Jump to content

Is Housing A Fundamental Right?


Recommended Posts

Adam Schiff sez so:

 
-DNpPNUm_x96.jpg
 
Housing is a fundamental right. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.   If we don’t act, more than 3 million Americans could face eviction.   And forcing people out of their homes during a global pandemic is exceptionally cruel.   Congress must step in before it’s too late.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No. Any right that requires another to provide it is, in fact, confiscation of someone else's rights to their property or effort.  

I would argue that it is, at a very basic level.   The alternative is camping out all over streets and parks.   Where I live, the government has provided the unfortunate with very basic housing and it

There are no “natural rights.”  Every “right” is constructed.  So, if we as a society decide that housing is a fundamental right, it is.  That decision is political, as are all decisions.  Reasonable

Posted Images

I would argue that it is, at a very basic level.   The alternative is camping out all over streets and parks.   Where I live, the government has provided the unfortunate with very basic housing and it has solved quite a few social problems.  It isn't nice enough that anyone would really want to live there, but people do live there because they have to.  Once they are safe in some kind of housing it is much easier for social services to go in and help them with their other issues, like mental health.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sledracr said:

This would be a fine topic to explore in PA....

I get it and thought it, and decided this is not a political issue. Straight up or down vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ventucky Red said:
58 minutes ago, warbird said:

Curiously,  I have to spend $100s or $1000s to execute my 2nd.:ph34r:

Wife?  I may know a guy

I thick thisse maye falle undere "threade drifte" and dissreguarded as suche............       :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

No.

Any right that requires another to provide it is, in fact, confiscation of someone else's rights to their property or effort.  

Wowe, natiure boye speakeng 'Rittes', I love it...............      :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snaggletooth said:

I thick thisse maye falle undere "threade drifte" and dissreguarded as suche............       :)

Despite my previous tongue in cheek comment, let is acknowledge that this is a shot fight best left to PA andove on to honest discourse of a General nature. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snaggletooth said:

I thick thisse maye falle undere "threade drifte" and dissreguarded as suche............       :)

Jeebus, Snags, do you know what my ammo bill is lately?... I definitely need gubbermint assistance!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

Despite my previous tongue in cheek comment, let is acknowledge that this is a shot fight best left to PA andove on to honest discourse of a General nature. 

 Move is OK with me.  I don't think anyone has any inherent right to anything.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Wowe, natiure boye speakeng 'Rittes', I love it...............      :)

You'd be surprised what comes to mind when you're burning your alabaster hinny. 

In Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, he counseled us toward a wise and frugal government, one which "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." And "Man is commanded by God to live by the sweat of his brow, not someone else's."  Too paraphrase: Neither the world nor the government owes a man his bread.

And yes, TJ was a slave-holder. He spoke the recognized truth beautifully, even though he did not live it. More's the pity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

You'd be surprised what comes to mind when you're burning your alabaster hinny. 

In Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, he counseled us toward a wise and frugal government, one which "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." And "Man is commanded by God to live by the sweat of his brow, not someone else's."  Neither the world nor the government owes a man his bread.

And yes, TJ was a slave-holder. He spoke the recognized truth, even though he did not live it. More's the pity.  

You, me and TJ woude macke a liveley nitte.............. rittes, aspirationes, and wantnes........               :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

You'd be surprised what comes to mind when you're burning your alabaster hinny. 

In Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, he counseled us toward a wise and frugal government, one which "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." And "Man is commanded by God to live by the sweat of his brow, not someone else's."  Neither the world nor the government owes a man his bread.

And yes, TJ was a slave-holder. He spoke the recognized truth, even though he did not live it. More's the pity.  

They were of an era that allowed for slavery. They or subsequent generations abandoned those beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, warbird said:

They were of an era that allowed for slavery. They or subsequent generations abandoned those beliefs.

Very true, WB. And I honor the men of that era who struggled with the moral and economic realities, and did so with grace and humanity, like Washington.  But...

I am not a TJ fan. As brilliant a thinker, writer, natural philosopher and leader that he was, he was also a base man, who disregarded the very words he penned so movingly to increase his slave holdings, mistreat them cruelly, overspend wildly on his Monticello, cheat his business partners, and then die with more than $1M in debt, a fantastic figure in the late 17 Hundreds. I can only note he was the Father of the Democrat party.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

Very true, WB. And I honor the men of that era who struggled with the moral and economic realities, and did so with grace and humanity, like Washington.  But...

