Affordable Housing Crisis in America. What is being done about it?

[Tireseas]

[Cont.]

With the Housing voucher program Biden is discussing here, we wouldn't be concentrating the poor into one region, they would be spread out in the suburbs, we just need to increase funding, increase the amount spent per voucher, and expand who qualifies and just buy the properties outright and not expect them to pay it back. The previous "lending programs" were only lending programs and not grants. Homelessness and the affordable housing crisis are one in the same. 40% of the homeless are considered disabled, but I do think that number should be higher and would be with proper examination and diagnosis, that they also do not have access to. Part of the problem with the statistics on drug use and mental disorders among the homeless is that they also consider people with chronic conditions that require pain medication " substance abusers" . They are classifying them as such if they tell them they are in pain and need medications or test positive for pain medication that was prescribed for them when if the same happened to a wealthy or middle class person, they would be treated and not classified as such at all. People often confuse medication dependence and addiction, and they are not the same thing. People often NEED their pain medication or they cannot properly function due to their pain levels they are in without medication. These patients are considered dependent, and should be given medication as long as it is not abused . An Addict on the other hand uses it to get high, uses more of it than prescribed and often uses a number of other substances as well because it isn't about treating their conditions, it is about feeding their addiction. Sadly they lump these groups as one in the homeless community and that is not an accurate assessment. I have attempted to help staff at the shelter understand the difference but I don;t think it really sunk in with them because they did not appear capable of determining the difference and instead treat those who need medical treatment the same as the addicts and it just makes a bad situation worse.

Often the mental health issues were actually caused by them becoming homeless rather than it being a condition that was necessarily dangerous to the general public and will get better once they are no longer in a constant state of desperation to survive. They are not separating these issues in their statistics. Just from what I saw working at the shelter alone, the majority of people seeking help there , at least in this area, were not substance abusers, nor did they have severe mental health issues. Most were actually had a an untreated or under treated medical condition that prevented them from working. They were medically disabled and unfit for work. They are never going to be able to afford to pay a mortgage or rent themselves. We have disabled parents with children as well who need access to good homes and schools, and cramming them into apartments that are too small only makes things worse for them than if they are able to access resources in the suburbs like the local families here are, for example, the local habitat for humanity builds and repairs homes and has actually given them to local families AND paid their tax bill so the family can afford to live there. Trying to just make bills and not having to pay the monthly mortgage makes it so much easier on families than expecting them to pay rent or mortgages they cannot afford. Hell in this area, we have bill assistance programs, tax assistance programs, and they build houses, but that is the difference between the resources available in wealthy communities vs poor ones. That is why I would rather buy them houses in wealthy suburbs with plenty of funding for local resources available than try to cram them into hazardous tiny apartments elsewhere where the resources will be overtaxed. All that does is segregate the poor from everyone else and continue the cycle of poverty rather than give their kids a better chance of not falling back into poverty themselves.

I believe we are definitely in agreement that concentration of those needing assistance is counter-productive, even if the delivery of necessary social services would be more time efficient due to relative proximity. I personally think one's substance abuse use and status should have no bearing on getting housing assistance, rather they should be given safe housing first to stabilize their situation, which can make treatment much easier, as well as major investment into social workers to act more as conduits for the services for those needing assistance.

One of the reasons I thought of the government renting the properties on long-term leases with particular incentives for landlords is to make it so that the government is doing the screening, not the owners, and that the owners are protected in case the tenant assigned to the property causes damage or other issues arise from the tenants use of the property, while also not creating a procurement or property system that would be less flexible to the needs of the populations they're serving (for example, there's been an increase in homeless families, which means a building of 1-2 bedroom units are often too small to safely house them). Procuring a rental for government use in this manner can be done in 1-3 months (depending on the nature of the program and how involved the government is with the day-to-day managing of the unit) while purchasing a house or apartment building can take 3-6 months and full construction 2-5 years, allowing the government to expand to meet the needs of the moment rather than trying to guess how much they will need over the following decades. It also provides the direct housing needed rather than giving them a voucher and leaving them to the marketplace.

 

[lil devils x]

Indeed, that's also a major concern. Generally, the requirements I'm referring to are things like traffic studies and other aspects not directly related to the construction of buildings and their applicable safety requirements. NIMBYism and a rather needlessly complex approval process are more barriers to contraction (particularly economical construction) than health and safety codes. In the Seattle area, for example, neighborhood counsels effectively needed to sign off on any substantial project, and NIMBYs would pack into those meetings to prevent the kind of construction needed to increase available capacity. You also have zoning requirements that limit multi-family projects dramatically while single-family neighborhoods are effectively untouched. All of these things are not unique to Seattle and many metro areas of all sizes have similar rules that stymie and increase the costs to construct the housing needed to reduce costs.

