor

Way back when I lived in Maryland I wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post asking a similar question and it wasn't even published.

You are correct. But in places like DC the buildings are too profitible to do that. But is some areas they aren't. Remember the old movies where they had boarding houses. People rented rooms and they had a big dining room where meals where served. Why can't places like the Salvation Army or GoodWill re-furbish those places and run boardings houses. Those with jobs could pay a small fee and get back on their feet.

You are correct it is a good idea but it would never work because the people who make money off this type of thing, see that they wouldn't be raking in the cash.

[China_cat]

5. It's not likely

Especially when you consider the base housing here for the Navy was supposed to be turned over to low-cost housing and homeless shelter after the base closure. Several thousand perfectly decent units, from 1 to 4 bedrooms.

That was in 1993. Those units still stand empty, rotting away for lack of use and maintenance.

If government owned property can be ignored this way, do you really think Wal-Mart (who still owns those empty buildings) is going to just give them away?

[pitohui]

6. well there are already homeless shelters w recycling/thrift stores

salvation army in my area immediately springs to mind

the problem seems to be that shelters do not want men using on the premises, so the large class of homeless who are substance abusers do not want to go to those shelters except as a last resort

also the large class of homeless who are mentally ill to the point of being disruptive often have to be banned or removed from shelters for the safety of those who are not disruptive -- some homeless report being robbed or otherwise harassed in large shelters

this seems to be the reason why the dorm-type shelters are not universally used or liked

when i was homeless i certainly did not even consider a shelter, it would not have been safe for me as a woman, hiding out on my own seemed and was the better alternative

i don't know an answer that provides care for the most difficult of the homeless, other than an acknowledgement that some people actually do need to be housed in long term mental health institutions, an expense our society has not wished to assume since reagan

[ThomCat]

7. There is no profit in it, so no corporation would do it.

Most would be prohibited from doing it because it would be considered fiduciary malfeasance to deliberately negotiate a deal that cannot and will not make a profit.

[bobbolink]

8. Here's an idea---how about actually dealing with the real problem??

1. Decent living wage for every worker! There's a concept!

2. Replenish low-income housing for those who can't work. The stock has suffered sad attrition over the years---HUD cut 65% in 25 years!!--and there are now many more homeless people over 50!! They don't need a stall in a Walmart--they need a real home.

Enough of the stopgaps and "shelters"--it's time to make homeless extinct. The Coalition for the Homeless says it can all be solved by $4billion. You could easily spend $4billion on your Walmarts... why not actually do it the *RIGHT* way, and have REAL homes for REAL people?

[melnjones]

12. excellent excellent points!!! nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Great ideas!

And if I may add--reinstitute mental health facilities for those who need it.

I still think that it is a crying shame that the corporations leave empty buildings and go to another place where they cut down trees or bulldoze a prairie to put up another building that they will throw away in a decade. Wish there was something that could be done to use them.

[bobbolink]

16. ALL health facilities! So many people are becoming homeless because of lack of

said health care! You brought up another important fact that needs to be addressed.

" still think that it is a crying shame that the corporations leave empty buildings ..."

I totally agree with you--it's a ridiculous waste, one I complain about often.

BUT... think of it from the perspective of someone who is homeless. Homeless people are already doing so much of the recycling of this society---wearing other people's cast off clothes, picking up cans to recycle that people are too lazy to recycle themselves, and EATING RECYCLED FOOD! Imagine living like that--how would you begin to feel about yourself over time? Then, add in living in some warehouse, in a stall, just to assuage the societal guilt of a building left useless. Really, just how productive do you think you would be able to be in that situation? At least having your own tent you have SOMETHING that is your own!

Imagine, also, the "overseers" of a building like that, and how people would be treated. It's not a pleasant picture.

It's time for businesses to be held accountable for their own throwaway buildings, and not foist them off on those who already have nothing.

Thanks for listening--having recently been one of those without a roof, I can tell you that there is NO WAY I'd be willing to be warehoused like that!

[calimary]

42. Well, for crying out loud. We gave you guys the whole frickin' Houston

Astrodome. And barbara bush herself noted that since people there were "underprivileged anyway," so she thought it was working quite well for them.

:sarcasm:

bobbolink - your perspective, as usual, is worth a home in Bel-Air.

It's remarkable, also, to realize that the homeless DO INDEED do much of the recycling in this society. To an unimaginable extreme.

