91–100 of 418 posts
Where are these types of places illegal in reality? I know of single room rentals available in pretty much every major metro in the world. Shared common bathroom and kitchen. I also know of one in plenty of subletting of multi-bedroom apartments. I have never heard of enforcement against this. It also doesn’t bring rents down as much as claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as. Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?
Well there's your answer right there. Communal living is discouraged because our capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill. Either join the rat race or it's the streets for you. And now living rough is being made illegal as well, so it's labor camps.
If we were living in pre-agrarian society you would either be on the "work treadmill" building/maintaining shelter and finding food or you would starve or freeze to death. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Do you think animals spend most of their time looking for food because they're also operating under the capitalist system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as. Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?
Well there's your answer right there. Communal living is discouraged because our capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill. Either join the rat race or it's the streets for you. And now living rough is being made illegal as well, so it's labor camps.
I am not aware of any viable life option that doesn't involve the need to work a lot. Besides being born into a trust fund or being content with homelessness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the article contains the reason: "as SROs disappeared, ... homelessness exploded nationwide." You're saying SROs were banned specifically to increase homelessness? Is this a discarded Bond movie plot?
People don't specifically aim to increase homelessness, but people do often attempt to make "those people" go elsewhere, and whether that "elsewhere" involves a permanent structure is often not a concern.
Where are these types of places illegal in reality? I know of single room rentals available in pretty much every major metro in the world. Shared common bathroom and kitchen. I also know of one in plenty of subletting of multi-bedroom apartments. I have never heard of enforcement against this. It also doesn’t bring rents down as much as claimed.
>> Where are these types of places illegal in reality? Because eventually individual rooms start being rented by families. Next you have four families living in a single-family occupancy location and there is a huge fire hazard. I've seen this happen in NYC growing up, and its super dangerous. I also empathize with the other side -- as a poor person you may have no other option.
It’s not at all clear to me that four families in a single family-intended house is worse than the alternatives. (Building more housing is the long-term solution, of course…)
The advent of contraception also changed the game. Now people would expect to have sleep overs, sharing limited resources such as the bathroom, where that was less of an issue in the past.
The only difference is dogs shit outside, they still get private bathrooms!
I don't like this line of reasoning because it's largely just crystalizing a loss. We have this in the UK - houses of multiple occupancy. It's a great idea where you take a home that in the 1980s would house a family and split it into 5 flats where each person can rent 10-20 square metres each. I would much rather someone did something to address the fact that the average family in the UK can afford roughly 1/5th the…
The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 has been identified as a cause of insufficient housebuilding activity, and new legislation is currently working its way through the House of Lords to alleviate this.
I don't like this line of reasoning because it's largely just crystalizing a loss. We have this in the UK - houses of multiple occupancy. It's a great idea where you take a home that in the 1980s would house a family and split it into 5 flats where each person can rent 10-20 square metres each. I would much rather someone did something to address the fact that the average family in the UK can afford roughly 1/5th the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there's your answer right there. Communal living is discouraged because our capitalist society uses the fear of homelessness to force people onto the work treadmill. Either join the rat race or it's the streets for you. And now living rough is being made illegal as well, so it's labor camps.
There are many communes you can join, especially on the west coast, and it is usually free to join and free to live there. However you definitely need to work all day (doing mostly manual labor) at those too. I am not aware of any viable life option that doesn't involve the need to work a lot. Besides being born into a trust fund or being content with homelessness.
Based on how much people pay for even absolute shithole desert wasteland where I live, I can tell you there'd be a huge demand for homesteading federal BLM or other land if they'd reopen it. It would definitely help people who can't afford to get land on their own.
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/20...
This passage, in particular, is eye-opening:
> ... had SROs [single-room occupancies] grown since 1960 at about the same rate as the rest of the U.S. housing stock, the nation would have roughly 2.5 million more such units— enough to house every American experiencing homelessness in a recent federal count more than three times over.