I am not a TJ fan. As brilliant a thinker, writer, natural philosopher and leader that he was, he was also a base man, who disregarded the very words he penned so movingly to increase his slave holdings, mistreat them cruelly, overspend wildly on his Monticello, cheat his business partners, and then die with more than $1M in debt, a fantastic figure in the late 17 Hundreds. I can only note he was the Father of the Democrat party.  

Hense, the fun nite I wishte foire........              :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Housing".... Or "Shelter"?

Certainly shelter is a fundamental right, but a house w/ wall to wall carpeting, a bed/bath for every member of the family, and a walk in pantry, no.

But a studio apt. with a working toilet and shower, as well as a kitchenette with a working stove and fridge ought to be available to those who need/want it.

 And if people with 30 room mansions on both coasts, and a couple of places over seas don't agree, then let them try living on the beach and using the bushes as a toilet for a week. Then let them try that in Michigan in January.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Adam Schiff sez so:

 
-DNpPNUm_x96.jpg
 
Housing is a fundamental right. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.   If we don’t act, more than 3 million Americans could face eviction.   And forcing people out of their homes during a global pandemic is exceptionally cruel.   Congress must step in before it’s too late.

thank god Texas thinks so...  you can have a homestead exemption on your primary home and they can't take that away from you unless you forget to pay your property taxes or mortgage... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

No.

Any right that requires another to provide it is, in fact, confiscation of someone else's rights to their property or effort.  

If you were born in the USA you have certain unalienable rights.

 If you pay taxes you are paying other people to live. It's automatic. If you want to with hold your tax dollars from helping other people, then expect no help paving your road, your schools, your police, or your electric and cell phone reception.

It's not "all for one and none for you!" as some people seem to think. We're all.... Everyone on the planet, responsible for the welfare of everyone else.

 If you want to go it alone, live off the grid, never go to town to buy supplies, don't use commercial products of any kind, and see how that works out for you.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many rental properties are heavily mortgaged and rely on timely rent payments to make said mortgage payments. If the tenants are under the assumption that they don’t have to pay the rent because there is no fear of eviction, then the default rate will eventually go through the roof, pun intended.

We risk a housing meltdown if we don’t evict those who are living rent free and replace them with those that pay. Harsh? Maybe. Realistic. Yes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

Very true, WB. And I honor the men of that era who struggled with the moral and economic realities, and did so with grace and humanity, like Washington.  But...

I am not a TJ fan. As brilliant a thinker, writer, natural philosopher and leader that he was, he was also a base man, who disregarded the very words he penned so movingly to increase his slave holdings, mistreat them cruelly, overspend wildly on his Monticello, cheat his business partners, and then die with more than $1M in debt, a fantastic figure in the late 17 Hundreds. I can only note he was the Father of the Democrat party.  

Brilliant thinkers can still be scoundrels and opportunists. I will shy away from PA discussions in GA except in very general terms. 245 years ago a most noble experiment was started that has not met an equal. Win or lose , the journey is not matched in modern times.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wetabehindtheears said:

Many rental properties are heavily mortgaged and rely on timely rent payments to make said mortgage payments. If the tenants are under the assumption that they don’t have to pay the rent because there is no fear of eviction, then the default rate will eventually go through the roof, pun intended.

We risk a housing meltdown if we don’t evict those who are living rent free and replace them with those that pay. Harsh? Maybe. Realistic. Yes.

No one who really wants to stay where they are is going to not pay rent if they have the means to. Those who are grifting, don't really care one way or the other. If you ever had a rental property you'd know that first last and security don't come close to the cost of what a tenant can do when they skip with out a trace days before the eviction notice. A few tampons down the toilet and you can have a $70,000 repair job on your hands in just a day. If people want to stay, they'll make an effort to pay, or do in-kind work to make it up. But if you skip, the word gets out, and even states away know very quickly who to look at when it comes to background checks. This is not 1970.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No one who really wants to stay where they are is going to not pay rent if they have the means to. Those who are grifting, don't really care one way or the other. If you ever had a rental property you'd know that first last and security don't come close to the cost of what a tenant can do when they skip with out a trace days before the eviction notice. A few tampons down the toilet and you can have a $70,000 repair job on your hands in just a day. If people want to stay, they'll make an effort to pay, or do in-kind work to make it up. But if you skip, the word gets out, and even states away know very quickly who to look at when it comes to background checks. This is not 1970.

Thanks I own rental properties, luckily for me I have no mortgages. Over the years I have learned the hard way on how to vet potential tenants. As of now I have great tenants, however I have associates that aren’t so fortunate, they are housing folks that are using the current situation to their advantage. I really hope things work out for the better. I’m an optimist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you were born in the USA you have certain unalienable rights.