I keep going back to that old bit: "I know where we can get 100-thousand bucks a minute." Four BILLION dollars, as mentioned upthread - hell, that's what we spend in Iraq in, what? A week? What constructive, really urgent stuff could we do with that money, that would REALLY help people, REALLY provide us the most deeply systemic, most bare-bones basic NATIONAL SECURITY for OUR people. Whose "freedom" more of our people are presumably sacrificing their lives for, over there.

And furthermore, I think we can get MORE of those 100-thousand buck packages from Corporate America. Since when does a CEO deserve 400 times the salary that the lowest-level entry-level Joe or Jane in the company earns? I have heard the recollections from industry watchers who recall CEO salaries at 20 times the rank-and-file's standard take-home. That seems reasonable. But FOUR HUNDRED times???? Not only for CEOs whose companies are doing well, but for those whose great and wise and forward-thinking stewardship is taking their companies straight down the crapper. I think here is where we start bringing them back into the fold of "we're all in this together" land. If they want to keep those obscene salaries (or anything close to them), then let them ante up. If indeed what we're left with, as far as some starting place like an empty warehouse or Walmart, or some of those abandoned military barracks that could be redesigned and retooled in some way, LET CORPORATE AMERICA ANTE UP. They're making plenty of profit. Their CEOs certainly are. Let's start with WHATEVER possible raw material is there, and see what can be developed from it. NO warehouses. HOMES. And APARTMENTS. Community centers. Places for homeless people who are single, who are single-heads-of-households, children, elderly, you name it. I think everybody has to pitch in. The government, AND private industry. All those entities who've benefited much, and taken much (financially) in benefit OUT of the system, I think, are OBLIGATED to put some of it back in.

[antigop]

28. Living wage, low-income housing, AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

How many people are going bankrupt because of medical expenses?

[bobbolink]

48. You got it! Can you explain to me why we "progressives" aren't doing this???

This thread is so depressing.

Thanks for your uplifting contribution!

:thumbsup: :pals:

[midnight]

52. This should be the message that our next president understands.

No more excuses about timing, difficulties, blah, blah,blah,blah,blah.

[nam78_two]

41. I agree 100%

:hi: Bobbolink...
Its a shame that in a country where people squander hundreds of dollars on "toys", the govt still doesn't step in to help the homeless.

[bobbolink]

49. I'm not surprised at the gov't.... I"m totally disheartened with "progressives"

If this thread reflects national liberal views, then.... I don't know who we are as a nation anymore.

Thanks for your caring and concern!! You're an oasis!

:hi: :pals:

[On the Road]

9. It is Worth Pursuing,

but there are great difficulties in working with and managing homeless people. That's really where the hangup is. Having rented apartments in poor neighborhoods, it can be an absolute nightmare if you're not prepared for it. Sanitation, theft, alcoholism, personal security, unreliability, and others factors have to be dealt with. You would need strong managers experienced in working with the kind of person who needs relief.

I do not mean to be pessimistic, because it's not out of the question. A shelter or halfway house arrangement can be done, perhaps in tax sale properties. Using the homeless to renovate the premises is also possible, but is made more difficult if people don't show up for work or steal materials. For any official project, the renovations may have to meet local codes as well, and be insured.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. There is usually a lot of local opposition to such projects

Google - Rehousing.

It is a concept that goes beyond just providing emergency shelter and when implemented properly everyone is better off.

[melnjones]

11. great idea,

but it would take lots of funding and staff trained in management and social work to run the place. It would be perfect for a church organization to fund...but good luck finding one that will both fund it and not run it according to fundy-right crap.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. In my perfect world

we'd have all the funds we need since we'd be out of Iraq and not buying overpriced war toys from the military-industrial complex.

[bobbolink]

17. Then use those funds for REAL homes.

Warehousing people is NOT "godlike" and I would hope that no church would participate in such a mess.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Got it

there are plenty of homes around that need fixing up. Like someone said, making them into the old fashioned boarding house might be the way to go. The housing would be affordible, and we'd still be recycling older buildings.

[bobbolink]

45. Excuse me. I know that your heart is in the right place.

But, could you pleeeeeez explain to me why I, a 60-year-old woman, should have to live in a frickin' BOARDING HOUSE??????

Really, I want to know the answer to this question.

Do you have any idea how that would do me in????????

[Warpy]

15. Big warehouse stores

typically have only one or two bathrooms. It would cost much more to fit them for human habitation than our fine religious people in the GOP are willing to spend. Plus, they'd have all the problems that shelters have, unless they were converted to rooms with doors that locked, another expense and requiring still more facilities, like ventilation systems for windowless rooms in the center.