(There's actually good discussions of these unnecessary regulations on a few episodes of Vox's the Weeds podcast, including an interview with Conor Dougherty and another with Scott Peters)

[Cont.]

Instead of building low income housing though, would it not be more beneficial long term to just buy them houses outright in good neighborhoods instead and do away with the slums all together? The wealthy currently send their substance addicted family members to fancy drug rehabs and pay for mental health services for those who need it. Instead of segregating the poor to lesser than facilities, why not just tax individuals and companies who own multiple properties already and use that money to pay to send them to the nice ones that are currently only being used by the wealthy and upper middle class? These companies and wealthy buying up all the existing homes can afford it, and the tax increases would result in more properties being dumped back on the market. That in combination with capping rents on what they can mark these properties up to that they are hoarding would create an abundance of properties on the market. As long as the houses are selling as it is, builders will keep building them in the suburbs. having the government buy some of the existing slums after relocating the people there to better housing, leveling it and turning it into retirement and disabled communities would help as well due to the sheer number of disabled that are already in this situation.

I really want to see an end to the slums all together, due to the problems that come with them rather than the creation of more and instead move the people into new or existing housing nicer neighborhoods all together. Once we address the companies hoarding all the properties, we will be able to keep up with building nicer, new homes as needed to meet the demand. Making these companies hoarding properties lose their arse in the process is just a plus.

 

[lil devils x]

[Cont.]

I believe we are definitely in agreement that concentration of those needing assistance is counter-productive, even if the delivery of necessary social services would be more time efficient due to relative proximity. I personally think one's substance abuse use and status should have no bearing on getting housing assistance, rather they should be given safe housing first to stabilize their situation, which can make treatment much easier, as well as major investment into social workers to act more as conduits for the services for those needing assistance.

One of the reasons I thought of the government renting the properties on long-term leases with particular incentives for landlords is to make it so that the government is doing the screening, not the owners, and that the owners are protected in case the tenant assigned to the property causes damage or other issues arise from the tenants use of the property, while also not creating a procurement or property system that would be less flexible to the needs of the populations they're serving (for example, there's been an increase in homeless families, which means a building of 1-2 bedroom units are often too small to safely house them). Procuring a rental for government use in this manner can be done in 1-3 months (depending on the nature of the program and how involved the government is with the day-to-day managing of the unit) while purchasing a house or apartment building can take 3-6 months and full construction 2-5 years, allowing the government to expand to meet the needs of the moment rather than trying to guess how much they will need over the following decades. It also provides the direct housing needed rather than giving them a voucher and leaving them to the marketplace.

Sometimes the government is worse at screening than the private owners. We really need actual medical professionals diagnosing the people rather than either the government or owners making their own assessments. Some of the crap I have seen written down about people by both social workers and volunteers at the shelter are disturbingly inaccurate.

When you have long term lease agreements with slum lords, the property owners have no incentive to fix anything and they let the places fall into disrepair. Making the person the owner of their own home, gives them incentive to take care of their property, because it is theirs, not someone else's. Why would it take so long to build a house? They are building them here in a few weeks. If they are just buying lots in existing neighborhoods, or in planned communities already under construction rather than segregating them, it doesn't take that long because everything is already assessed. Maybe if we have apartments with short term leases used as temporary housing while they wait for a home and also used as a transitional housing to help better assess and determine if they actually can live on their own rather than in an assisted living facility would be a good route, but ultimately I want to get them into something better, especially when you have children involved as every year the kid is missing access to the resources they gain in good neighborhoods and schools increases their likelihood of falling behind and suffering from the trauma of the displacement. Getting them into a stable environment with plentiful resources in a safe neighborhood should be priority.

 

[Tireseas]

Instead of building low income housing though, would it not be more beneficial long term to just buy them houses outright in good neighborhoods instead and do away with the slums all together? The wealthy currently send their substance addicted family members to fancy drug rehabs and pay for mental health services for those who need it. Instead of segregating the poor to lesser than facilities, why not just tax individuals and companies who own multiple properties already and use that money to pay to send them to the nice ones that are currently only being used by the wealthy and upper middle class? These companies and wealthy buying up all the existing homes can afford it, and the tax increases would result in more properties being dumped back on the market. That in combination with capping rents on what they can mark these properties up to that they are hoarding would create an abundance of properties on the market. As long as the houses are selling as it is, builders will keep building them in the suburbs. having the government buy some of the existing slums after relocating the people there to better housing, leveling it and turning it into retirement and disabled communities would help as well due to the sheer number of disabled that are already in this situation.