 

1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

 

Right to thievery is not inalienable!  Taking lodging without recompense is thievery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

thank god Texas thinks so...  you can have a homestead exemption on your primary home and they can't take that away from you unless you forget to pay your property taxes or mortgage... 

Best part? You can fuck all your friends and relatives and vendor and partners to build your 6k sq ft house in the nice gated community, file bankruptcy and tell everyone to go pound sand. Feel free to ask me how I know this.  As to rights? I submit my sig line for anyone that cares.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no “natural rights.”  Every “right” is constructed.  So, if we as a society decide that housing is a fundamental right, it is.  That decision is political, as are all decisions.  Reasonable people can differ; insane people can differ over in PA.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to know whether this topic is driven by some specific event happening in the US at the moment.

The Venice Beach clearences and other street living places have made the news. But some of the comments suggest that there is some landlord/tennent issue bubbliing along too.

But there have to be two facts which need to underly any discussion of solutions.

If you interfer with the rental market, you will always end up with slums (for rent control) or a housing rental shortage (if you otherwise make landlords bear an uneconomic burden). And a shortage will always drive up rents; control that and you cycle back to slums.

Homelessness has a much deeper cause than housing shortage or expense. In many/ almost all cases some mental health or substance dependancy factor will underly it. I know from very personal experience (a brother) that alternative accommodation may even be readily availble but for whatever reason is rejected. In some ways you have to ensure that street living is viewed as a less desirable and discouraged choice than alternatives, while somehow (and I don't know how) addressing the underlying factors.

Shelters and collective state provided housing often become places of violence and drug pushers; which of course is one of the factors that drives people onto the street. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The great unwashed said:

There are no “natural rights.”  Every “right” is constructed.  So, if we as a society decide that housing is a fundamental right, it is.  That decision is political, as are all decisions.  Reasonable people can differ; insane people can differ over in PA.

Finally……this whole notion of “rights” is a social/cultural/political decision. There are zero “rights”. Guy across the street has a yard sign that says “voting is a human right”. I tried to explain to him that it really isn’t but he started to sputter and twitch. Then he called me a nazi. I asked him if he’d ever visited PA cuz he quickly turned a intellectual exploration into a political conflict and called me a “trumper”……..me a trumper, that’s hugely funny on so many levels. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Point Break said:

Finally……this whole notion of “rights” is a social/cultural/political decision. There are zero “rights”. Guy across the street has a yard sign that says “voting is a human right”. I tried to explain to him that it really isn’t but he started to sputter and twitch. Then he called me a nazi. I asked him if he’d ever visited PA cuz he quickly turned a intellectual exploration into a political conflict and called me a “trumper”……..me a trumper, that’s hugely funny on so many levels. 

:D

10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you were born in the USA you have certain unalienable rights.

Sez Who? These guys?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This was bullshit rhetoric when written and they all knew it.

Calling things 'truths" doesn't make them actual truths.

Whatever they are, they're not "self-evident."

They certainly didn't think "all men are created equal," that's lol-able.

"[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..." is just an outright speculation that made a lot more sense then, than now. 

The speculation proffered three things: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [for white people.]

So really, all that is high-fallutin crapola made to enhance a document of huge importance at the time. Most of us approve of life and liberty these days. And happiness is not promised. Freedom to pursue happiness is what's offered. Housing is not happiness.

But all of this was based on the assumption that regular folks would do their own work. Even government-supplied 40 acres and a mule would have met with ,,, "WOT?" 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So BC, in the town I live in there is a Trump Tower and two Avalon Towers. The Trump Tower declined certain tax incentives, Avalon did not, took full advantage figuring the conditions for those credits could not possibly happen.
All these towers to the west have a view of the New York City skyline. To the south a view across long island sound with Long Island off in a distance. To the east a view of the length of Long Island Sound framed by Long Island to the south and Connecticut to the north. The north side of the towers, the cheaper units, look up Westchester County. Not a bad view as most of the county is heavily treed and while you can see some roofs, mostly green Spring through Fall. Devoid of the NYC skyline and LIS views, these would be luxury apartments anywhere else but the NYC metro area suburbs.

