Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness

[Seattle]

?? WTF are you talking about?

I was born in the US to two parents who valued education. I am now a middle aged cis straight white guy without a noticeable accent. I have no disabilities or deformities, am not addicted to anything, and don't have mental health issues. That makes me more privileged than 99% of the people in the world. I suspect you have many of the same privileges.



By renting them a place to live at a rate well below market, in a house that we got because someone in our family died?

I think you are trying for a "gotcha" here, but you're sort of flailing.

No homeless have been removed from the streets, you have 3 houses and you complain about the wealthy and privilege. You are the "man" who is exploiting the worker. You should give a homeless person one of your 3 houses. You are only adding to the inequality of wealth.

 

[billvon]

In my opinion cramming more people into neighborhoods isn't the solution either.

The alternative is the urban sprawl we see in LA. Portland did a decent job managing this with their urban growth boundary. Not perfect of course.

When a city is "full", it's time to move to or develop a new city.

Sure. How do you force that? How do you deport people? Do you tell companies they can't hire anyone else? Do you outlaw the building of new homes?

This fire illustrates that people can't look ahead to 2nd and 3rd order consequences and the same can be said for cramming more people into an already full community.

I agree that people can't look ahead. But in terms of fire, the opposite is true. If we had more "crammed" (high density) communities then we wouldn't have so many homes at the wilderness boundary. If we had more "crammed" communities we wouldn't need as many highways, parking lots and roads - which make up 40% of the land needed in sprawling LA communities. If we had more "crammed" communities we wouldn't HAVE so many houses in the wilds of southern California. If we had more "crammed" communities we could defend a smaller area with the same number of firefighters/infrastructure.

It should be very expensive to build in some of these hillside communities.

OK. And who enforces that? More taxes for those areas?

Firefighters shouldn't have to risk their lives year after year protecting some of these places. We probably shouldn't have private property allowed on the beach front at Malibu either but that is what it is I suppose.

You mean no beachfront private property in Malibu - or no beachfront private property anywhere?

Florida and Southern California should start to have policies leading to decreased population densities and not ways to cram even more people in.

Again, that has the opposite effect when it comes to fire. More sprawl, more area for firefighters to defend, more roads/cars/parking lots, more interfaces between wildlands/private property, more CO2 to warm the climate.

 

[billvon]

No homeless have been removed from the streets

Due to this one house? Right. But a low income family now lives there - and that means the apartment they left is now open for other low income people.

you have 3 houses and you complain about the wealthy and privilege.

2 houses, and no, I'm not complaining. The only one complaining about privilege is you, here in this thread.

You should give a homeless person one of your 3 houses.

Then you'd attack me for not giving it to a homeless illegal immigrant with cancer. The important thing is that you get to attack, right?

 

[Seattle]

Due to this one house? Right. But a low income family now lives there - and that means the apartment they left is now open for other low income people.


2 houses, and no, I'm not complaining. The only one complaining about privilege is you, here in this thread.



Then you'd attack me for not giving it to a homeless illegal immigrant with cancer. The important thing is that you get to attack, right?

Illegal immigrants with cancer are people too. We might not be able to help them all but we have to try, right? Only those with assets are in a position to help. We can fix this problem if the wealthy would just cooperate. The poor have no assets so it's up to the wealthy. Please, please do the right thing and give up one of your houses to a non cis gendered non-white fellow human being...

 

[Seattle]

The alternative is the urban sprawl we see in LA. Portland did a decent job managing this with their urban growth boundary. Not perfect of course.



Sure. How do you force that? How do you deport people? Do you tell companies they can't hire anyone else? Do you outlaw the building of new homes?



I agree that people can't look ahead. But in terms of fire, the opposite is true. If we had more "crammed" (high density) communities then we wouldn't have so many homes at the wilderness boundary. If we had more "crammed" communities we wouldn't need as many highways, parking lots and roads - which make up 40% of the land needed in sprawling LA communities. If we had more "crammed" communities we wouldn't HAVE so many houses in the wilds of southern California. If we had more "crammed" communities we could defend a smaller area with the same number of firefighters/infrastructure.



OK. And who enforces that? More taxes for those areas?



You mean no beachfront private property in Malibu - or no beachfront private property anywhere?


Again, that has the opposite effect when it comes to fire. More sprawl, more area for firefighters to defend, more roads/cars/parking lots, more interfaces between wildlands/private property, more CO2 to warm the climate.

Portland is not a good example of anything.

Regarding S. California, letting the free market do its thing will fix any problem. Quit passing bills to limit insurance premiums in wildfire hazard areas. Quit having the government subsidize, guarantee, insure such behavior.

If it's expensive enough to reflect the true costs, far fewer people will live there and that is the solution.

 

[Sarkus]

Portland is not a good example of anything.

Surely if it's not a good example of anything then it must be a good example of a place that is not a good example of anything (other than being a good example of not being a good example of anything other than being a good example of not being....)

And thus the hole was ripped into the fabric of the universe, simply because Portland couldn't get off its arse to be a good example of anything other than a good example of a place that is not a good example of anything (other than being a good example of not being a good example of anything other than....)

And now the hole has a hole!
When will it end!!!
Oh, the humanity!

 

[billvon]

Illegal immigrants with cancer are people too.

Thank you for admitting that this is a game to you. Noted.

 

[billvon]

Portland is not a good example of anything.

It's not just Portland; it's all of Oregon. Portland is just the biggest example. And it's been largely working.

Regarding S. California, letting the free market do its thing will fix any problem.

The free market did not fix smog. Government regulation did.

The free market did not fix the water problem. Government projects did. Government projects that have now been utilized for far, far more than they were designed to handle - and are thus failing due to overuse.

The free market got the urban sprawl that made the Palisades fire such a disaster.

The free market got us Love Canal, the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Exxon Valdez and Enron.

At some point you have to realize that the free market is a great way to apportion scarce goods and services to individuals (cars, TVs, steak, pet rocks) but a very poor way to apportion things that affect everyone (clean air, sewers, police and fire, public health, urban planning.)

 

[Seattle]

It's not just Portland; it's all of Oregon. Portland is just the biggest example. And it's been largely working.



The free market did not fix smog. Government regulation did.

The free market did not fix the water problem. Government projects did. Government projects that have now been utilized for far, far more than they were designed to handle - and are thus failing due to overuse.

The free market got the urban sprawl that made the Palisades fire such a disaster.

The free market got us Love Canal, the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Exxon Valdez and Enron.

At some point you have to realize that the free market is a great way to apportion scarce goods and services to individuals (cars, TVs, steak, pet rocks) but a very poor way to apportion things that affect everyone (clean air, sewers, police and fire, public health, urban planning.)

The free market will handle smog if you put a price on clean air.
The distinction isn't whether something affects everyone. Cars and steak affect everyone.
Urban planning is why we have areas for single family housing, commercial, and mixed housing.

The profit motive isn't the way to handle the fire department or the prisons (IMO) so that's left to the government. If it's too big for any one person (roads, airways) that's for the government as well.

We have urban planning, you just don't like it unless it's your plan. Without the California insurance plan, once the private insurance companies back out, that will take care of most of the problem as well.