How easy it would be to solve homelessness

[Agent provocateur]

Many homeless people could fit into the extravagance of the luxury homes that are just rotting and decaying away! How easy Lenin did it in the first few years of the revolution!!!!


http://www.nelsongonzalez.com/listings.htm

http://www.estherpercal.com/properties.htm#Homes

http://www.carolynrosenmiller.com/

http://www.uniquehomesofmiami.com/Listings...asp?LID=2316441 (http://www.uniquehomesofmiami.com/Listings/ListingDetail2.asp?LID=2316441)

http://www.investinmiami.com/RealEstate/re...residential.php (http://www.investinmiami.com/RealEstate/residential.php)

http://www.uniquehomesofmiami.com/Searches...es.asp?FSID=779 (http://www.uniquehomesofmiami.com/Searches/CoralGables.asp?FSID=779)

[Rasta Sapian]

That would be a very logical and communal idea! Not to mention some of these properties have large estates with hundreds of acres which could easily be converted into agricultural zones producing fruit and vegtables to feed the inhabitants, the swimming pools could be used for irrigation :)

I agree, It is time to spread the wealth to the masses!

peace yall

[Heesh]

^^ that sounds kind of stupid if they are doing nothing to get that shit. I'd rather them teach the homeless to be self-sufficient. Maybe it could be like a commune where they work and shit, but not to the death

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:35 AM
^^ that sounds kind of stupid if they are doing nothing to get that shit. I'd rather them teach the homeless to be self-sufficient. Maybe it could be like a commune where they work and shit, but not to the death
That is a reactionary thesis! The homeless should invade these properties and "intervene" in the daily affairs of these wealthy robber barons. Have you all seen the movie Doctor Zhivago? How funny it was when Lenin assumed power and immediately the Bolsheviks invaded the mansions of the wealthy and brought poor people to live in there alongside the wealthy. How revolutionary! I remember one scene where Doctor Zhivago comes back home from serving in the front in WWI and there are all these poor people at his mansion. One lady says, "you could've had 20 people living in this house all this time." And doctor Zhivago replies rather guiltily, "Yes, it's better now ...less empty." The homeless don't have to do anything special to receive the bounties of these properties. How could you say that!

[Al Creed]

George Carlin once said something about the sad stae of affairs in this society, where there are more Golf Courses for Rick fucks to socialize on, than shleters for the homeless.


In the town I live in, there are SOOO many abandoned buildings, which could EASILY be converted into shelters, but the CEO-Mayor won't do it. In fact, I'm convinced the Mayor of the town I live in HATES it. On top of the homeless issue, he allowed a MILLION DOLLAR, superfullous Highway project, which destroys one of Hamilton's last natural greenspaces might I add, while the pipes here are 20 years outdated (in fact, one part of the town operates on OPEN, WOODEN Pipes!)

As a matter of fact, a year ago, an Member of Provincial Parliament, a Progressive (HA!) Conservative suggested that the police of Ontario ARREST THE HOMELESS. Thankfully, THAT idea never passed.

[Ernestocheguevara]

I've just been working in an office block where two whole floors were out of commision, these two floors could have easily given somewhere warm to stay for maybe all the homeless in our town! It even had a little kitchen area on each floor with a sink etc, and toilets with sinks to wash in, it would have been so easy to put up screens with little camp beds for separate sleeping cubicles, it makes me sick :angry: capitalism just continues to aid the rich, and so, shit on the poor and suffering!!!

[monkeydust]

It's so true, the amount of land that could be used for communal housing is vast. Especially is it justified when these buildings are unoccupied and serve no histrical purpose.

The issue is, under our current governmental systems, who's going to support any giving away of land or housing to the homeless other than the homeless themselves.

There's still a fairly prevalent culture of 'self-help' around. Many people still believe that homeless people are homeless as a result of their own doing, not because of any personal bad luck or misfortune. I suppose they have a point in a way, there's a lot of homeless people for example who spend all their money on drink etc. Personally though I feel that such issues are a result of these people feeling they cannot get off the streets in the first place.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Heres an idea, how about tearing down all houses, and replacing them with North Korean style high rise apartment buildings? High rise apartments are so much more efficient to build and maintain then houses. They use much less land, its easier to construct free public transportation with them, more efficient to cool/heat, and I'm sure there is plenty more. Luxury homes do not even justify their maintainance costs, and the opportunity cost (the cost of having a residential area instead of farmland). I am not endorsing Juche theory here, I'm just saying they have some good ideas.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Like these ones

[Iepilei]

Personally, I've always been drawn to the idea of high-rise (damn near skyscraper style) apartment complexes to aid in the housing problem which faces many city residents. As the population expands, and suburban areas are filled and pushed to the far outskirts of the pulsing heart of the city, more and more people are finding themselves commuting great distances to get to where they need to be.