When the Avalon was built, Derrick Jeter purchased the penthouse, lots of Yankees lived in this town. Mariano Rivera just up the road down by the shore, Joe Torre in a waterfront estate, etc. Jeter eventually backed out when his attorneys dug a little deeper into the tax credits. What the local government had done was insist on Section 8 Housing in the event all the units or a very high percentage did not sell in x amount of time. So the Avalon Corp figured it was a non-starter. That no way on God's green Earth would the place not sell out. That even though the view to the north was not what it was to the west, south and east, for a discounted price for north facing units, all would sell out and sell out swiftly. Once Jeter pulled out a lot of folks got cold feet. So the Section 8 condition was met and Avalon was forced to take vouchers for Section 8 housing......

So in my little town, we house our least capable in luxury apartments with pristine views of NYC, Long Island, Long Island Sound and Northern Westchester. Avalon sold off the property and the town decided to fill in the pools and remove the  community fitness areas. Riding in the elevators and in the stairs the smell of urine ads to the ambiance and allure of luxury living in the Queen City of Long Island Sound. Rather than these projects lifting up the surrounding downtown area, shops are closing, restaurants going broke and  what looked to be a promising future has turned dark with a bleak future. It has gone so well that the municipality decided that now with all these additional units, they would tear down the 1950's style garden apartments that formally housed Section 8 Housing and rebuilt that area with town houses. These town houses are also subject to Section 8 Housing and as such our local "Housing Authority" is doing a booming business of relocating less capable folks to flood our downtown. Wanna take a guess which way taxes are going and which way the town is headed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Point Break said:

Finally……this whole notion of “rights” is a social/cultural/political decision. There are zero “rights”. Guy across the street has a yard sign that says “voting is a human right”. I tried to explain to him that it really isn’t but he started to sputter and twitch. Then he called me a nazi. I asked him if he’d ever visited PA cuz he quickly turned a intellectual exploration into a political conflict and called me a “trumper”……..me a trumper, that’s hugely funny on so many levels. 

But, but, but, you are a trumper and a nazi. Clearly a member of the R-iech!!!!

Sorry, I was tapping into my inner AJOliver.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Sorry, I was tapping into my inner AJOliver.

He sure picked the right internet forum to display his feathers. In the drum circle you can beat yer own drum or beat the drum of the guy on the left or right.

image.jpeg.75f803aac93675535801158c5ca5f3d6.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

thank god Texas thinks so...  you can have a homestead exemption on your primary home and they can't take that away from you unless you forget to pay your property taxes or mortgage... 

They way I understand Homesteading is they can't force you into selling your property to satisfy a debt, however, they can force you into selling everything that is not consider "real property" (dinning room table - sell, dinning room chandelier - keep) as well put a lien against it that will eventually need to be satisfied when the property changes ownership and even then there may be some exemption from state to state.

I was looking at a property that had a some liens attached to it that needed to be satisfied before I could think of getting a permit to do some work... what an effing mess... and banks don't like lending on homes like this... unless of course you want to 18.5% compounded hourly -  sometimes when the deal is too good, it isn't.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

But, but, but, you are a trumper and a nazi. Clearly a member of the R-iech!!!!

Sorry, I was tapping into my inner AJOliver.

Don't start that shit here....  it is already nauseating over there...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

They certainly didn't think "all men are created equal," that's lol-able.

"[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..." is just an outright speculation that made a lot more sense then, than now. 

I think that means "All men are created having the same certain unalienable rights", not that they are equal in all other respects.  Sure, the practical application of this is far less than perfect, but it's not a bad guiding principal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will only say this about that.

I think that in the wealthiest, most powerful, rich in many natural resources country in the world, there is absolutely no excuser for any individual to suffer or die from lack of food, clothing and shelter; poverty inequality, or any other reason including laziness.  To do otherwise renders any flag waving, Constitution spouting, history quoting, whatever party you choose or none, is nothing but hypocrisy.  If you are going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.  Especially all them Christians out there.  Just my opinion, of course.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I will only say this about that.

I think that in the wealthiest, most powerful, rich in many natural resources country in the world, there is absolutely no excuser for any individual to suffer or die from lack of food, clothing and shelter; poverty inequality, or any other reason including laziness.  To do otherwise renders any flag waving, Constitution spouting, history quoting, whatever party you choose or none, is nothing but hypocrisy.  If you are going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.  Especially all them Christians out there.  Just my opinion, of course.

Can you 'splain this a bit? I think our bragging days are long over.

Plus, your main argument is based on sky fairyism, no personal injury intended. From a biological POV, that first sentence makes zero sense. The second isn't much better. 

And a moment of Zen: We're born alone and die alone ... you know the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 7:10 PM, warbird said:

Brilliant thinkers can still be scoundrels and opportunists. I will shy away from PA discussions in GA except in very general terms. 245 years ago a most noble experiment was started that has not met an equal. Win or lose , the journey is not matched in modern times.

