Re: Trump's latest lunacy

On 3/25/2025 9:12 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 3/25/2025 11:24 AM, Don Y wrote:

On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:

So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless anymore,

>
No.  There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
support that you provide.

 Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.

*Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
*checks* to homeless youth.
All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
current issues.
E.g., allowing them to claim the need for "emergency relief"
(a special "exception" that is put in place to handle those
"emergency situations") to buy food -- when they have spent
their regular stipend check on something *frivolous* doesn't
teach them to avoid the wasteful spending; you've bailed them
out, again!

Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".

 Many of he homeless we're discussing are drug-addicted, and lots of Americans seem to want that for the seriously drug addicted. They seem to believe that drug addicts who aren't "trying to get better" need to be forced to.

Many also suffer from mental illnesses.  Neither "problem" has quick,
easy cures.  Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
that had *put* them in that situation.
Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).

They seem to be under the misapprehension that recovery from serious drug addiction is a matter of like, finding the right therapist vs. fighting one of the most complex and poorly understood conditions in modern medicine, with relapse rates worse than the worst cancers even with the best care money can buy.

No, but folks who don't *commit* to recovery sure as shit aren't going
to STUMBLE into sobriety!
Give every "drunk" Antabuse and you can eliminate alcoholism, right?
(I.e., if the "drunk" isn't committed to getting sober, Antabuse
is just going to piss him off)

Unfortunately the outcome of many severe disease processes without reliable cures is death. But the ones who are destined to recover have a better shot at it with stable housing.

Healthy foods, access to good medical care, good support/social networks,
etc.
Housing, by itself, doesn't do much.

But yes, institutionalization and forced treatment with non-evidence based medicine is doomed to fail and the amount of money that can be wasted there for little result (and taxpayer outrage at it) far exceeds the little result that could be obtained by cheaper means.

Problems only get solved when you are *committed* to solving them.
If (like the homeless youth issue, above) all you are doing is
paying lip service to the problem, you are effectively just
rationalizing the NEED for your paycheck.
I give my time to organizations that, I see, produce results.  As
*I* am involved, I can bear witness to those results -- instead of
being duped/misled by glossy annual reports.
[This subject -- charities -- often comes up at dinner parties;
friends/friends-of-friends wondering where to put their donations.
The first thing I tell them is to volunteer *at* the organization
so they can *see* how their monies will be spent.  "Gee, they just
bought another building!  How many buildings does it take to
HAND OUT STIPEND CHECKS???"]

Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living).  No one wants to
"invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!

 There's a trickle-down theory of housing that if you just build new market-rate the prices on older stock will come down, there's a certain logic to it but proponents sometimes use Tokyo Japan as an example of a city that did it "right."

Prices only come down when there is a "surplus" (for some definition of
"surplus") of units.  We have seen a significant up-tick in home prices
as the influx of Californians (who are used to paying ridiculously
high prices for tiny plots of land) puts a bias in what buyers are
willing to pay for a given property.
[A friend put $200K into a small home he purchased for $500K.  And,
thought nothing of it!  Really?  What was "missing" that needed a
$200K upgrade?  You've gained no extra floor space.  You have the
same types of appliances (if you consider them part of the property).
The yard is the same.  So...?]

Japan is a terrible example of doing something "right" they had the better part of two decades of economic stagnation and a whole lost generation to help keep their housing costs low, it wasn't just urban policy.

Japanese homes (according to a neighbor who lived there for many
years and married a japanese woman) are considerably different
than US homes.
[And, THEY have to worry about Godjira!!]

Meanwhile the crisis is likely to only get more pressing in the US as housing and particularly rental inventory remains low, and use of AI tools to screen renters is bringing the same "fairness" to the rental market as resume panopticons brought to the IT hiring business.

There is nothing that inherently limits the ratio of properties to
residents.  Most of my friends have at least two homes, choosing
to live here in the Winter months and elsewhere in our Summers.
If they can afford the outlay, upkeep and taxes, what's to stop
them from making additional purchases?
[I would find multiple homes maddening.  Imagine NOT being able
to find "something".  In the back of your mind, you'd always be
wondering if it's at (one of) the other house(s).  If you stop
searching before you find it -- based on that assumption -- then
imagine BEING at that other house and discovering IT'S NOT THERE!
I.e., you gave up your initial search, prematurely!  And, the
possibility of this happening would always leave you "uncertain"
as to your best strategy...]