"but most of those homes are in places people don't want to live"
Lmao this sort of thinking is one of the great mysteries of the liberal mind.
Do they really imagine in their heads homeless people turning down free homes like "yeah, you know what it sucks only getting a couple hours of sleep per night under an overpass because cops keep harassing me, but i really don't wanna live in that neighborhood. the local schools have lousy standardized test scores and there isn't an HOA to keep the lawns tidy, so thanks anyway but i'll pass on that!"
I still don't know what their reasoning is yet, but yes that is exactly what they think. They consider bad housing to be worse than no housing, so it's better to just let the homeless be homeless for a little longer until they get "proper" homes.
And they love to rag on the left for our standard "pErFecT iS ThE eNeMy of gOoD!1"
The bad housing argument is just an excuse. They certainly don't seem to give a shit about poor people who are already living in bad housing (at least not until they need an excuse to gentrify it by force).
What they really care about is "undeserving" people getting something they didn't "earn" the right to have in the proper way. They don't want the riffraff to live in their neighbourhoods as if they were as good as them. They don't want their boutique beard oil stores and trendy cafes to make way for places where the unwashed masses can live and work. They want to maintain their supremacy.
as soon as you say put them up in hotels they lunge the opposite way and cry about the homeless being animals who will destroy any building they are in
Wow. I thought they were claiming that, like, all the empty homes are in Nebraska or something. I didn’t know they kept this up when confronted with the city-by-city statistics.
Lmao this sort of thinking is one of the great mysteries of the liberal mind.
Do they really imagine in their heads homeless people turning down free homes like "yeah, you know what it sucks only getting a couple hours of sleep per night under an overpass because cops keep harassing me, but i really don't wanna live in that neighborhood. the local schools have lousy standardized test scores and there isn't an HOA to keep the lawns tidy, so thanks anyway but i'll pass on that!"
I still don't know what their reasoning is yet, but yes that is exactly what they think. They consider bad housing to be worse than no housing, so it's better to just let the homeless be homeless for a little longer until they get "proper" homes.
And they love to rag on the left for our standard "pErFecT iS ThE eNeMy of gOoD!1"
:lmayo: :galaxy-brain:
The bad housing argument is just an excuse. They certainly don't seem to give a shit about poor people who are already living in bad housing (at least not until they need an excuse to gentrify it by force).
What they really care about is "undeserving" people getting something they didn't "earn" the right to have in the proper way. They don't want the riffraff to live in their neighbourhoods as if they were as good as them. They don't want their boutique beard oil stores and trendy cafes to make way for places where the unwashed masses can live and work. They want to maintain their supremacy.
as soon as you say put them up in hotels they lunge the opposite way and cry about the homeless being animals who will destroy any building they are in
'perfect is the enemy of good' they say as they do absolutely nothing just as their silly catchphrase implicitly warns of
Wow. I thought they were claiming that, like, all the empty homes are in Nebraska or something. I didn’t know they kept this up when confronted with the city-by-city statistics.
no HOA would be a major selling point tbh. HOA's are everything americans complain about communism being