Philadelphia encampment activists hashing out potential deal with city for houses

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
Encampment protesters and city officials are reportedly hashing out a proposal that could transfer dozens of city-owned properties to a nonprofit managed by housing activists.
Negotiations are ongoing with no date set on when protesters will leave the months-long encampments.
Under the proposal, protesters say Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration and the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) would transfer a total of 50 vacant properties to a nonprofit community land trust set up by Philadelphia Housing Action, a coalition of affordable housing activists spearheading negotiations for protesters.

Those homes are going to need a lot of work done rather quickly. It's not the first time I have come across this idea. I think it's excellent but these homes are relatively cheap because they need to either be completely rebuilt or some $50,000 to make them livable again.
 

Aletheia4u

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
941
Points
195
Just hope that they don't start getting greedy.



 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
13,999
Reaction score
3,816
Points
275
Encampment protesters and city officials are reportedly hashing out a proposal that could transfer dozens of city-owned properties to a nonprofit managed by housing activists.
Negotiations are ongoing with no date set on when protesters will leave the months-long encampments.
Under the proposal, protesters say Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration and the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) would transfer a total of 50 vacant properties to a nonprofit community land trust set up by Philadelphia Housing Action, a coalition of affordable housing activists spearheading negotiations for protesters.

Those homes are going to need a lot of work done rather quickly. It's not the first time I have come across this idea. I think it's excellent but these homes are relatively cheap because they need to either be completely rebuilt or some $50,000 to make them livable again.
The ideas are always noble. It is what happens once they are put into action.
 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
Encampment protesters and city officials are reportedly hashing out a proposal that could transfer dozens of city-owned properties to a nonprofit managed by housing activists.
Negotiations are ongoing with no date set on when protesters will leave the months-long encampments.
Under the proposal, protesters say Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration and the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) would transfer a total of 50 vacant properties to a nonprofit community land trust set up by Philadelphia Housing Action, a coalition of affordable housing activists spearheading negotiations for protesters.

Those homes are going to need a lot of work done rather quickly. It's not the first time I have come across this idea. I think it's excellent but these homes are relatively cheap because they need to either be completely rebuilt or some $50,000 to make them livable again.
The ideas are always noble. It is what happens once they are put into action.
Yep, that's what I'm thinking.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,199
Reaction score
4,186
Points
290
Location
Texas
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,517
Reaction score
7,758
Points
350
Location
On a hill
Encampment protesters and city officials are reportedly hashing out a proposal that could transfer dozens of city-owned properties to a nonprofit managed by housing activists.
Negotiations are ongoing with no date set on when protesters will leave the months-long encampments.
Under the proposal, protesters say Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration and the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) would transfer a total of 50 vacant properties to a nonprofit community land trust set up by Philadelphia Housing Action, a coalition of affordable housing activists spearheading negotiations for protesters.

Those homes are going to need a lot of work done rather quickly. It's not the first time I have come across this idea. I think it's excellent but these homes are relatively cheap because they need to either be completely rebuilt or some $50,000 to make them livable again.
Oh yeah... this will go over real well.... NOT.
There is a short documentary on Netflix, don't remember the name, similar to this. And - surprise! - corruption galore. The main woman in charge was keeping part of the money allocated for repairs, kicked people out she didn't like to make room for people she did like. Etc. And because it is California, as far as I know the same lady is still in charge.
 

Aletheia4u

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
941
Points
195
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Where can I read more about that?
 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,517
Reaction score
7,758
Points
350
Location
On a hill
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.
 

Aletheia4u

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
941
Points
195
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
Well the feds owns lots of land. But instead of giving these lands to corporations to control. They should use it for those that are in need.


 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
Well the feds owns lots of land. But instead of giving these lands to corporations to control. They should use it for those that are in need.


I don't know why not put them in the city where the resources are. There are a lot of mentally ill homeless. They need those services.
 

wamose

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
6,086
Reaction score
4,858
Points
2,015
Location
Pennsylvania
When you give away free housing, the recipients will generally wreck them. Not only that but it usually causes resentment too. You can't straighten out people by giving them free shit. There are plenty of parents of dropouts and drug addicts that will attest to that. Viva Trump
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,517
Reaction score
7,758
Points
350
Location
On a hill
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.
To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.
 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.
To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.
Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,517
Reaction score
7,758
Points
350
Location
On a hill
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.
To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.
Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.
You are missing the point.
Right now... right now... if you was to magically make 5,000 homes appear, and each person would also get a $50,000 debit card. At the end of a year... all the money would be gone, and most of the 5000 homes would be trashed.
It is a simple fact.
 