Defunct motels might be a better option, and some of those here are already being used as squats. Attached housing is always vulnerable to fire, though, and many homeless are substance abusers and catch on fire a lot, the main reason they're discovered and evicted around here.

The most humane option I've seen is the cement dome with one window and a door that can be locked, large enough for a single mattress and a stash of belongings. The danger of transmission of illnesses like TB, rampant in dormitory style shelters, is nil. The danger of fire, a big concern in any large facility, is restricted to the single residence. Toilet and shower facilities are separate. Because the dome is so small, it can be heated by body heat. The occupant can come and go at will, responsible for his or her own life.

Trying to fix other people never works well. They have to be treated like adults and given the opportunity to fix themselves, something that's impossible in shelters with a lot of rules, rules that would be necessary in a large facility like a defunct warehouse store.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. Ever hear of papercrete?

It is concrete, sand, and shredded paper mixed together. It is said to have a high insulation value and to be fireproof, plus it recycles paper, including slick magazines. It does need to be properly sealed with a moisture lock paint to keep it from wicking moisture, but it can be formed/molded into many different shapes. An engineer friend of mine has devised a plan for one that utilizes solar panels for heating/electricity; cost of construction is around $5K, and this is for a small house, not just one room.

[Warpy]

38. Yes, that's what I was thinking of

but brain farted the name away. The prototype dome shelters I've seen were made of it.

The real problem is finding land to situate a complex of single occupancy domes on, then getting health department approval for such non standard housing.

It often seems the health department would rather the homeless live in boxes under freeway overpasses.

[pitohui]

43. who is your friend? thinking might know him,but don't say if you feel it violates privacy of course

we've studied some papercrete structures thinking of replacing lost buildings in new orleans, unfortunately, an irony of the storm is that now NO building code, anywhere in louisiana, will any longer allow a non code structure to be built

one of the reasons we have a homeless problem is because of the universal building code which has too high a standard

there's no homeless problem in mexico because in mexico if you don't have a home, you get some rebar and pour some concrete and you gotta house, or you can build a shack somewhere, and there you go, but the usa don't allow such structures to be built

everyone can't have $150,000 to build a house, this is why half of florida now is living in trailers and now that we have a similar "hurricane resistant" code, most of our population will be forever homeless or in trailers

papercrete is not "code," so it is not an answer, since it will be bulldozed just like the tents are -- and i'd rather put $50 in a kmart tent than $5000 in a papercrete dome if i'm going to be bulldozed

i wish i had a different answer but this is what is happening now since katrina here in louisiana

people are not living in tents and trailers because they are bums, some of these people are earning more than they ever earned in their lives -- but if you can't build yourself because of the "code" and you can't get the workers because everyone needs workers -- you're fucked

[bobbolink]

47. "Trying to fix other people never works well."

"They have to be treated like adults and given the opportunity to fix themselves, something that's impossible in shelters with a lot of rules, rules that would be necessary in a large facility like a defunct warehouse store."

This needs to be repeated, over and over and over---the shouted from the rooftops!

I truly do NOT understand why so-called "progressives" do not understand this simple concept.

I see so much power and control issues here that it really disturbs me.

HOWEVER, I must say.... why should these adults you are speaking of be consigned to what amounts to DOG HOUSES??

C'mon.... we are supposedly a great nation, and we are certainly a rich one. If even "progressives" can't get behind homes for people who need them, then what they hell are we about?????

[Warpy]

53. It's a small room with a door that can be locked

and no common walls with anyone else. It is secure, independent housing that is a major step up from cardboard boxes, overpasses, or steam grates.

It is also supposed to be a stepping stone for those who are capable of improving their lot in life.

A doghouse to you would be safe housing to anyone on the street. Please don't judge it until you know what living on the street means.

[bobbolink]

57. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"Please don't judge it until you know what living on the street means."

That's rich!!!!

You really don't know that just recently I got an apartment, after 1 1/4 year homeless?????

So, how 'bout apologizing for your sneering attitude?

No, there is NO way I would live in a doghouse!!!

Until you do so yourself, drop the condescending tone.

[Warpy]

58. I've lived on the street for short periods

I know what shelters are like, I've tried to spend nights in them.

Trust me, a dome with a door I could lock, insulated against heat and cold, would have been paradise in comparison, especially if I knew it wasn't forever and that I could save to get out of it while I was there.