Purchasing houses on the scale necessary to address the problem, particularly in the hardest hit metro areas, would be extremely expensive compared to the overall benefit and potentially create a housing bubble if done too quickly as the government skews the demand-side. It also raises serious logistical concerns, particularly regarding whether there is a mortgage on the property (effectively saddling an already economically unstable individual with a major financial obligation as well as the question as to whether a bank hold the note or the government), or if it's completely paid for outright (dramatically increasing costs and creating a fairly serious moral hazard given it would in affect be an injection of $50-400k to an individual/family depending on the metro area for little work while most middle and working class deal with a distorted rental and ownership market). I get the idea, but simply having the government own or rent the property addresses the immediate housing problem and down-payment subsidies for first-time home-buyers would likely achieve the same goal at a more reasonable price point and fewer negative repercussions.

I do think that integrating the full economic spectrum of individuals within a community is a better approach overall as the balkinization of the classes between suburbs has further stratified society and made integration more difficult, particularly in education where public school resources are often determined by local property taxes.

I really want to see an end to the slums all together, due to the problems that come with them rather than the creation of more and instead move the people into new or existing housing nicer neighborhoods all together. Once we address the companies hoarding all the properties, we will be able to keep up with building nicer, new homes as needed to meet the demand. Making these companies hoarding properties lose their arse in the process is just a plus.

I think it's a noble goal, but you're kind of trying to hit a moving target. The wealthy will, so long as the land exists, relocate to enclaves in order to avoid the poor. In the early days, there were slum neighborhoods and boroughs, and now they're suburban municipalities with a disproportionate number of below-median income individuals and families. Disbanding the slums entirely would be a decades-long process, and in many metro areas, effectively already underway due to gentrification, which has been it's own issues attached to it. Trying to do it across a whole metro area at once could work to prevent shifting things around, but if your city/region population continues to grow, all it would do is raise housing prices to begin with.

However, forcing the sale of properties is very much a legal and logistical nightmare as that would be a taking under the constitution, and would almost certainly invite long-running legal challenges that would slow down any program to force the sale. My concern is how to address the supply-demand curve in order to keep housing affordable for as many people as possible without serious unintended consequences that would hurt similarly situated people.

Make no mistake, housing is one of the most under-covered areas compared to its importance to individuals and policy, but it's also a massive topic that has multiple elements to it and different solutions to different problems. Homelessness and affordable housing are related, but homelessness is more often an acute short-term condition, while housing affordability is a long term, chronic condition. Even within homelessness issues, chronic or long-term homeless individuals and families have different needs than those experiencing an acute one-time event. In the Seattle area, homelessness is visible all over the region, and the city of Seattle's numerous programs trying to address the issue have been minimally effective at even triaging the numbers.

 

[lil devils x]

limit

I am expecting it to be expensive, that is why the taxes on owning multiple homes should be extreme. I want to pretty much eliminate landlords and stop the house hoarding going on in the article linked above. Rents are higher than buying around here now. A tiny 850sqft 2 bedroom crappy apartment is the same amount every month as buying a 3 bedroom 1600 sq ft home per month in the same neighborhood. They are able to charge absurd amounts because of the lack of properties available. There is ONLY a lack of properties because they are buying them all. Past time THAT ends. Having the government buy it outright means no mortgage. We aren't expecting the low income families to pay for it, we can have the companies that are buying ALL the houses right now + the people who own multiple homes for personal use pay for it. Paying for this entirely out of people who own multiple homes would likely come out with excess funding to help pay off their yearly taxes and some bills for a while as well as maybe some new furniture, transportation and a lawnmower if needed.. When we look at how MUCH property is owned by people and corporations who own multiple properties in the US, you will see it will result in a heavy sum in taxes in the process.

Yea, I never thought it would be easy. I expect one hell of fight considering the amount of money involved to stop it. They actually DID this through local charities in the wealthiest sq ft county in the state of Texas, rather than government, and the wealthy didn't flee. The key is to just mix them in randomly rather than have any concentration in any specific neighborhood. The local habitat for humanity here is who gave a home to the family with 5 children I mentioned before on old escapist that was living under the floorboards in the dirt holes with plastic over them in that house with no roof and two walls standing down the street from me growing up. It changed their lives, and that is what I want to see happen to the rest of those in need.

