• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      56 minutes ago

      Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

      Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 hour ago

      This statement might be true, but we’re not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 hour ago

      If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won’t be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn’t be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      50 minutes ago

      Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government and the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 minutes ago

        I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.

    • suoko@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Corruption could make that money go to some people’s 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Corruption already makes most millionaires’ and billionaires’ money go to that anyway. At least if it’s taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it’s not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        So we’re so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    51 minutes ago

    How many stories have I seen about billionaires building housing? Zero. Though, to be fair, I’ve only seen a meme about a millionaire doing so. No verification that it happened.

  • twice_hatch@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Good start, weird that it’s built like a CPU heat sink. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build duplexes or quadplexes? Fewer walls, less insulation per person…

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 minutes ago

      Even lower income people want a places they can call their own. Even lower income people prefer not to deal with other people’s noise or stomping or flooded sink. Even lower income people don’t want to deal with a building manager for repairs. Even lower income people want to be able to make choices in their living accommodations.

      Plus these are probably all factory built and I see a simple gravel foundation. Cheap and fast to set up, but it’s still a house. Probably much cheaper than full scale houses

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      What !? Sharing a wall with someone else because it’s more efficient in terms construction and maintenance costs?! Get outta here you commi!

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      40 minutes ago

      probably zoning laws. that’s a HUGE part of why we don’t just build more apartments in many places. it’s why people get so passionate about the “white flight” as it’s known and nimbyism. everyone wants to fix homelessness, but in any of the places that one could effectively build community housing it is illegal to make anything that provides housing to more than 1 or 2 families. the people that live there want homelessness to go away, but when it’s proposed to build low income housing nearby they freak out and say “poor people and drug addicts? they do crime. low income housing is cool, but not in my backyard”.

      being poor in america has such a stigma that homeowners consistently vote to ban them from living nearby by banning apartments. to be perfectly honest, I’m just waiting for zoning laws to try and make these tiny homes illegal now that people are building them for the poor.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 minutes ago

        And building codes. The foundation alone can be the reason. A regular full scale building requires a concrete or piered foundation or slab depend8ng on the area, which is fairly expensive and time consuming. These look like simple gravel foundations, which is fine for that size structure

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Millionaire? Nice. Billionaires should follow suit, but 1000x

    (With ~800 billionaires in the US, that’s 79,200,000 homes)

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        81
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Funny story, we actually have enough housing for everyone. It just isn’t always where people want to live, and corporate landlords would rather leave a space vacant to drive up rents than make all of their inventory available, so there is a shit ton of residential (and commercial) property that is basically abandoned.

        • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Some estimates say there are as many as 12 vacant homes per homeless person this country in the United States.

          Edit: millionaire in OP is from Canada

        • Landless2029@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 hours ago

          What we need is tax on vacant property. Make it a ladder system so its worse based on number of vacant units and value.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 hour ago

            And eliminate corporate ownership of residential property. Tax the shit out of anyone owning more than three residences, and bring property values back down to earth. Bail out homeowners who owe mortgages for more than the value of the properties, and let the market self-correct.

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              44 minutes ago

              I’d go so far as to attack the idea of a corporation. Letting a business own property or act as a liability shield for human choices is clearly bad for society.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The official homeless number for 2024 in the US was 771,480. That’s probably just reported and not actual.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Analysts think we’re about 4.5 million homes short of what we would need to a well-functioning housing market. I’m not sure exactly how they’re defining that.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      I’m sorry, are the free houses you built for the homeless much larger than that?

      They’re homeless, not mansionless. A large number of tiny houses is absolutely a fantastic way to help.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I used to live in a town that did something very similar to this. It sorta worked but mostly did not. But as another commenter pointed out you need more than just homes. Obviously they help a ton but a lot of people need more help than just a roof over their head. Financially, medically, mentally, employment… It’s a bigger, more complicated problem.

      But it goes without saying that this is a step in the right direction and absolutely better than collectively shrugging our shoulders and walking away.

    • Tahl_eN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 hours ago

      My city does something like this as part of our homeless program and we’re at “net-zero” homeless. It doesn’t work on it’s own, but the tiny homes give people a stable place to keep their stuff safe and the elements off their bodies, it gives them an address they can use for things like mail and applications, and it gives social workers a place to find them reliably. It’s the start of a long process to help them back to their feet.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Being on the streets is also incredibly dangerous. Putting drug users around other drug users as well doesn’t keep them off drugs.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      If you give a homeless person a home, then by definition, they are no longer homeless.