Congratulations on getting out of that situation.

Did you really prefer the street to staying warm, dry, safe, and private?

[bobbolink]

59. Oh, for gawd's sake!

Have you read anything I've been saying??

I, like every other homeless person, PREFER A REAL HOME, NOT A DOGHOUSE!

Why is that so damned hard to grasp?

Spending money on doghouses is a WASTE, and only makes money for the companies that make them. Maybe you have an interest in one?

If people like you would start to demand that homelessness be wiped out in this country, it would HAPPEN.

Instead, you want to prolong it with doghouses.

[Warpy]

60. Haven't you been listening to ME?

To me, such accomodations would have been a room with a door. I was down farther than you were, apparently.

I doubt it will ever happen, given the low priority human safety has in this country. If it does, I'm sure no one will be forced into it. However, for some people it would be a godsend, safe housing instead of the street, a place to save money to get off the street eventually.

[bobbolink]

61. Keep right on judging, young man.

I'd done with your slams.

Thanks for caring.

Maybe some day your generation will learn to treat people with respect.

bye bye now....

[Change has come]

54. Is that really the best we can ever do?

A single dome small enough to be warmed by a persons body heat? I'm discussing this thread with my room mate. He says this sounds like one step above a dog house.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. The problem is that even though many are working they cannot afford housing

This should not be the way things are. We don't need shelters for people such as this, but rather a chance for them to earn a living wage and hope for affordable housing. We need to look into why they're working but not able to afford a real roof over there head. Then we need to fix that problem.

I cannot imagine being that down on my luck and struggling to survive, then to come home from working the night shift and find your only shelter between you and the elements gone. Destroyed by order of those in power because you're deemed an undesirable due to your lack of a decent place to live.

I respect your idea, but it doesn't change the fact that for the most part they don't want these people in the area. If they're living in a shelter or in a tent won't change that.

[bobbolink]

21. Absolutely! Define the problem, then work for the solution,

not hand out solutions that don't fit!

I,also, cannot imagine coming back from a hard day's work to find everything you own, which wasn't much to begin with, GONE. No more workclothes, no food that was stashed, no letter from a loved one... NOTHING.

The disrespect and barely concealed hatred in this society is unimaginable.

Thanks for your reply!

[originalpckelly]

19. I have three solutions to homelessness:

Clean up, set up, read up.

Clean up your life by getting off drugs or by getting on drugs for any psychiatric illness.

Set up an address and temporary housing, clothing, health care to give a person a home base to launch off from.

Read up and learn about the job, this may include formal or informal education. Also need to study basic finances.

Then work with local employers to set up job opportunities and don't stop helping or housing someone until they get a job capable of giving them a normal and stable lifestyle.

In addition it might also be helpful to give them a small sum of money in a type of trust, to help them out if they should fall on hard times again.

All of those things require cooperation from the person being helped, but they are pretty much what's needed to get someone going.

*Your idea would fit into this by providing the temporary housing, but in the long term it would be necessary for people to have self-owned housing which is not rented. Renting is a way for people to steal capital from others.

[bobbolink]

20. I have a solution for YOU. Be homeless for a while, and have someone

standing over you with dictatorial demands that don't even fit you, such as you have posted.

Then report back on just how "helped" you feel.

[originalpckelly]

23. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

[antigop]

30. Excuse me, did you read post #16?

bobbolink said:

"having recently been one of those without a roof,"

I think bobbolink knows whereof he/she speaks.

[originalpckelly]

39. Then I guess that makes two of us with experience.

[On the Road]

26. As Much as the Demands Might be Dictatorial,

they may also be necessary for a project like this to succeed. That's the dilemma. If you're on the street and need help, dealing with a regimented environment should be the least of your worries, especially if you're homeless with children.

There's plenty of goodwill around. Governmental and legal requirements as well as problems in working with the recipients are difficult enough to deal with. Inevitable criticisms like this make it hardly worth the effort. That's why it's not being done more often.

On Edit: I can't see Reply #19, so I don't have the full context of your comments.

[originalpckelly]

22. Debt forgiveness is also important too...

Many people in America live on the edge because of debt, I know from personal experience. There would have to be a fund to pay off people's debt as well, and once they get their back on track, they could volunteer with the organization or help contribute to the fund, to increase the survival of the organization.

[raccoon]

24. "Clean up your life..by getting

on drugs for any psychiatric illness."

