this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1227 points (84.7% liked)

Memes

45670 readers
870 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BB69@lemmy.world 135 points 1 year ago (19 children)

I don’t think anybody thinks that.

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 88 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not explicitly, maybe, but implicitly, absolutely, and in multiple ways:

  • Supporting the system that creates one over the other
  • Having 'bootstrap' attitudes about the poor
  • Worrying about property value over utilization
  • Complaining about the homeless rather than the lack of action on housing
  • Voting against people who run on public housing

In so, so many ways, people say they prefer the latter over the former. Usually just with the caveat that the homeless people also be invisible.

[–] Goodbyeworld@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Maybe we should institute a tax on underutilized land in metro areas.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Land Value Tax 👀

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 67 points 1 year ago (15 children)

In the United States at least, your local government's public hearings for new housing developments kinda begs to differ.

People will demand the homeless be eliminated from their area while simultaneously opposing development of housing or shelters for the homeless in their area.

So maybe you're right though: they don't hate the apartments more, they simply can't make up their mind on which they hate more.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I agree but want to say everyone jumps to homeless. There are a ton of normal people that are suffering from high rent, lack of options, etc. We need to think about way more than homeless.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 131 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The world will never recover until poverty is seen not as a character flaw, but as a failure of society itself to provide for the most vulnerable.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

They wouldn't be vulnerable if they just overcame their own biology and lifetime of trauma. Its that simple, they arent trying hard enough.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] yewler@lemmygrad.ml 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My freaking God. I volunteered at a local charity org a bit this summer and one of the first things they told us in orientation was that "most people think that poverty is about what people lack. But it's actually a mindset." That pissed me the heck off not gonna lie.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Was it a religious charity org? Those ones are often condescending assholes like that..

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spread@programming.dev 79 points 1 year ago (71 children)

I hate how when there is any picture of Soviet blocks it's always shot in autumn or winter when it's overcast. I live in an ex Soviet country and when these bad boys are maintained they can outperform new apartments, be it in functionality, amenities or price.

load more comments (71 replies)
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 66 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I'd gladly live in one of those apartments in the first picture if it meant that everyone could have a home

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d gladly walk my ass out to the wilderness rather than live in an apartment block, but at least then there’d be an extra spot.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 17 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The nice thing is in an anarchist society you could do just that, and no one would stop you

I'd personally prefer to be surrounded by people

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The USSR didn't do much good but those apartment buildings are definitely good. I used to live in a soviet apartment building and the funny thing about that was that every wall was a load bearing wall since all of them could hold up everything. They were thick as hell and fully concrete.

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Every wall was a wall and not a cardboard decoration of a wall

FTFY. Not all of them were load-bearing, mind you, they were just proper walls made of wall.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

I'd say those were made from at least 3 walls worth of wall.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Nurgle@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

This is kinda like saying we need more farms to solve hunger.

The cost of housing is very detached from supply. For rentals, companies bought up housing and just jacked up the price, because renters are a semi captive client base.

New construction sometimes doesn’t even help, when developers knocks down an old affordable 12 unit apartment building and build a luxury 36 unit building, you’ve created -12 units of affordable housing.

Even for home buyers, they’re facing a major up hill battle going against existing home owners who have access to the capital of their current homes, and even worse corporate home buyers.

This isn’t to say supply isn’t an issue and we can ignore it, but we need to stop housing from just being an investment vehicle. Otherwise we’re just going to get garbage housing at prices no one can afford.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

it's not detached from supply at all, single house zoning and mandatory minimum parking make for a whole lot of trouble in the US

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Asudox@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I don't think: "ah, buildings again. I'd rather live in camps featuring trash scent."

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Don't worry, they've outlawed homelessness. Problem solved!

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally though. And there's a whole practice of hostile architecture that makes it harder and more uncomfortable to be homeless.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The point of hostile architecture isn't to solve homelessness, just to send them to the next block/town over (not saying you don't understand that, just pointing it out).

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I understand the point. But France has done this and ended up with giant ghettos filled with si much crime that no emergency services whatsoever go there anymore.

In the US, they built giant housing projects like this where poverty was concentrated and the same thing happened. Crime installed itself in those projects and these neighbourhoods became dangerous ghettos.

Picture 1 is not the solution you think you want.

The condo building where I live is not so big. And it was built with 25% dedicated to social housing where poor families and underpaid workers can live comfortably in an apartment unit as big as my condo unit, which I paid nearly $400k CAD, for the price of about $650 CAD per month. This allows them to integrate with everyone else and live with everyone else and near where all the jobs are.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] paddytokey@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Capitalism has you thinking that these are our only options

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I don't get people that have such a visceral reaction to apartments (the horror). What they write is frankly hilarious how they think. Right up there with what they write about transit (ohhh noooo) and electric stoves [sobbing noises].

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, but I didn't have to pay anything for those people to live in tents. I keep my money out of their lazy hands.

/s, deeply, if it isn't obv.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

/s

And for those unaware, the cost of homelessness does exist, and it is quite high. We pay for it through emergency services (police, doctors, ambulance, hospital beds), waste removal services, etc.

The problem needs fixed, and part of the solution is commie blocks unironically.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are forgetting the cost of building "asshole design" infrastructure, like spikes under bridges, instead of building affordable housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cynetri@midwest.social 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

never fails to amaze me how "progressive" types do a complete 180 as soon as someone mentions solving the homeless problem by giving them homes

edit: i rest my case

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't think "progressives" have any issue with housing the homeless. The issue is where.

Go to a conservative (or indeed any) neighbourhood and tell them you'll be building 200 apartments nearby to house rough sleepers, see how that goes down.

Most homeless are invisible to us anyway. They hold down jobs, they have gym memberships, they just sleep in their car, or on a mate's sofa every so often. Nobody would have a problem with them moving in nearby.

It's the aggressive beggars, addicts, and shitting in shop doorways (and these three are the same person) that nobody wants anywhere near them. These are who most people think of when they hear the word "homeless". Most of them need more treatment than just a roof. We don't have enough of that either.

I've no issue with my taxes helping all these people. I'm happy to pay tax to reduce the chances of me personally being robbed by somebody in desperate poverty.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Illegal_Prime@dmv.social 22 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that’s just NIMBYs.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago

Uh, the billionaires don't see that. Even the millionaires can avoid seeing that.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago

Who is this society guy? He sounds stupid

load more comments
view more: next ›