Just think. In a massive structure, you could have grociery hubs, maintainace crews, police and fire service personel. Around them, you could construct elaborate parks to enhance the beauty and aesthetic value of living in the city. I wonder how many people would fit comfortably in a skyscraper...?

[DeadMan]

I've always been drawn to the idea of high-rise (damn near skyscraper style) apartment complexes to aid in the housing problem which faces many city residents. As the population expands, and suburban areas are filled and pushed to the far outskirts of the pulsing heart of the city, more and more people are finding themselves commuting great distances to get to where they need to be.


True, but most people like to have a lawn. On the hand of the homeless, there is over 50 houses that I know of in the one half of my twin city area. There are in good order, most are there because they are going to be turned into parking lots of something. Why can't we keep them, and give them to the homeless with basic necesadies, like heat, water, phone. They could easily find a job in 1 month if they are educated (but theres always McDonalds) and have a phone line.

Only problem is, in capitalism, no one wants to pay for other people. So basically, if the government doesn&#39;t feel the need to turn old houses into halfway houses for the homeless, then it ain&#39;t gonna happen. But hey, it&#39;s not like the government as never been in that kind of situation, right? So of course they would know what&#39;s best for the homeless <_< :rolleyes: .

DeadMan.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:55 PM

I&#39;ve always been drawn to the idea of high-rise (damn near skyscraper style) apartment complexes to aid in the housing problem which faces many city residents. As the population expands, and suburban areas are filled and pushed to the far outskirts of the pulsing heart of the city, more and more people are finding themselves commuting great distances to get to where they need to be.


True, but most people like to have a lawn. On the hand of the homeless, there is over 50 houses that I know of in the one half of my twin city area. There are in good order, most are there because they are going to be turned into parking lots of something. Why can&#39;t we keep them, and give them to the homeless with basic necesadies, like heat, water, phone. They could easily find a job in 1 month if they are educated (but theres always McDonalds) and have a phone line.

Only problem is, in capitalism, no one wants to pay for other people. So basically, if the government doesn&#39;t feel the need to turn old houses into halfway houses for the homeless, then it ain&#39;t gonna happen. But hey, it&#39;s not like the government as never been in that kind of situation, right? So of course they would know what&#39;s best for the homeless <_< :rolleyes: .

DeadMan.
Isn&#39;t collectivization more important then individualism? Not having a lawn hardly sounds like a reason not to have skyscraper apartments. This is more then a solution for homelessness, then is a solution for cheap, safe, and efficient housing for everyone, especially with such benefits that Iepilei pointed out. We need to give more then handouts to homeless people. We need to give them jobs.

[DeadMan]

Yes but by giving them a house, or adleast letting them room with other people, and having a phone line, they can easily find a job. The &#39;lawn&#39; comment was to show that in our system, people give more about a green lawn then a man without a house. I personal would rather live in an apartment building. The view in the top floors are very nice.

DeadMan.

[Heesh]

Originally posted by Agent provocateur+Feb 9 2004, 03:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agent provocateur @ Feb 9 2004, 03:27 PM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 04:35 AM
^^ that sounds kind of stupid if they are doing nothing to get that shit. I&#39;d rather them teach the homeless to be self-sufficient. Maybe it could be like a commune where they work and shit, but not to the death
That is a reactionary thesis&#33; The homeless should invade these properties and "intervene" in the daily affairs of these wealthy robber barons. Have you all seen the movie Doctor Zhivago? How funny it was when Lenin assumed power and immediately the Bolsheviks invaded the mansions of the wealthy and brought poor people to live in there alongside the wealthy. How revolutionary&#33; I remember one scene where Doctor Zhivago comes back home from serving in the front in WWI and there are all these poor people at his mansion. One lady says, "you could&#39;ve had 20 people living in this house all this time." And doctor Zhivago replies rather guiltily, "Yes, it&#39;s better now ...less empty." The homeless don&#39;t have to do anything special to receive the bounties of these properties. How could you say that&#33; [/b]
Look im on your side but should the homeless be given these properties for nothing??