That is just silly. There are at least a dozen, if not more, countries whose 'journey' is far superior - no slavery on which to base a country, no civil war - no Covid mess to bring it to date.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I will only say this about that.

I think that in the wealthiest, most powerful, rich in many natural resources country in the world, there is absolutely no excuser for any individual to suffer or die from lack of food, clothing and shelter; poverty inequality, or any other reason including laziness.  To do otherwise renders any flag waving, Constitution spouting, history quoting, whatever party you choose or none, is nothing but hypocrisy.  If you are going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.  Especially all them Christians out there.  Just my opinion, of course.

A lot of folks work hard and give their money away without strings.  President Herbert Hoover is a prime example.  My grandfather never voted for another Republican.  He saw the struggle for the working person.  He was grateful for the life he led.  His son is a social conservative, a fiscal conservative and a Republican through and through.  Of course, in our little town you couldn't get a job if you didn't sign that dotted line.

Christianity is just a philosophy and like Marxists, we eat our own.  If God is, God is.  I'd like to discover Him.

We treat dogs better than we treat our neighbors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

That is just silly. There are at least a dozen, if not more, countries whose 'journey' is far superior - no slavery on which to base a country, no civil war - no Covid mess to bring it to date.

Curious as to why you didn’t list at least one of these countries you find superior to the United States. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 5:09 PM, Blue Crab said:
Housing is a fundamental right. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.  

In a just society, it would be.

Ours is not a just society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Remodel said:

In a just society, it would be.

Ours is not a just society.

Seriously. Got an example of which of the other 231 countries on this planet have a 'Just Society'?.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Seriously. Got an example of which of the other 231 countries on this planet have a 'Just Society'?.....

Canada is working on it.  It has a long way to go.  Some Scandinavian countries are probably close.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rain Man said:

Canada is working on it.  It has a long way to go.  Some Scandinavian countries are probably close.

Why are they building all those 'Just Societies' in freezing ass countries with no palm trees?.....:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at another way…the lords would be wise to keep the hoards somewhat satisfied. Capitalism, occupation, zoning, regulation and such have pushed certain groups out of housing. Around here the human history is one of land theft and genocide. The modern “civilized” approach hereabouts is harsh zoning, vagrancy laws and overbearing police. 
 

Some people may, through choice, disposition, genetics, or whatever, not participate in the particular system we have built. We should find…legislate…a solution. 
 

Around here the elite, having run the indigenous out long ago, then economically excluded the commoners, are now taking aim at the hoards of tourists. The plan seems to be that they either take a $400 resort room for the night or get out of town at sunset. A swarm of police cruisers searches for people not moving fast enough. And good luck finding a toilet, bath, or even a free drink of water. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Seriously. Got an example of which of the other 231 countries on this planet have a 'Just Society'?.....

Your thinking small Rico. I was referring to all of human society, not merely the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Remodel said:

Your thinking small Rico. I was referring to all of human society, not merely the U.S.

Well.....I've never once been accused of being a BIG thinker.....so you got me there....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer the OP thread title is "NO".  It should be a goal of society, certainly.  But it is neither a right nor an entitlement that someone deserves.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh hell, when there are a bunch of people dying of exposure, thirst, and hunger and you want to make it a theological or political science debate out of it...it's bullshit.  

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Remodel said:
On 7/30/2021 at 6:09 PM, Blue Crab said:
Housing is a fundamental right. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.  

In a just society, it would be.

Ours is not a just society.

I'm not the author of that remark. Why, exactly, does everyone deserve a roof? Is it written somewhere on a tablet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Oh hell, when there are a bunch of people dying of exposure, thirst, and hunger and you want to make it a theological or political science debate out of it...it's bullshit.  

   

Sorry Mark, just answering the question as stated.  It is not a fundamental "right".  That word get bandied about too loosely.  As I said, of course society should try to put roofs over the homelessness' heads.  Or maybe attack the root causes of why someone is homeless in the first place.  But calling it a "right" simply changes the conversation now and makes it untenable to have a reasonable conversation about it, because it makes it completely a white and black subject.  Not everything we desire is a right.  For instance, we do not have the "right" to be happy.....  we however do have the right to pursue happiness.  

You may right this off as pedantic picking of nits semantics..... but words do have specific meanings.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 9:12 PM, Mrleft8 said:

"Housing".... Or "Shelter"?

Certainly shelter is a fundamental right, but a house w/ wall to wall carpeting, a bed/bath for every member of the family, and a walk in pantry, no.