Sounds good, but most of these people, needless to say, don't have health insurance. And with low-paying jobs (if any) they can't pay for counselors or meds, many of which are pretty expensive.

In my state, since Droofus has been on the throne and started this unnecessary war, funds to the Dept. of Mental Health have been cut and the counselors at the clinics have overwhelming caseloads.

[pitohui]

44. also many people have medication resistant mental illness

you can't clean up your life by getting on a drug for psychiatric illness if your illness does not respond to any known drug

unfortunately i know several such folks

wouldn't it be a wonderful world if there was a magic pill to solve all our problems, unfortunately, we don't live in that world


as a non substance abuser, to be honest, i followed a plan to similar what was suggested, but what works for the high functioning person, who is homeless because of a terrible misfortune (i was being stalked by a violent abuser and could not stay in permanent housing nor afford hotels on my tiny funds, other high function persons may be working persons in minimum wage jobs or now i know many in trailers and tents because of the storm who are sober and earning good money) will not work for the HARD CORE homeless

one day every poker dealer on the gulf coast of mississippi who is being tipped $50 an hour this weekend will again have a home and they will no longer be in a tent or trailer and on the rolls of the homeless -- they were made homeless by damn bad luck and their own grit will pull them thru

however those who are made homeless by brain injury caused by war, PTSD caused by war or domestic abuse, cancer which made them unemployable, substance abuse for which no cure can be found, medication resistant schizophrenia or bipolar disorder -- what do you say to them? they can't just pop a pill and be cured, they can't just follow a plan of self help and be cured, they can't just get a loan from some person who hopefully won't rape them and be cured -- those people are fucked, we have no place in our society for people who have been shit on by god

the issue isn't how to help the highest function homeless who can follow "a plan," those folk will save themselves

the issue is how to help those who have been so knocked down and so crapped on by life that they've been cut off at the knees

[raccoon]

55. Great post, especially your last two paragraphs. nt

[Dastard Stepchild]

51. "by getting on drugs for any psychiatric illness."

This is much easier said than done for individuals with significantly compromised functioning. I'm working on a project currently, and without going into too much detail, the barriers are truly significant for some people. It isn't that simple. Of course, this also assumes you live in an area with a comprehensive/adequate public mental health safety net - another pretty significant barrier. Public mental health funding is ridiculously inadequate to meet population needs.

[mondo joe]

25. There are probably more empty or currently unusable apartment buildings

than Walmarts in most urban areas.

I don't think the problem is lack of facilities that could be used for housing, and it would make more sense to rehab buildings designed for housing rather than try to convert a Walmart.

[TahitiNut]

27. Think about all the "exclusive use" facilities that are more "exclusion" than "use."

As a "systems thinker," I always ground myself in stepping back to see the forest. When I consider the issue of human shelter, I look at the plethora of ways in which we embed the notion of exclusion in our thinking with regards to all public (and private) facilities.

While this falls into the area of "changing paradigms," it seems clear that any shorter-term 'solution' to address the multitude of failures in our culture must incorporate at least a comprehension of the 'wrong-thinking' that's led us to such conditions. Our societal obsession with 'exclusion' seems to be one of the most pervasive perversions. We're getting what we asked for.

[Cleita]

33. See my post that follows yours about vacation homes in my area.

eom

[bobbolink]

50. "wrong-thinking" -- You got it in one!!!

I'm truly disheartened at what I'm reading here...

:cry:

Thanks for seeing the forest.... from your keyboard....

[Cleita]

31. Not really, You are replacing one tent city with another.

Homeless people need vouchers for shelter to begin with. I know in my area, a resort and recreation destination, there are thousands of hotel rooms that go vacant during the year. Also, there are vacation homes that go empty most of the year.

For one thing I think those vacation homes should get a property tax of 10% instead of the 1% they pay now. These are second homes and the owners can well afford it. The tax revenues would be used to house the homeless and pay for rehabilitation clinics. If they don't want to pay then they should put the home on the market so some family that needs year around shelter can hope to buy it. This would take a lot of families out of apartments and leave the vacancies to be filled with homeless working families or those who are disabled and never will be able to work. Of course until we solve the problem of living wages, they would need a subsidy from the government to pay the rent. But it would be a start.

Those hotels could be charged a couple more percents on room tax to be specifically used for housing the homeless, or they could allocate a certain amount of their rooms for the homeless instead, to be paid by the homeless agency (doesn't exist yet, but should)at a rate that is agreeable to both parties. In taking the unemployed and single homeless off the streets, it makes it easier for social workers to help them back into society.