      On a less pedantic note, yes, it should. Some countries (like mine) provide a secure place to live as step one, when helping the homeless. Having somewhere safe to sleep, keep your property, etc. makes all the other steps involved in solving your problems much easier, leading to a better success rate in getting people back on their feet.

      • Taiatari@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Further it enables them to apply for all manners of documents as they have an address to their name. Try getting any sort of document from a bank or governmental branch without an address. Trying to get a passport without address? Nope. No address no ID, no Bank account and mostly no employment anywhere without either of the two.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Almost certainly. Having $1M is unremarkable these days. Technically a millionaire is someone with more than a million and less than a billion, but usually these days it refers to people with hundreds of millions.

    • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      what kind of math? you did 1 million/99?
      that’s meaningless… yes, he would have had to spend several million to do this… they’re probably tiny homes…

      and hell the whole meme is probably fake

      • adarza@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        4 hours ago

        it’s real. the ‘millionaire’ sold a startup for $340m. the homes are in new brunswick and cost $50k ea to build and furnish. the land was $500k. the houses are ~ 240-300 sq ft tiny homes. rent (at the time that source was written) starts at $200.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        what kind of math?

        Tap for spoiler

        It was literally the first sentence of my comment 🤣

  • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    20 minutes ago

    If the photo is accurate, those ‘homes’ are tiny. Barely bigger than a garage compared to the cars next to them.

    ETA: yup, as starters for homeless people these are great. I retract my incredulity.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Okay, and? Infinitely better than being on the street. Someone does something nice and people like you still complain.

      • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Sure, I guess as a starter to get off the streets they’re definitely better than nothing.

    • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      My garage is bigger than my house and I’m very very happy with my house.

      My garage is really not that big. Just that our house is 12 ft by 24 ft…

  • flandish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    i hope it works and contains a forever lease and not just a month to month where the land will be improved by these houses then said millionaire sells the land for a profit and the people living there are screwed yet again.

    • undefinedValue@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      A forever lease dude? If that’s in the deal then imma be honest with you and tell you me and my hommies are declaring homelessness and moving to wherever this meme is from. We can rebuild our lives from a point of never paying rent again.

      • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 minutes ago

        If you have a hatred of hierarchy and a love of nature send me a DM. I’m interviewing people for an intentional community.

        The first 5 people that pass the vibe check will get a one dollar, 99 year lease, on .5 acres to call your own. As long as you also partake in fixing/improving central infra.

        Oh and one heavy caveat… You gotta be cool with winter. We are in Canada.

      • flandish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I mean that homeownership. i pay prop taxes but own my home. Forgive me. i was pooping and reading and forgot my words. 😂

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The wealthy do not deserve praise for spending the money they leeched from society to solve problems that could have been paid for by taxes they avoided paying. The wealthy are NOT going to solve society’s problems long term, just drag them out so society relies on them instead of solving it themselves.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      He’s a millionaire, not a billionaire. Calm down. A millionaire most likely worked hard and earned their wealth. It’s billionaires who cheat.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Millionaire covers everyone from having a million or two due to home equity all the way to 999 million because they just haven’t hit a billion yet. Someone who can drop a million dollars or more and still be a millionaire has multiple millions.

        Equating the two is “not all millionaires”.

    • Cows Look Like Maps@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Inbe4 the starter-home priced housing is bought up, demolished, rebuilt, and sold as luxury housing on the market, as airbnbs, or rentals with no rent control.

    • WeekendClock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Do you chuds ever get tired of repeating the same drivel over and over?

      Yeah I’m am pretty glad my taxes totally went to buy more missiles and tanks. /s

        • WeekendClock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah, ok. Look at our governments since the dawn of time and tell me when that’s happening moron.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Look at the wealthy since the dawn of time and tell me that they are a net benefit to society.

            • WeekendClock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Such a problem that has yet to be solved by any government.

              And you expect those same governments to just magically spend that money wisely.

              Hilarious.

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I think the term “homeless” is really a euphemism that makes it easier for wealthy people to talk about poor people (if you have shelter, food, and are not living paycheck to paycheck you count as wealthy), and it results in misunderstandings about what the real problems are.

    Giving a house to someone who lives on the streets is a nice gesture but it doesn’t address the underlying problems - unemployment, unemployability, health problems, psychological problems, lack of social support structure, lack of supportive relationships (e.g. friends and family) - you can’t just fix someone’s life with a building.

    It’s like a grade-school-level understanding of the problem (“just give the homeless people homes! then they’re not homeless anymore! problem solved!”). Without putting in a real effort to support these individuals’ lives, to understand and address what put them in that situation in the first place, this is a temporary patch that will end in relapse.