Taxing those buying up the properties and hiking up rent are who I think should be targeted hardest with taxes, and we will likely get a surplus of both housing AND funds due to the scale of this problem. The tax hikes combined with limits on rent increases will necessarily cause a dumping of properties on the market when it is no longer profitable for them to exploit. We won;t need to FORCE the sale of properties as much as " encourage" through taxes and regulation. Every additional property owned by the same individual or company gets a higher tax increase until it costs them more than the house is worth.

40% of the homeless being disabled, I think it is more long term than they are reporting, just not everyone is accounted for in the system. Younger people are usually more short term couch surfers, but as they get older, it becomes more chronic and more difficult to change.

I agree we have to have multiple options for multiple problems and different regions will necessarily have different solutions. Often we have the homeless start in the suburbs and end up in the cities because there are no resources available in the suburbs BY DESIGN. To run them out of the suburbs once they lose their home and force them into the cities to gain access to any resources at all. They intentionally put the resources far away to make them leave. I have seen what happens to the homeless in the suburbs, they try to act like they don't exist and refuse to even report their existence at all so they remain uncounted, EVEN IN THE SCHOOLS SYSTEM, although they are supposed to legally count them, they refuse because they know what happens when they do. You see, they do not need " resources for the homeless" in the suburbs since they have no homeless here as they cover up the family sleeping in their van or try to have them towed. You have no idea how many times I have seen that exact thing happen here. People in the suburbs lose their homes all the time and have no where to go, yet they are not even being counted because the suburbs want to send the problem elsewhere.

When Wall Street Is Your Landlord

With help from the federal government, institutional investors became major players in the rental market. They promised to return profits to their investors and convenience to their tenants. Investors are happy. Tenants are not.

www.theatlantic.com

The government should have put the families back in the houses not let Wallstreet make everyone homeless. They could have avoided the current crisis back then but didn't.

 

[Tireseas]

F---ing character limits.

I think we are in agreement on goals though not necessarily on the policy solutions and acceptable costs (not limited to the budget line) to achieve that. The reality is that there's a lot of conflict even between housing and homeless advocates as to what the best policies should be and where the priorities should lay. Regardless, I think the current matters are inadequate to address the issues, and experimentation on the state and municipal level will likely need to continue as housing remains very dependent on local conditions (sometimes down to the block).

 

[lil devils x]

I think we are in agreement on goals though not necessarily on the policy solutions and acceptable costs (not limited to the budget line) to achieve that. The reality is that there's a lot of conflict even between housing and homeless advocates as to what the best policies should be and where the priorities should lay. Regardless, I think the current matters are inadequate to address the issues, and experimentation on the state and municipal level will likely need to continue as housing remains very dependent on local conditions (sometimes down to the block).

I think all the priorities are equally important and see that we need a variety of solutions because this is far from being a one size fits all problem. ALSO we have to work in the immediate need right now with what we can immediately do WHILE we fight for something better because people are literally dying as we speak from being unsheltered. We have to attack it from different directions all at once really to even put a dent in it. It is only going to get nightmarishly worse though if we don't deal with the corporations buying all the houses though. They just BUY ALL the properties and mark them all up so now that is the going rate and EVERYONE is screwed in the process.

 

[meiam]

But good neighbourhood aren't good neighbourhood because of their location, they're good neighbourhood because of the people living there. There's an extremely strong correlation between wealth and crime. If you just buy poor people house in good neighbourhood, those won't be good anymore and non poor people will leave, this will drive price down and more poor people will move there (while wealthier people will migrate elsewhere, driving up price and forcing the poor out), recreating a slum. This is pretty much what happened with the white flight which created the suburb in the first place.


If you can tax people/company more there are soooooooooooooo many better thing to spend the money on than buying large expensive properties for poor peoples, like education and infrastructure. And, if you target those tax specifically toward properties, you'll just further decrease the amount of housing being built which will just make matters even worse. These sorts of solutions are what caused the problem in the first place, we need to stop making things worse before we can make things better.


