Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

real_human__bean OP t1_j910ncy wrote

Is this true? I’m not a local, just a big cities nerd.

21

BaltimoreBadger23 t1_j9130fd wrote

I hadn't seen this news, but it's not surprising. Baltimore has a lot of vacant housing stock, so rehoming the homeless with federal support isn't super difficult if there's just a little will to do so (and the will to do so is usually what's lacking).

14

Morraine t1_j91f9yz wrote

The vast majority of those unoccupied homes should be condemned and are in no way a potential solution.

49

Ms_Cranky_Pants t1_j91r7q6 wrote

Some day I want to see all these people that suggest we do something with vacant housing try to rehab one and make it livable for human beings, let’s just see how it plays out and how much it ends up costing.

14

27thStreet t1_j92ap0k wrote

It cant even just be one house. So what if you renovate one rowhome if the ones on either side are crumbling? And, who cares if you renovate 3 rowhomes if the block is still full of blight?

Individual investors will never solve the vacant house problem.

13

Ms_Cranky_Pants t1_j92l8vr wrote

I appreciate what you’re saying, but I was being sarcastic.

0

prufrocked42 t1_j93m5bm wrote

They were just agreeing with and strengthening your point. The housing problems runs deep and has no good apparent solutions.

3

sllewgh t1_j91iuji wrote

There are seven vacant homes for every homeless person in Baltimore, so even if it's true the overwhelming majority should be condemned, it's still a viable part of the solution.

12

Morraine t1_j91wwks wrote

No, I’m sorry, but it really isn’t. People transitioning from homelessness, or conversely people on the brink of being homeless, need more than just a place to live - they need many supportive services. How will they pay for the electricity and water bills? Childcare? Food? You can’t just throw money at it by rehabbing a bunch of old, shitty row homes and expect anything other than them turning into crack dens.

15

dopkick t1_j91xwox wrote

Look man, don't let reality get in the way of a good circle jerk. It feels so good to know you have the answer. And to be able to point at a boogeyman. You injecting reality into the discussion is killing the outspoken confident white knight vibe.

4

sllewgh t1_j91zvn6 wrote

Now you're talking about something else entirely.

There is enough viable vacant housing stock to end homelessness, even accounting for the majority of vacants being in disrepair. You are correct that homelessness isn't the only problem a homeless person might be experiencing, but the solution to homelessness is still housing.

3

dopkick t1_j926keg wrote

Your entire mental process is fundamentally flawed. Homelessness is a complex, multi-faceted problem. You are viewing it with a narrow aperture as solely the absence of a stable housing situation. The reality, however, is that there is a lot more going on.

I would argue the housing situation is a symptom of the problem. The problem is often some combination of a myriad of mental health issues, drug addiction, disabilities, financial crisis, etc. That is what leads to people not having a home. All of that is homelessness, plus the housing situation.

Simply providing a house is not going to address these underlying issues. If you want to solve these root causes you are going to need to be able to provide a large number of services to people. Baltimore is not very good at public transportation, so now what?

And then you have to consider even the mundane, day to day things. How does someone with unreliable transportation (and potentially a disability preventing usage of the existing transportation) get groceries on the regular? Much of these vacants are smack dab in the middle of a food desert.

And then another problem rears its ugly head. Crime. These vacants are generally NOT in good neighborhoods. Dropping off a highly vulnerable population in the middle of crime-ridden areas is basically a recipe for a victim factory.

Once you start to inject reality into the problem it quickly becomes apparent that the fact of a home itself is just a small part of the equation.

6

sllewgh t1_j92rvpu wrote

I've already addressed this.

>You are correct that homelessness isn't the only problem a homeless person might be experiencing, but the solution to homelessness is still housing.

−1

dopkick t1_j91vmxy wrote

I truly do not understand this sub's absolute obsession with vacant and run down homes. There are many people here who think they are the panacea to ALL woes. In reality, they're expensive gut jobs at best. Many need to be totally demolished. I suspect a vast majority of people have not actually seen the blocks where vacants are plentiful, much less the actual houses.

Even if you could magically flip the houses on the cheap. You then have to deal with the crime, lack of transportation, crumbling infrastructure, and lack of nearby groceries/businesses. Not easy.

12

27thStreet t1_j92bcqk wrote

People just like the idea of solving two problems are once. It's not practical but it makes sense in people's brains that we have homeless people and peopleless homes...it should be easy-peazy to unite them.

Of course, that's not reality, but certainly you can see why the idea is popular.

8

dopkick t1_j92hh4t wrote

Absolutely.

One thing I've learned about these large scale problems (homelessness, food insecurity, crime, etc.) over the years is that there is no simple answer. There's always a bunch of complicating factors (mental health, political corruption, lack of infrastructure, religious beliefs, whatever) that prevent an answer from being realized. They may not be readily apparent, but once you dig in you find out that the problem is insanely complex. But you'll have legions of people who do not understand the problem at all looking for simple answers. And they're all too happy to authoritatively share those simple answers with you.

3

The_Waxies_Dargle t1_j91e65w wrote

> so rehoming the homeless with federal support isn't super difficult if there's just a little will to do so

Going to offer a hard disagree with pretty much all of this statement. Homelessness has so many causes and one size fits many solutions are almost always impossible to conceive and implement.

Compound that with the labyrinthian nature of securing federal funds and, well, I'd say "super difficult" is a good way to describe it.

16

Morraine t1_j91es6b wrote

Yeah, that comment is super uninformed. “Not super difficult”… lmao

8

dopkick t1_j91srj9 wrote

Everything I've read about the homeless problem lends toward it being extremely complicated. There are tons of reasons why people are homeless. There are tons of reasons why people may not be seeking help. There are tons of different services these people will need help with. Nothing is straightforward and like you said, a one size fits all approach is going to be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

Yet, there are plenty of people here who seem to think that the answer is simple. Just force these rich Texans who are gobbling up near-Ukraine warzone level townhomes to sell so we can slap some pinterest gray on the walls and put homeless people in them. Just conveniently ignore the myriad of mental health issues, lack of reliable transportation, them being sitting ducks for criminals, food deserts, etc. None of that is relevant, the answer is soooo simple and has a very convenient boogeyman that can be pointed at.

8