But a studio apt. with a working toilet and shower, as well as a kitchenette with a working stove and fridge ought to be available to those who need/want it.

 And if people with 30 room mansions on both coasts, and a couple of places over seas don't agree, then let them try living on the beach and using the bushes as a toilet for a week. Then let them try that in Michigan in January.

Private housing?   Why not a bunkhouse?   More importantly, what of property owner’s rights to compensation when their property is functionally seized by government?   I get the mentality of sticking it to the big REITs but my experience is the small scale landlord with a duplex or rental home as a side hustle.  He often does basic repairs on his own properties after work.   They were wronged by government just as businesses were.    That doesn’t mean tax policy and zoning shouldn’t incentivize business and subsidize homeless shelters for the common good.   I’m not looking to recreate Victorian era flop houses, but doing a Castro by seizing property and forcing landlords to provide free housing while continuing to pay for upkeep was never just.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 3:09 PM, Blue Crab said:

Adam Schiff sez so:

 
-DNpPNUm_x96.jpg
 
Housing is a fundamental right. Everyone deserves a roof over their head.   If we don’t act, more than 3 million Americans could face eviction.   And forcing people out of their homes during a global pandemic is exceptionally cruel.   Congress must step in before it’s too late.

This push to extend the eviction moratorium is utter BS.  It was originally based on the economy being in the shitter and 20% unemployment rate.  At the time it made sense.  Now with employers begging for workers and rising wages as a result, anyone who says they can't afford their rent are dipshits.  The justification for the moratorium has passed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lark said:

Private housing?   Why not a bunkhouse?   More importantly, what of property owner’s rights to compensation when their property is functionally seized by government?   I get the mentality of sticking it to the bit REITs but my experience is the small scale landlord wih a duplex or rental home as a side hustle.  He does basic repairs on his own properties after work.   They were wronged by government just as businesses were.    That doesn’t mean tax policy and zoning shouldn’t incentivize business and subsidize homeless shelters for the common good.   I’m not looking to recreate Victorian era flop houses, but doing a Castro by seizing property and forcing landlords to provide free housing while continuing to pay for upkeep was never just.   

DING DING DING! 

It's an unfunded mandate.  If you want these tenants to have a home, then fucking pay the landlord's bills!  I have heard little talk of debt relief from mortgage companies.  And even landlords with rentals that don't have a mortgage are STILL burdened with the costs of the rental property such as maintenance, Taxes, utilities, etc.  One of my deadbeat renters is not only NOT paying rent, she stopped paying utilities (even though she has a full-time job) and now the utility companies are threatening to put a lien on the house unless those bills are paid. 

I've given her every opportunity to pay - such as offered grace periods to pay the back rent over several months, and so on.  She's refused and ignored every generous option I've offered.  So frankly, I don't care if she's out on the street or not.  She makes plenty of $$ to cover the rent and utilities, she is just choosing not to pay because she believes the gov't is protecting her and giving her a free ride.  Typical white trailer trash.  

that don't confront me
Long as I get my money next Friday
Now next Friday come she didn't get the rent
And out the door she went

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lark said:

Private housing?   Why not a bunkhouse?   More importantly, what of property owner’s rights to compensation when their property is functionally seized by government?   I get the mentality of sticking it to the big REITs but my experience is the small scale landlord with a duplex or rental home as a side hustle.  He often does basic repairs on his own properties after work.   They were wronged by government just as businesses were.    That doesn’t mean tax policy and zoning shouldn’t incentivize business and subsidize homeless shelters for the common good.   I’m not looking to recreate Victorian era flop houses, but doing a Castro by seizing property and forcing landlords to provide free housing while continuing to pay for upkeep was never just.   

Why not a bunkhouse indeed. I don't think any rational person would advocate for much more as a first step. A safe place to flop and shower until that person is on their feet and able to afford better should be the goal.

And if government is going to put a moratorium in place, it should be obligated to compensate the landlord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Mariachi said:

Well.....I've never once been accused of being a BIG thinker.....so you got me there....

But to your point, I can't think of any country capitalist or otherwise that would fit the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Oh hell, when there are a bunch of people dying of exposure, thirst, and hunger and you want to make it a theological or political science debate out of it...it's bullshit.  

The actual question has nothing to do with exposure and whatnot. 

Screw drunks and dipshits but honest folks do end up out in the street. Do they then get to choose where to park or tent, bathe, and cook? If they're in proximity to homeowners, trouble is foreseeable. What if they don't get off your lawn?

