There's a good faith discussion to be had on locations of empty homes and how the problem isn't supply but distribution, but it's clear that you aren't really interested in any of that because of how you ended the comment:

But that said, I never said we couldn't do that

I mean, right before this you spent a paragraph calling vacation homes inhabitable, but sure whatever. And, the cherry on top:

if you can get the votes to pass your thing then sure let's do both

It reveals so much about your thought process that your imagination ends at what policies can "get the votes." If you're justifying potential government activity within the bounds of what the current system allows to pass then anything beyond tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending is straight up off the table. You can smugly pretend that you're being reasonable and pragmatic but ultimately anything that changes the status quo will be violently opposed by people in power - so why not advocate for the most humane and society-improving solution?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some vacation homes are not habitable year-round, I'm not like making that up. There are cabins on Minnesota lakes without insulation, you want to bus people from the streets of LA there and call it the cure for homelessness? It's so good that it is impossible that we could improve the idea by doing both and giving people more options?

My imagination doesn't end on what gets the votes, it's that there are people who need help right now, so I think we should work with the system we have now to do SOMETHING. It doesn't preclude still doing your thing when possible. Waiting for the revolution is the same as doing nothing to the people who need help right now. You can smugly pretend that anything less than your one idea is inhumane so we shouldn't do anything to help anyone, but why not advocate for any solution that can help people?

[–] half_giraffe@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

you want to bus people from the streets of LA there and call it the cure for homelessness?

No I don't, and it's wild because I double checked what I wrote and I absolutely did not say that. If you really need it spelled out, the homeless people in LA would just be handed the keys for the empty houses and apartments inside of LA that outnumber them (and - gasp - some of those are even non-cabin vacation homes, trust me those actually exist).

You can smugly pretend that anything less than your one idea is inhumane so we shouldn't do anything to help anyone, but why not advocate for any solution that can help people?

This is really getting away from you. My "thing" or "one idea" (lol) is to actually end homelessness by giving homes to people that don't have them - it's actually a really simple idea that can be implemented immediately since we already have more than enough housing for everyone. I am not "pretending like anything less than that is inhumane," I'm directly saying that stacking people into the smallest possible living spaces is inhumane; I definitely wouldn't want to live in 100sqft with shared plumbing, and you wouldn't either.

You're all over this thread talking about "doing both", but no one's biting because your idea is bad - it's more complicated and expensive to build a bunch of pods or tents or tiny homes or whatever than it is to just hand the keys of already constructed empty places over to people who need shelter. And further, your idea does nothing to change the societal relationship towards housing, which means the conditions that create homelessness are reinforced - there's a reason why every city that deploys some unorthodox housing arrangement still fucking has homeless people!

Why not do both? Why not advocate for "any solution"? Why not "do SOMETHING"? Because a solution already exists that is easy, effective, and well within the existing powers and legal framework of the current state.