Also outright buying house for people would cause massive problems, who get to qualify? Imagine the government would buy you a nice house if you're poor enough, everyone would just quit their job to get the free house (even a crappy house cost many time what people make in a year). Maybe you just let them live there and it isn't theirs, but then what happen when poor people get a better job? You just kick them out? Well then you're making it better for people to avoid making more than whatever limit you set, imagine if the free house were available to everyone making under 20K a year, since housing cost upward of 10K a year (especially if it's a nice house) most people would actively avoid getting raise/promotion/more work hour until they can get much more 30K. No matter how you'd setup the system it would cause massive distortion in the housing market and people will go to extreme length to avoid the effect of the policy. For example many countries tried to setup windows tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax) where they would tax properties based on the number of window a house had, with the idea that more window = richer house. Well people reacted to that by just removing window from their house, this made their house slightly worse but allowed them to avoid most of the tax. People really don't want to live in neighbourhood with poor people (understandably since they have high crime rate) they'll go to extreme length to create neighbourhood which will be exempt from the mandatory poor people requirement, usually in way that will make their life worse and will just enrich whoever facilitate avoiding the poor people. And if you really can't avoid the policy they'll just make their house into fortress (well not really, they'll turn out in trove to vote for whoever promise to repeal the policy, no matter what they're other policies are, if democrats were to pass such a law you'd pretty much guarantee GOP would win the next couple of election in a landslide). 



Company buy properties and mark them up because there's more non poor people willing to live where the properties are than there are properties. If you outright gift some of the house to poor people you're lowering the number of available housing for non poor people, which will just results in price being even higher, until people realize there's a lot of poor people there and they start leaving. At which point people will look for cheaper housing in neighbourhood without poor people, once they find one (gentrification) company will start buying properties there, at which point the entire cycle just repeat itself at infinity. The problem will only ever be fixed by building more and that will only happen once conditions are right.

 

[Buyetyen]

But good neighbourhood aren't good neighbourhood because of their location, they're good neighbourhood because of the people living there. There's an extremely strong correlation between wealth and crime. If you just buy poor people house in good neighbourhood, those won't be good anymore and non poor people will leave, this will drive price down and more poor people will move there (while wealthier people will migrate elsewhere, driving up price and forcing the poor out), recreating a slum. This is pretty much what happened with the white flight which created the suburb in the first place.

So we can't house the homeless because white people are racist AF.

 

[meiam]

So we can't house the homeless because white people are racist AF.

There's a lot more poor white people than black or latino. All race are equal in that poor people = higher crime.

 

[Satinavian]

This whole discussion reminds me of this : satw

 

[Buyetyen]

There's a lot more poor white people than black or latino.

Doesn't that just make the problem with white people being racist worse?

 

[lil devils x]

SNIP

There is a lot to unpack here so I am sure it will take a few posts Let's start with:
PT1 Reality vs " what people think they know" about the poor.
This is the neighborhood I grew up in:
Heath,TX
After my Dad went public with evidence against Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant radiation leaks and the dangerously installed reactor, we had to go into hiding due to the threats to our lives ( The investors for the plant actually blew up another guys car and came to our house and made a direct threat to my mom to hurt us ( Mom and the kids) while we were outside in the front yard, so when my Dad came home that day, he packed us up and rushed us out in the middle of the night to somewhere they couldn't find us while this went to court. After the fallout from the media and the courts all blew over and my Dad sold our house and received a settlement from the company, he wanted to move us somewhere safe. Prior to this, We were born on the reservation and he had to watch helplessly as his children were forced into a Christian religious abuse school where they raped beat and abused hundreds of children, including my own family members. I was abused there, but no where near as bad as others. Some people's lives were forever ruined and they will never be okay due to what happened to them there. This was only stopped due to John McCain actually bringing it before the US congress. We can disagree with his policies all we want, but I will forever be in debt and have great respect for that man for what he did for my family and friends on our reservation. We fled the reservation from the abuse though before it had actually ended. At first we had to live with other family who also fled in the 'hood in my grandmothers house while my Dad looked for work. My Dad was an extremely talented engineer with a great deal of accomplishments he should be proud of. He originally got a job with the nuclear power plant and we bought a home there but as I already described, that didn't turn out as planned because he refused to turn a blind eye and allow the radiation and reactor situation to stay like that. He wanted to take his family away from the hell we endured to something better, so while we were in hiding while he testified against the nuclear plant and he sold our home he was looking for land to build his home and farm somewhere safe where his children could grow up and have access to opportunities we would not have otherwise. After being shown a variety of properties that he either was unhappy with or we could not afford, he and my Mom were becoming distressed about it. They were sitting in a century 21 office talking about possible other options because there was just nothing safe with good schools that they could afford and that maybe their dream of having a farm would have to wait. An elderly woman who was sitting in the same office with them overheard them and asked my Mom, "you want to build a farm?" She said yes and they discussed what she would put on the farm if she could actually build one. and the woman asked her how many children she had and what ages and she seemed overly interested in the details of our family for a stranger. She then told my parents that she had come there to sell her land, and a good amount of land at that. But she said she really wanted it to go to a good family and she said " I Finally found one" and asked my Dad how much we had planned to pay for a down payment on another property, he told her and she said " deal". The woman actually sold my father the land for just what he had saved for the downpayment alone.. no monthly payments so he could then just focus on trying to build the farm instead. If it were not for that generous and kind woman, I do not know what would have happened to us.