I do think as Americans we've been exceptional in many things but as humans we're no different whatsoever from any other humans. Right this instant children are being born into wealth or the deepest poverty. There's no justice to it, it's a crapshoot. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I'm not the author of that remark. Why, exactly, does everyone deserve a roof? Is it written somewhere on a tablet?

Not to start thread drift, but the well being of of a community relies in part on assuring the the health and well being of its constituents. For example if you're going to force women to bring unwanted children into the world, you have a moral duty to assist with pre and post natal care, ensure that there are programs in place to provide for child and health care as needed and educate the little bastards. I would think that a safe secure structure in which to eat and sleep would be a part of such assistance. It is also incumbent on the recipient of such aid to do his or her part to move out or begin to pay some portion of the costs as soon as they are able.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

DING DING DING! 

It's an unfunded mandate.  If you want these tenants to have a home, then fucking pay the landlord's bills!  I have heard little talk of debt relief from mortgage companies.  And even landlords with rentals that don't have a mortgage are STILL burdened with the costs of the rental property such as maintenance, Taxes, utilities, etc.  One of my deadbeat renters is not only NOT paying rent, she stopped paying utilities (even though she has a full-time job) and now the utility companies are threatening to put a lien on the house unless those bills are paid. 

I've given her every opportunity to pay - such as offered grace periods to pay the back rent over several months, and so on.  She's refused and ignored every generous option I've offered.  So frankly, I don't care if she's out on the street or not.  She makes plenty of $$ to cover the rent and utilities, she is just choosing not to pay because she believes the gov't is protecting her and giving her a free ride.  Typical white trailer trash.  

that don't confront me
Long as I get my money next Friday
Now next Friday come she didn't get the rent
And out the door she went

Out of curiosity, what is the eviction process in your state?   In Indiana 20 years ago it as 2-3 months after I hired an off duty cop to serve papers, with court date needing to be scheduled and whatever time the judge allowed her as a verdict.    She was bluffed out because she was dumb and didn’t want conflict.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Remodel said:

Not to start thread drift, but the well being of of a community relies in part on assuring the the health and well being of its constituents. For example if you're going to force women to bring unwanted children into the world, you have a moral duty to assist with pre and post natal care, ensure that there are programs in place to provide for child and health care as needed and educate the little bastards. I would think that a safe secure structure in which to eat and sleep would be a part of such assistance. It is also incumbent on the recipient of such aid to do his or her part to move out or begin to pay some portion of the costs as soon as they are able.

100% agree that if we are going to prevent abortions, then society has the absolute duty to care for and protect that child.  This is what the anti-abortionist simply don't get.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Oh hell, when there are a bunch of people dying of exposure, thirst, and hunger and you want to make it a theological or political science debate out of it...it's bullshit.  

   

Instead of using somebody’s house for free, I’ve decided they can live on your boat for free.   You are obligated to continue to pay the slip fee for them.  When they decide to leave you get your boat back.  I’m sure they will clean it first.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lark said:

Instead of using my house for free, I’ve decided they can live on your boat for free.   You are obligated to continue to pay the slip fee for them.  When they decide to leave you get your boat back.  I’m sure they will clean it first.   

This is the problem in a nutshell. In my opinion, the moratorium on evictions amounts to unlawful seizure of private property. I don't want to see people put out on the street, but property owners should be justly compensated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shelter? Food? Healthcare?

If people here actually knew and followed the teachings of Jesus our society would be much better off.  I remember as a kid the stories about how the Eskimos would put the old folks on ice floes and let them go and how we would never allow that to happen here. 

 "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" 

Those that need the most help tend to be the most unlikeable and undeserving so just fuk em. Shoulda made better decisions.  You made your (lack of) bed so lie in it.  I could go on.....  or let's just focus on those who exploit the system so we can justify doing nothing.   Hey, just combine it with climate change.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Remodel said:

But to your point, I can't think of any country capitalist or otherwise that would fit the bill.

