Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

snorlaxatives_69 t1_jea2ekc wrote

Gee, I dunno, maybe turn them into affordable housing?

49

Cthepo t1_jea912n wrote

That doesn't benefit rich people though? Any ideas that are a little bit more reasonable?

26

Ipuncholdpeople t1_jeap3jr wrote

Oh of course. Tear them town and build luxury apartments 95% of the city can't afford

16

yaxgto t1_jeatf9w wrote

You mean like that giant abandoned college on Norton and Grant? You'd think the Christian thing to do would be house people but it sits there unused instead.

15

ZeChunkyPanda t1_jecgfly wrote

I’m pretty sure it was sold years ago. The people who bought it haven’t done much with it though.

5

Jimithyashford t1_jeazsx7 wrote

I have read very convincing studies that show turning derelict properties into housing for the homeless or very low income housing is not great.

These old houses often have a lot of issue that people who aren’t accustomed to maintaining a home or who have access to quite limited resources, just can’t address. These houses just continue to deteriorate into squalor but now with a person in them.

I think in many cases it is cheaper and overall better to knock down the run down house and build a couple of new cottagettes or mini homes on the lot to then use for these purposes.

10

the_honeyman t1_jeaefb1 wrote

Restore SGF and the Blue House Project are doing just that. (I realize your comment was tongue in cheek.)

7

GeneralTonic t1_jeai6x7 wrote

That's what many of them are right now. This article is about how the city should deal with those affordable housing units which are dilapidated while occupied, or abandoned by the owners.

5

Codyg2154 t1_jebslzy wrote

I wish there was a way we could crowd source money together and fix these houses up then pay everyone back the money and charge the person living there a reasonable rent price. Itd be a win win for everyone and itd make our city look better.

5

mungermoss245 t1_jeabr78 wrote

Bulldoze them and build new churches and car washes on the land

19

Cold417 t1_jeaihns wrote

There is absolutely no reason for us not to build churches on top of car washes. You can have your sins and mud washed away for one monthly fee

24

Ipuncholdpeople t1_jeap83j wrote

Might as well add a drive through liquor store for the greene county special

3

the_honeyman t1_jeapxhb wrote

Nah that's right next door below the glory holes adult entertainment store.

1

CTYankeeinMO_1986 t1_jeh4yn6 wrote

Or better yet, build new banks and convenience stores/gas station combos. As if SGF doesn’t have enough of those. Or strip malls.

1

mutantxproud t1_jeb3pmv wrote

Looks like a great place for a 14th 7 Brew to me.

6

dannyjbixby t1_je9ynsx wrote

Seems like a sure fire way to force homelessness onto thousands of people in Springfield.

2

GeneralTonic t1_jeaim3j wrote

The article is about the council beginning to discuss how to handle abandoned or seriously dilapidated properties. Surely you don't mean that this discussion itself will force homelessness onto thousands.

Is there a more particular policy or program which you are opposing?

1

dannyjbixby t1_jeaiw57 wrote

The specific recommendations that are spoken of in the article are what I’m referring to

3

22TopShelf22 t1_jeaesci wrote

Absolutely. Added regulation and costs will be passed onto the end users, people struggling to pay their bills already. Rents go up, fewer can afford them. These fools will cripple the same people they claim to be helping and few will take the time to realize it.

−1

dannyjbixby t1_jeafcaw wrote

I was thinking more along the line of condemning tons of houses that are currently housing people. But yes also that.

I’m all for regulation and making sure things are safe, but we need a plan of what to do on the way of getting there. It’s missing steps.

2

Jimithyashford t1_jeb04u8 wrote

Isn’t the article specifically talking about abandoned properties, not properties with current occupants?

Edit: nvm, I didn’t get to the rental housing section near the end. I see what you mean.

4

dannyjbixby t1_jeb0w5g wrote

Not at all. It’s talking about nuisance properties, and even utilized statistics about the percentage of them that are rental properties.

2

Jimithyashford t1_jeb1cnz wrote

Yeah I didn’t get that far before replying. My bad. Should have known better.

1

Extreme-Inevitable84 t1_jebb29o wrote

Get them up to code and use it for affordable housing, cold weather shelters and transitional housing for our TAY aged youth who are in foster care.

1