TBC

 

[lil devils x]

snip

My family ( Mom, Dad, uncles, grandfather brothers and sisters built our home and farm ourselves. We did not hire contractors or builders to do it for us. We built a a nice two story 6 bedroom home ourselves. It was amazing. My Mom and dad bought animals, we grew crops, we had a stock pond on the property and could catch fish as well. and we were finally " safe" in good schools and a good neighborhood. But right when we thought everything was going to be okay, my Dad fell ill. He woke up not being able to move his entire right side of his body or limbs and his face was drooping on one side. We rushed him to the hospital and he was diagnosed with bell's palsy.

His case was rather severe, but luckily it was temporary but it took him years to regain use of his arm and leg and he was the only income we had. My mother was already disabled, so it was up to the children to work the farm and pay the bills or we didn't eat, or have electric or water, so we did. We made crafts and sold them, we worked the farm and sold vegetables. My brothers took the mowers and the tractors and mowed other people's land. but No, we did not steal or commit crime even in our desperation. The older kids sometimes skipped meals so the younger kids could eat. We wore old clothes and hand me downs and UGH the worst was having to put something in the toes of my shoes so I could wear my brother's shoes and to stop them from falling off when I outgrew mine. It was miserable and embarrassing, but even though we were poor we were not some criminal to be cast aside as you suggest, and no people did not flee the neighborhood because we were there. But we STILL had more than others, and even though we were already crowded at our house, we still took in another family, A mother and her 5 kids who were living in conditions far worse than us. Hell we even had to take a bath together to conserve water.

That was when I first found out about the program where they actually were building new homes and repairing old ones to GIVE to needy families. They GAVE the family that had been staying with us a nice 4 bedroom home in a good neighborhood. They paid to send the mother back to school and got her a job where she could pay some of the bills. She only had a 4th grade education because her parents were afraid to send her to school during desegregation due to the death threats. The death threats during that time, remember, that they had to bring the military to escort kids to school due to racists attacking them so many parents were too afraid and just kept their kids home instead.She had lost her home and was left with nothing and were literally sleeping in dirt holes in the ground after her husband was killed by a drunk driver. The neighbors didn't move away from them when they moved in. The neighborhood didn't " go to hell". Her children were finally able to have access to shelter, running water, food and electricity. Some of them even went to college. These are things they would not have had otherwise. She STILL lives there to this day, and her grandkids live there now as well. These programs that " give" people homes actually work. They break the cycle of poverty so it isn't just continued over and over and over again as more people fall through the cracks. Even when you are given a house you still have incentive to work because you need to pay bills, and need and want to have a better quality of life. No one is going to quit their job so they can have a lower quality of life. People want to buy cellphones, TV's, computers, cars, clothing, video games, appliances ect.. People will always have incentives to work to earn more even if their basic necessities are covered because they want a good quality of life.

TBC

 

[lil devils x]

There's a lot more poor white people than black or latino. All race are equal in that poor people = higher crime.

As for Poor = Crime, that isn't necessarily true either. The guy who was breaking into people's garages stealing their lawnmowers to sell for drugs and drink the beer from their fridges wasn't poor. He came from a wealthy family. His parents lived in a mansion, like one of those in the link searching for homes for sale in Health Texas, He was " garage hopping" because his parents stopped giving him money because he was blowing it on Drugs. Every time the cops picked him up, they didn't jail him. He was white and from a good family so they didn't want to risk giving him a record. Instead they just took him back to his parents. He then grew up to be the K9 unit for the neighboring counties police department. Makes you wonder though, when he is looking around in your garage is he looking for evidence or scoping it out like he did when he was a teen eh? Then there was one of the local city councils son, "Jeff" he was always trying to do every drug he could get his hands on, he was pretty much your typical nazi loving skinhead but he didn't shave his head, he had blond spiked hair instead . He walked into the local restaurant and held them up at gunpoint but then threw down the gun and grabbed the entire register off the counter hit someone with it and started walking down the street. When the cops pulled up behind him he kept walking. When they got close to him he hit them with the register too then pulled a knife out of his sock, that also contained METH, So he wound up throwing the knife and the meth at the cop and ran and jumped fences into someone's yard and led them on a chaotic chase through peoples homes and yards. Did they even wind up prosecuting him? Of course not, they have streets named after his family, His family has homes that are landmarks and part of the town historical society. His mom made a HUGE donation to the place he robbed and the employees that covered their "mental fatigue" from the incident and the local police department and he was sent to a drug rehab. Because of who he is, the crime was never even FILED. They called his mom instead. THIS IS WHY THERE IS NO CRIME IN WEALTHY AREAS. That isn't even all of it. there are SOO many more, this is "just how it is done here".. LOL Alex Jones himself grew up here and his dentist Dad got him out of swinging boards at cops and all the other stupid shit he did growing up.. The guys doing the child raping here were the rich white guys in castles and they get away with it. People REALLY do not understand just how much the wealthy and poor live in completely different worlds, the reason the wealthy think the law does not apply to them is because it really doesn't.