This is not even remotely my area of expertise....but going off of what I've seen south of the Tortilla Curtain and from several good friends of mine who are on Blue Passport Books #3 or 4....it seems like countries who cherish their extended families and care for them (when possible) seem to be much more.....caring & compassionate...(if those are the right words?) to others. I would think Japan and South Korea and Bali might fall in that category. Native Hawaiians, Samoans and many Pacific Islanders are usually extremely protective of their brethren. Perhaps also Iceland, a LOT of Mexico, Belize & Singapore. And Manaco & Lithuania and Switzerland too? Not a lot of homeless and not many folks going hungry from what I've heard. Correct me if you think I'm off base.....but it seems to me that a Society that actually cares about the well being of their less fortunate citizens.....are the ones worth emulating.....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lark said:

…. but doing a Castro by seizing property …

Castro? Was he part of the Manifest Destiny pogrom?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Mariachi said:

This is not even remotely my area of expertise....but going off of what I've seen south of the Tortilla Curtain and from several good friends of mine who are on Blue Passport Books #3 or 4....it seems like countries who cherish their extended families and care for them (when possible) seem to be much more.....caring & compassionate...(if those are the right words?) to others. I would think Japan and South Korea and Bali might fall in that category. Native Hawaiians, Samoans and many Pacific Islanders are usually extremely protective of their brethren. Perhaps also Iceland, a LOT of Mexico, Belize & Singapore. And Manaco & Lithuania and Switzerland too? Not a lot of homeless and not many folks going hungry from what I've heard. Correct me if you think I'm off base.....but it seems to me that a Society that actually cares about the well being of their less fortunate citizens.....are the ones worth emulating.....

 

 

Nor mine. I am expressing opinion.

100% agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Borracho said:

Castro? Was he part of the Manifest Destiny pogrom?

Yea, you’re right,    There is legal precedent, but they weren’t white so it doesn’t count.   Past flaws need not dictate future performance.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lark said:

Private housing?   Why not a bunkhouse?   More importantly, what of property owner’s rights to compensation when their property is functionally seized by government?   I get the mentality of sticking it to the big REITs but my experience is the small scale landlord with a duplex or rental home as a side hustle.  He often does basic repairs on his own properties after work.   They were wronged by government just as businesses were.    That doesn’t mean tax policy and zoning shouldn’t incentivize business and subsidize homeless shelters for the common good.   I’m not looking to recreate Victorian era flop houses, but doing a Castro by seizing property and forcing landlords to provide free housing while continuing to pay for upkeep was never just.   

Try not to get the current approach of non-eviction with the notion of a right. Not allowing eviction is asset confiscation, plain and simple, and wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Sorry Mark, just answering the question as stated.  It is not a fundamental "right".  That word get bandied about too loosely.  As I said, of course society should try to put roofs over the homelessness' heads.  Or maybe attack the root causes of why someone is homeless in the first place.  But calling it a "right" simply changes the conversation now and makes it untenable to have a reasonable conversation about it, because it makes it completely a white and black subject.  Not everything we desire is a right.  For instance, we do not have the "right" to be happy.....  we however do have the right to pursue happiness.  

You may right this off as pedantic picking of nits semantics..... but words do have specific meanings.  

I didn't intend that to be a reply to your post, it just came right after yours. I'm irritated with Schumer. Why not simply say "No one wants another million homeless people on the streets. What we gonna do?"??     

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Shelter? Food? Healthcare?

If people here actually knew and followed the teachings of Jesus our society would be much better off.  I remember as a kid the stories about how the Eskimos would put the old folks on ice floes and let them go and how we would never allow that to happen here. 

 "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" 

Those that need the most help tend to be the most unlikeable and undeserving so just fuk em. Shoulda made better decisions.  You made your (lack of) bed so lie in it.  I could go on.....  or let's just focus on those who exploit the system so we can justify doing nothing.   Hey, just combine it with climate change.

 

Jesus who?  I thought most liberals eschew religious teachings as a basis for building and running a society.  You can't have it both ways when it suits you.  And that is not aimed at just you d'.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

I'm not the author of that remark. Why, exactly, does everyone deserve a roof? Is it written somewhere on a tablet?

I've thought about it a bit.

1000 years ago.. 500 years ago.. 100 years ago... if you wanted a house, you could basically go find a spot and build one.  Yea, that's not totally true but there were options.  And yea, not everyone had the skill.  But people could do it.  You didn't like the current rules of where you lived, you COULD head out and try something else.

That's not really possible anymore.  You can't set up a tent in a state park without permission.. not by a road.. or in a town.. .or.. anywhere.  You can't really move to a different country.   Secure borders and all.

When society takes all the land, then maybe society IS responsible to provide you a roof.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Jesus who?  I thought most liberals eschew religious teachings as a basis for building and running a society.  You can't have it both ways when it suits you.  And that is not aimed at just you d'.  

I think he meant Hey-Zeus.  Guy runs a taco truck in East LA and is something of a philosopher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

I think he meant Hey-Zeus.  Guy runs a taco truck in East LA and is something of a philosopher.

That's straight up racist, right there Cal.  But he does make good tacos.

Link to post
Share on other sites