Yeah, article seemed to be asking homeowners if phrased another way is do you want to live with roommates? I think most people if they had the luxury would say no.
Then you got people angry at those people, which may have been the goal of the article to shift focus to also being mad at people living in their homes. As opposed to the biggest contributor of problem being individuals and corporations buying up and hoarding property they don’t plan to live in and treat only as investment assets. Those are the areas that need to start having restrictions on.
These houses are heavily subsidized by the lowest property taxes on the continent, and one of the lowest in the world. They can enjoy the increases in land value and not have to pay their fair share in taxes. Meanwhile, these same people fight tooth and nail to make it hard to increase density for others. I have little sympathy for them. They should downsize their home if they’re not using the space.
Great, but no one is proposing what you’re opposed to.
What I’m saying is that they’re able to hoard their huge homes all to themselves, without having renters, because we subsidize them to do so. They should be paying for the increase in land value with higher taxes. Instead they get to profit from increasing land value, deny other people a place to live, and, to top it off, not pay the fair price in taxes for all that unused space. Would correcting that be “forcing” them to quarter people? Obviously not.
No, I gave you a concrete example of how we can also change the perverse incentives. Your insistence that the most plausible alternative is “forced quartering” is ridiculous.
Also, stop using sock puppet accounts to upvote yourself and downvote me. There’s no way you posted a comment and someone instantly upvoted you 1 second later.
What don’t you understand? Homeowners now are financially incentivized to leave their homes empty. That doesn’t have to be the case. Literally no one except you is talking about “forced quartering”.
Well, there is such a word, you’ve just encountered it.
As for why, I guess each person might have different motivations to use it but I’d say the more probable one is an attempt to emphasize that the lack of housing is something inflicted on people, hence the use of X-ed (victim) instead of X-less (attribute). Someone can choose to be homeless (like nomads), but the unhoused are so against their will. Similar to preferring marginalized over minority, or impoverished over poor.
That means you want to pervert and distort linguistic rules to to cater to people’s arrogance. In normal English, people only say minorities or the poor. Saying a homeless person is a victm encourages narcassism and gives them a cop-out excuse from accountability, and showsvyou don’t believe a person’s suffering is justified due their own choices. That’s why humility is the most important character trait a person can develop.
Calling a homeless person a victim oppresses them because it shows that you believe they cannot overcome, conquer their situation, and be successful without hand outs from anyone else. If you truly encouraged someone’s potential to conquer hardship with internal fortitude you hold them accountable, forget about what hapoened and focus on what will be.
No person can have a successful future if they don’t earn it thrugh merit, and no person can be successful as long as they are a victim of the past.
Stop feeding the victim mentality that only serves to sabatoge them and start helping to educate a homeless person in what work they have to do and what moves they have to make if they want to become wealthy and finanxially independent one day so their days of being homeless can be nothing but a bad memory and not a circumstance that will always be with them and keeps rhem trapped and pulled down.
Anytime a homeless person becomes a millionaire, they are a great leader that can lead society into the next generation of millionaires.
What has you so angry here? Your lack of recognition of a word doesn’t deligimitze it. New words are invented all the time to describe changing circumstances. You realize you’re on an experimental platform full of “words” like fediverse and activitypub, right?
If your definition of “words that exist” is having them on dictionaries, then we’re still good because there are dictionaries that include unhoused already.
Should people own that space then if it’s just going wasted? Perhaps instead of owning a 4000 SQ ft home where they only use half and refuse to rent the other half, they should sell to someone who will and then go buy a 2000 SQ ft house where they don’t have to worry about it.
Call me a skeptical, but I feel like reactions like yours are the intended outcome of the article where anger is shifted towards people living in their homes who don’t want roommates. And not on the actual problem of people and companies buying up properties without the intention of living in them, but renting them out or as pure investment assets to sit on and leave empty.
yeah but do they really need 2000 SQ ft? They should sell that and buy 1000 SW ft house. And honestly that is a lot of room. Why aren’t they renting some of it. Prisoners live in 10x10 just fine.
deleted by creator
Yeah, article seemed to be asking homeowners if phrased another way is do you want to live with roommates? I think most people if they had the luxury would say no.
Then you got people angry at those people, which may have been the goal of the article to shift focus to also being mad at people living in their homes. As opposed to the biggest contributor of problem being individuals and corporations buying up and hoarding property they don’t plan to live in and treat only as investment assets. Those are the areas that need to start having restrictions on.
