[mattdotc]

unhoused people were never prospective clients of the real estate industry, but of course this is irrelevant when you can just twist and contort someone else's argument to make it easier to dismiss.

your arrogance is surpassed only by your foolishness.

[ESTheComposer]

Their point is that those landlords now have something they invested in where they aren't getting the returns they expected...but of course this is irrelevant when you can just twist and contort someone else's argument to make it easier to dismiss.

[alex_sf]

> unhoused people were never prospective clients of the real estate industry

See, this is what I mean. This sort of 'solution' is advocated by people that have never bothered to contemplate the second order effects.

Try to imagine what would happen if we implemented this. Anyone that is homeless gets permanent, free housing. You pat yourself on the back.

Except, now I sell my house. And I come to you and tell you that I'm homeless. Are you going to give me permanent, free housing too?

Because if you do, you have now created the economic catastrophe that I described.

And if you don't, because I don't deserve it on the basis of XYZ, you've just recreated section 8.

[gentoo]

> Except, now I sell my house. And I come to you and tell you that I'm homeless. Are you going to give me permanent, free housing too?

yes. it probably won't be as nice as something you, a wealthy person, could afford to buy, and it probably won't be exactly where you want to live, but everyone could be guaranteed safe and stable housing without complicated means testing.

> you've just recreated Section 8.

Section 8 disqualifies people for all kinds of "character" issues associated with drug use, mental illness, etc. That's a big reason there are so many homeless on the street. I am against means testing, but even that system could be a lot better than it is now.