Also, the entire point of this program was to not have any one neighborhood with too many poor so they had better access to resources. Instead they are spread out in all communities, so there will eventually be no place for the "white flight racists to flee to. They won't know who had a house given to them or not is the plan here.

 

[lil devils x]

The United States may be facing the most severe housing crisis in its history. According to the latest analysis of weekly US Census data, as federal, state, and local protections and resources expire and in the absence of robust and swift intervention, an estimated 30–40 million people in America could be at risk of eviction in the next several months. Many property owners, who lack the credit or financial ability to cover rental payment arrears, will struggle to pay their mortgages and property taxes and maintain properties. The COVID-19 housing crisis has sharply increased the risk of foreclosure and bankruptcy, especially among small property owners; long-term harm to renter families and individuals; disruption of the affordable housing market; and destabilization of communities across the United States.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers, academics, and advocates have conducted a continuous analysis of the effect of the public health crisis and economic depression on renters and the housing market. Multiple studies have quantified the effect of COVID-19-related job loss and economic hardship on renters’ ability to pay rent during the pandemic. While methodologies differ, these analyses converge on a dire prediction: If conditions do not change, 29-43% of renter households could be at risk of eviction by the end of the year.

The COVID-19 Eviction Crisis: an Estimated 30-40 Million People in America Are at Risk

People of color, particularly Black and Latinx people, constitute approximately 80% of people facing eviction.

www.aspeninstitute.org

With Republicans holding up the relief package, and Trump declaring war on low income housing, We could see 40 million more homeless before the end of the year. This could actually be worse than this if Trump implements his plans to fight affordable housing, as these numbers are just from the current circumstances we are dealing with. We have lost millions of jobs that will not be coming back because numerous companies either close permanently or decided to " restructure" and do additional cutbacks than were initially planned or required during the lockdown, as some saw this as an "opportunity" to go ahead and upgrade to automation or downsize to increase profits for investors, rather than a time to try and help stabilize the country.

JC Penney could join a growing list of bankruptcies during the coronavirus pandemic

The economic uncertainty driven by the Covid-19 pandemic has pushed struggling companies over the edge into bankruptcy proceedings.

www.cnbc.com

New Covid-19 Layoffs Make Job Reductions Permanent

As companies brace for years of pandemic-related disruption, thousands of furloughed workers are told they won’t be coming back.

www.wsj.com

As the Pandemic Forced Layoffs, C.E.O.s Gave Up Little (Published 2020)

Some corporate bosses offered to cut their pay, but most did not. Those who did gave up less than 10 percent of what they received last year.

www.nytimes.com

Millions of Americans Have Lost Jobs in the Pandemic — And Robots and AI Are Replacing Them Faster Than Ever

The drive to replace humans with machinery is accelerating as companies struggle to avoid workplace infections of COVID-19

time.com

This will necessarily result in either widespread homelessness, permanent mass unemployment, and extreme poverty or a massive expansion and extension of unemployment benefits that is not possible under republican rule. If the GOP win, expect this to get much worse due to their current policy plans and active blocking of relief for the unemployed. Trump has already made it clear he has no car for the unemployed or the poor and treats them with active disdain so you cannot expect help to arrive from him unless it is forced. This being Trumps second term he has nothing to lose and forcing him to do anything will be much more difficult as the leverage we had previously of losing of his second term is no longer there. We need some serious help to combat this issue, because this is going to be on a level never seen before in the US if this all comes crashing down at once.

 

[Agema]

With Republicans holding up the relief package, and Trump declaring war on low income housing, We could see 40 million more homeless before the end of the year.

In practice, I doubt it can get this bad.