Or a land use tax. Doesn’t sit right with me all the entitled boomers sitting alone in their 3+ bedroom homes while we have a housing crisis.
Real tired of the suburbs being subsidized by those living in the core too.
These houses are heavily subsidized by the lowest property taxes on the continent, and one of the lowest in the world. They can enjoy the increases in land value and not have to pay their fair share in taxes. Meanwhile, these same people fight tooth and nail to make it hard to increase density for others. I have little sympathy for them. They should downsize their home if they’re not using the space.
deleted by creator
Great, but no one is proposing what you’re opposed to.
What I’m saying is that they’re able to hoard their huge homes all to themselves, without having renters, because we subsidize them to do so. They should be paying for the increase in land value with higher taxes. Instead they get to profit from increasing land value, deny other people a place to live, and, to top it off, not pay the fair price in taxes for all that unused space. Would correcting that be “forcing” them to quarter people? Obviously not.
deleted by creator
No, I gave you a concrete example of how we can also change the perverse incentives. Your insistence that the most plausible alternative is “forced quartering” is ridiculous.
Also, stop using sock puppet accounts to upvote yourself and downvote me. There’s no way you posted a comment and someone instantly upvoted you 1 second later.
deleted by creator
What don’t you understand? Homeowners now are financially incentivized to leave their homes empty. That doesn’t have to be the case. Literally no one except you is talking about “forced quartering”.
What is an “unhoused” person?
A person with no access to housing. Most people would refer to one as “homeless”.
Why not say “homeless” since there is no such word as “unhoused”?
Well, there is such a word, you’ve just encountered it.
As for why, I guess each person might have different motivations to use it but I’d say the more probable one is an attempt to emphasize that the lack of housing is something inflicted on people, hence the use of X-ed (victim) instead of X-less (attribute). Someone can choose to be homeless (like nomads), but the unhoused are so against their will. Similar to preferring marginalized over minority, or impoverished over poor.
That means you want to pervert and distort linguistic rules to to cater to people’s arrogance. In normal English, people only say minorities or the poor. Saying a homeless person is a victm encourages narcassism and gives them a cop-out excuse from accountability, and showsvyou don’t believe a person’s suffering is justified due their own choices. That’s why humility is the most important character trait a person can develop.
Calling a homeless person a victim oppresses them because it shows that you believe they cannot overcome, conquer their situation, and be successful without hand outs from anyone else. If you truly encouraged someone’s potential to conquer hardship with internal fortitude you hold them accountable, forget about what hapoened and focus on what will be.
No person can have a successful future if they don’t earn it thrugh merit, and no person can be successful as long as they are a victim of the past.
Stop feeding the victim mentality that only serves to sabatoge them and start helping to educate a homeless person in what work they have to do and what moves they have to make if they want to become wealthy and finanxially independent one day so their days of being homeless can be nothing but a bad memory and not a circumstance that will always be with them and keeps rhem trapped and pulled down.
Anytime a homeless person becomes a millionaire, they are a great leader that can lead society into the next generation of millionaires.
Oh, you are a stunted pretntious grandious infantile.
Those are all actual words with dictionary definitions that you can look up in the dictionary of your choice.
What has you so angry here? Your lack of recognition of a word doesn’t deligimitze it. New words are invented all the time to describe changing circumstances. You realize you’re on an experimental platform full of “words” like fediverse and activitypub, right?
If your definition of “words that exist” is having them on dictionaries, then we’re still good because there are dictionaries that include unhoused already.
Should people own that space then if it’s just going wasted? Perhaps instead of owning a 4000 SQ ft home where they only use half and refuse to rent the other half, they should sell to someone who will and then go buy a 2000 SQ ft house where they don’t have to worry about it.
Call me a skeptical, but I feel like reactions like yours are the intended outcome of the article where anger is shifted towards people living in their homes who don’t want roommates. And not on the actual problem of people and companies buying up properties without the intention of living in them, but renting them out or as pure investment assets to sit on and leave empty.
Ideally we wouldn’t waste anything ever, even space, but that’s not going to happen in a capitalist system where hoarding is rewarded.
That’s a different argument than “people should be forced to host people in their private homes that they legally (if unethically) own.”
yeah but do they really need 2000 SQ ft? They should sell that and buy 1000 SW ft house. And honestly that is a lot of room. Why aren’t they renting some of it. Prisoners live in 10x10 just fine.