What people don't realize about homelessness, is that it's more than a meal, bed and a roof. People need a place to take a shower, to relieve themselves in privacy, to get a drink of water, to sleep in safety and most importantly to have a place to keep their things with a lock on it. A place they can go back to each day and call home.

Getting back to tent cities though. Until our government and our people are willing to help these people get back on track, we should cry in outrage at any attempt to destroy the belongings of people who are out on the street trying to survive until we can offer them a better option.

[antigop]

34. Well stated, Cleita!

>>
Until our government and our people are willing to help these people get back on track, we should cry in outrage at any attempt to destroy the belongings of people who are out on the street trying to survive until we can offer them a better option.
>>

Yes, we should be outraged. Destroying the belongings of people who are out on the street is inhumane.

[antigop]

32. The Hidden Homeless

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16513015.htm

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. Read that

I used to live just off East Lancaster in Ft. Worth and know of what they speak.

[mondo joe]

37. Here's one 10-year plan to end homelessness

in one county: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=28302&mesg_id=28302

[Sapphire Blue]

40. IMO, it has merit, BUT greed, gentrification, and lack of funding would prevent such a plan.

Greedy landlords will only rent to make a profit... and they can't make a profit off the backs of the poor.

Gentrification moved out the Have Nots, and moved in the Haves & Have Mores.

Where do the Have Nots go... when there is no affordable place to go because this Robber Baron government has radically slashed funding for low-income housing?

The Haves & Have Mores want them to just go away, pass laws to keep them away from their doorsteps, to keep them from sitting on public sidewalks, and in some cases, give them a one-way ticket out of town... so they can have no place to go in the next town.

Sometimes the Have Nots do go away... to Potter's Field. :cry:

The cruelty in this country hurts. It hurts physically, emotionally, and spiritually. It hurts.


Something I posted last month (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/118)...

NEW REPORT DOCUMENTS CORRELATION BETWEEN HISTORIC CUTS TO FEDERAL HOUSING PROGRAMS AND CONTEMPORARY MASS HOMELESSNESS

Communities call for the new Congress to take a new approach to addressing and ending the national crisis of homelessness

(Excerpt)

“Without Housing: Decades of Federal Housing Cutbacks, Massive Homelessness and Policy Failures,” documents the correlation between these trends and the emergence of a new and massive episode of homelessness in the 1980s which continues today. It particularly focuses on radical cuts to programs administered by the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), which administers funds for rural affordable housing. Available online in PDF format, the report also demonstrates why federal responses to this nationwide crisis have consistently failed.

Created in partnership with five other organizations, the report uses federal budget data and other sources to document that:

HUD’s budget has dropped 65% since 1978, from over $83 billion to $29 billion in 2006.

The Emergency Shelter phenomenon was born the same year that HUD funding was at a drastic low point. In 1983, HUD’s budget was only $18 billion, the same year that general public emergency shelters began opening in cities nationwide.

HUD has spent $0 on new public housing, while more than 100,000 public housing units have been lost to demolition, sale, or other removal in the last ten years.

Federal housing subsidies are going to the wealthy. In 2004, 61 percent of these subsidies went to households earning more than $54,788, while only 27 percent went to households earning under $34,398.

More than 600,000 identified homeless students went to public schools in the 2003-2004 school year, according to the US Department of Education.

Federal support helps homeowners instead of poor people. In 2005, federal homeowner subsidies totaled more than $122 billion, while HUD outlays were only $31 billion – a difference of more than $91 billion

According to Paul Boden, executive director of WRAP, “The Administration’s current ‘Chronic Homeless Initiative’ is just the latest in a series of inadequate flavor-of-the-month distractions from the real problem. It does nothing to address the huge cuts to federal affordable housing funding that caused mass homelessness. Housing is a human right, which a democracy should advance, not restrict.

Those on the frontline of homelessness – homeless people and the providers who serve them – are drowning in a sea of blame. We have joined together to speak truth to power: until federal affordable housing programs are restored and expanded, homelessness will continue to grow.”

http://wraphome.org/wh_press_kit/press_release_wrap.html

[porphyrian]

46. Insurance and liability.

The biggest roadblock to this idea is that the owner of the building is liable for all kinds of things that might, and probably would eventually, happen to those living there. Owners don't want to get sued for their charity. With the proper legal documentation, maybe you could convince someone of it, though.

[Annces]

56. There is great power in ideas

You can go far with them if you nurture them.