OP
Disir

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,758
Reaction score
5,131
Points
290
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.
To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.
Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.
You are missing the point.
Right now... right now... if you was to magically make 5,000 homes appear, and each person would also get a $50,000 debit card. At the end of a year... all the money would be gone, and most of the 5000 homes would be trashed.
It is a simple fact.
I'm a social worker. People are homeless for a variety of reasons. I have people that are intellectually disabled with significant substance abuse issues. I have people that have significant mental health issues. I have people that are one step away from becoming homeless now because they work as waitresses etc. in restaurants. Some of those people are in their late fifties and can't start over as easy as that. Some are felons and their past charges prohibit them from moving forward. Some people are just lazy and it irritates the hell out of me. I know for a fact that there are people that I can lay out everything that you need to be successful and they will not do it. So, it's not that I don't see the failed programs or the failed people. I absolutely do. I just don't think that is all there is and I don't believe anyone knows until they get in there and get their hands dirty.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,517
Reaction score
7,758
Points
350
Location
On a hill
They should work with the local womens' shelters and the Habitat For Humanity people first.

For the rest it's a matter of decriminalizing poverty and homelessness; put them in those houses they will just strip them and move on, since for most of them transience is their normal survival state. Many are mentally ill and aren't going to fare any better in a crappy house by themselves.

It's ridiculous cognitive dissonance to outlaw poverty and homelessness while praising social Darwinism and 'winning' and then turn around and criminalize failure as well. There is all kinds of public property available, including parks. that are fine for transients most of the year. In the 19th century the homeless poor were allowed to sleep on the floor of their local police stations.
Creating homes for them out of these shipping containers will be hard for them to destroy, and it cost less to make. They are very durable. They can last a lifetime and strong enough to last through many hurricanes.

I like the shipping container idea. I've seen them done really well on some tv show. Still have to have land to put them on.
These homes can be as low as $10 - $12k each (plus land) for a really small one if all of the work is done by the buyer.
Of course that won't be the case, so in reality more like 5 times that. And that is HIGHER than the per unit cost to build a traditional apartment complex.
There is that. Even tiny homes would work. Still have to have the land and utilities. So, if they took the land that has the houses on it they would need to go ahead and demolish them and then the additional cost of the tiny home.
To which the poor people would wreck in as little as one generation.
This has all been done before. And the result was $millions of taxpayer spent, and the eventual demolition of buildings that should have lasted for generations. There are examples of it in nearly every major northern city.
It is all a massive waste of money... over and over and over. But it gets politicians elected, and people feel good about themselves in how awesome they are.
Do they wreck it because of how much money they don't make?

We have a loss of jobs due to the shut downs. We will have a whole lot more homeless. You don't get to just make them invisible or pretend they aren't human because of stupid crap that was done over COVID-19.

Winter is coming.
You are missing the point.
Right now... right now... if you was to magically make 5,000 homes appear, and each person would also get a $50,000 debit card. At the end of a year... all the money would be gone, and most of the 5000 homes would be trashed.
It is a simple fact.
I'm a social worker. People are homeless for a variety of reasons. I have people that are intellectually disabled with significant substance abuse issues. I have people that have significant mental health issues. I have people that are one step away from becoming homeless now because they work as waitresses etc. in restaurants. Some of those people are in their late fifties and can't start over as easy as that. Some are felons and their past charges prohibit them from moving forward. Some people are just lazy and it irritates the hell out of me. I know for a fact that there are people that I can lay out everything that you need to be successful and they will not do it. So, it's not that I don't see the failed programs or the failed people. I absolutely do. I just don't think that is all there is and I don't believe anyone knows until they get in there and get their hands dirty.
It isn't whether you want to get your hands dirty, it is whether you are doing any good. And in fact, creating more harm than good. Many of these people the worse thing you can do is give them something of value. They will only sell it to get more drugs/alcohol.
At the same time, proven literally 1,000s of times over and over - give them shelter and they will destroy it.
I am not religious, but the Bible is filled with truisms. And one of those is "God helps those that help themselves". I am quite willing to donate money and time to people who need help, and are willing to make the effort to get back to becoming a productive person. I have no interest to give either to people who will take that help and either do nothing, or will take whatever they were given to get more alcohol and drugs.
There are people, MANY, you simply cannot help.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top