1) 40 million homeless would be one hell of a stain on any government's reputation, never mind the series of knock-on problems (e.g. exacerbating ill-health and disorder) it would cause and also need to be resolved.
2) Where push comes to shove, I doubt landlords don't have the means to evict so many people: the system doesn't have the capacity to process it.
3) 40 million homeless is an economic catastrophe - including for landowners who rent out accommodation - and if nothing else, I trust the government to dash to the rescue of the middle and upper classes.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's a pretty easy problem to solve, you just need to build more high density housing.

And actually make it available to people. That's pretty crucial too.

 

[Buyetyen]

In practice, I doubt it can get this bad.

1) 40 million homeless would be one hell of a stain on any government's reputation, never mind the series of knock-on problems (e.g. exacerbating ill-health and disorder) it would cause and also need to be resolved.
2) Where push comes to shove, I doubt landlords don't have the means to evict so many people: the system doesn't have the capacity to process it.
3) 40 million homeless is an economic catastrophe - including for landowners who rent out accommodation - and if nothing else, I trust the government to dash to the rescue of the middle and upper classes.

Unfortunately the last 4 years have shown the Republicans getting behind Trump's willingness to cut off his own nose to spite his face. Their inaction this year alone has killed thousands of their own constituents, cratered the economy and put millions out of work. The Donor Class aren't going to let them do anything about it because they believe themselves immune to the consequences. We cannot expect people as divorced from reality as the Republicans and their wealthy masters to make rational decisions.

 

[lil devils x]

In practice, I doubt it can get this bad.

1) 40 million homeless would be one hell of a stain on any government's reputation, never mind the series of knock-on problems (e.g. exacerbating ill-health and disorder) it would cause and also need to be resolved.
2) Where push comes to shove, I doubt landlords don't have the means to evict so many people: the system doesn't have the capacity to process it.
3) 40 million homeless is an economic catastrophe - including for landowners who rent out accommodation - and if nothing else, I trust the government to dash to the rescue of the middle and upper classes.

You would think that is how it is supposed to be for any, western, modern, responsible nation that cares for it's people right? However, Trump still seems to think he can end birthright citizenship by executive order, he can't but this is the same guy who says he ' has magical authorities" to do so anyways and wants people to have to prove their worthiness to be US citizens. Trump has also shown repeatedly that he is willing to harm Americans by withholding their aid and relief because he believes it will harm or kill democrats, and he thinks that is not only an acceptable thing for him to do, he thinks that is a good thing and wants to punish anyone who did not support him. The way that Trump previously talked about profiting from the housing crisis, that may be exactly what the wealthy want to have happen in order to remove power from the lower middle class. Homelessness has been increasing every single year since Trump has been in office. Knowing that we are in the middle of an eviction crisis AND an affordable housing crisis, Trump literally just declared war on low income families needing housing. When you listen to the wealthy's playbook here, the end game is for all of the wealthy to have everything and they basically fortify it and the poor are literally left to die with nothing. This would help them do that faster. Trump's only housing plan for the poor right now is to deny them housing all together by removing all the housing programs we have available at all. He isn't proposing any plans to replace them. WHY would he suddenly reverse course to stop this when he has been actively working to make it happen? He thinks it will hurt democrats and then he can just blame the democrats states and cities for it happening instead of accept that he caused it at all. That is what he does every time anything happens.

Trump Wants to Abolish Birthright Citizenship. Can He Do That? (Published 2019)

The president reasserted his wish to do away with automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States. Here is what he, legal experts and the Constitution have to say on the subject.

www.nytimes.com

There are a few (dozen?) glitches in that Donald Trump plan to end birthright citizenship

From the Constitution and the Supreme Court to diplomatic immunity and Italian ancestry, it's complicated. And it's another way to torment Obama.

www.usatoday.com

Trump holds up coronavirus aid to block funding for mail-in voting

President Donald Trump said on Thursday he was blocking Democrats' effort to include funds for the U.S. Postal Service and election infrastructure in a new coronavirus relief bill, a bid to block more Americans from voting by mail during the pandemic.

www.reuters.com

New York Gov. Cuomo rebukes Trump, says coronavirus 'doesn't pick Democrats or Republicans'

Cuomo, a Democrat whose state is the U.S. epicenter for the outbreak, sharply criticized the partisan rhetoric from Trump, who said he's opposed to sending federal emergency aid to states.

www.cnbc.com

Trump sought to withhold California fire aid because of politics, former official says

Former Homeland Security chief of staff says in a campaign ad that Trump tried to block aid to California fire victims out of "rage" at opponents in state.

www.latimes.com