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Yep, and we should give them jobs no matter what color they are or how bad they smell, free medical, free transportation, free media, and free education too while we are at it. What the hell, forget the homeless, how about we do this for everyone&#33; Even if there isn&#39;t enough to keep eveyrone busy, we can STILL give people busy work such as building public parks and things like that&#33;

[Don't Change Your Name]

This is interesting.
However, do not think that by putting many families in the same house things will go on well, especially if the capitalists (previous owners) still live there.

Anyway that can be fixed by making changes in the bigger houses to make different divisions.

But the best possible idea is creating some modern skyscrapers with some technology and some facilities (gyms, different offices, hotels, shops, etc.) to save space. However we can&#39;t just give them a home. They need to work, and society needs people to work.

But this problem can be solved, and those buildings will be cool. They would have some technological devices (if the economy goes well), they will incorporate many facilities and workplaces inside, saving space and will alow its inhabitants to go to get food or do things or even work without having to walk 30 blocks with the coldest weather ever and a huge storm.

[Iepilei]

You could take a standard skyscraper, with around 1.5 million square feet of leasable space and turn out enough apartments (1500sq feet) to house around 2500 people (if not more).

[Pennzoil Place] 62500 sq feet

Leasable Space: 1400000 sq feet w/ 36000 sq feet in two plazas
Hght of Struct: 36 stories / 495 feet high

CONVERSION: 930 Apartments to hold 2325 people. Remaining 36K would be invested in shoppes, grociery hubs, etc.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:22 AM
You could take a standard skyscraper, with around 1.5 million square feet of leasable space and turn out enough apartments (1500sq feet) to house around 2500 people (if not more).

[Pennzoil Place] 62500 sq feet

Leasable Space: 1400000 sq feet w/ 36000 sq feet in two plazas
Hght of Struct: 36 stories / 495 feet high

CONVERSION: 930 Apartments to hold 2325 people. Remaining 36K would be invested in shoppes, grociery hubs, etc.
Relatively small skyscrapers, and huge ass apartments. :P I don&#39;t think most modern apartments are even 750 sq. feet.

[Iepilei]

I&#39;m moving to a townhouse apartment with 2 other friends in the next few weeks and it&#39;s only 1400 sq feet. And that&#39;s a 3-bedroom 1.5 bathroom. The calculations I did there didn&#39;t even count 3 people per apartment (2.5). The average suburbia mass-produced floorplan is around 3000 sq feet of space (including garage, etc).

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, you would probably need apartments of varying size to accomadate families of different sizes. It would be wasteful to give a single person a 3 bed room apartment, likewise it would be difficult for an extended family of 8 to live in the same. 1500 sq feet 3 bedroom 1.5 bathroom plan sounds like a confortable living arrangement for a family of 4. Not overtly wasteful for a single person, and livable for 6. For comparason, does anyone know how much floor space the WTC had?

[Iepilei]

the world trade centers had over 10,000,000 square feet of rentable space. each stood 110 stories high, around 1360 feet tall. 43,200 square feet per floor.

[Rasta Sapian]

skyscrapers and high rise posh apartments? are you guys serious?

The capitalist pigs will never fund this undertaking&#33; :lol:

why not fix up condemmed apartment building, and convert old estate houses to support communal groups and families, that is much easier and cheeper to sustain, the infostructure is here, we just have to use it more effeciantly&#33;

Or why not kill the impirialist pigs, take there homes by force and budda boom budda bing, problem solved by the massess.

peace yall

[bluerev002]

It would be that easy, but the govt. doesnt want to do that. There were a few old abandoned homes around here and bums used to live in there. But govt. borded up the houses but they broke in anyways. So the govt. tore them down.

Now, a few years later, their building two story luxury homes&#33;

It would be easy, so would ending world hunger and ending globalization, the govt. dont want to.

[dark fairy]

of course they don&#39;t want to end it because {1} they use it as an excuse for a bunch of things {2} it isn&#39;t going to make them that much money ... i would figure it would make them more money if these people were to work and pay taxes and all that shit but since they don&#39;t but hopefully you got my drift...

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, regardless, capitalists wont fund anything of the sort, however, I think that collectivization is a better solution then redistribution.

[Comité De Salut Public]

Have you guys noticed how much these bigwigs pay in property taxes a year for one of these "houses"

In one of them for the year 2002 (Taxes): &#036;30,985.00 That is not even enough to pluck one hair from their formidable rich-***** ass.

See for yourself and scroll down to the bottom

http://www.nelsongonzalez.com/1400W28St.htm