To and extend I’d agree. If you own a bunch of property you’re not using then yes, people should be allowed to use it productively. Idk if I’d want to let people into my apartment to use my toothbrush.
Perhaps a controversial take: I honestly think the best short term solution to the homelessness problem is just for the city to buy/seize some vacant lots and let them be open camping zones. People get freaked out by this because of the whole “sanctuary zones” from Star Trek thing, but honestly I think it’s probably better than having the population spread across the city living on side walks and parks. If you have one specific location where people can camp you can more easily provide services to them, have toilets and showers, send one of those mobile health clinic things parked there, maybe have some local orgs do soup kitchens to get people food.
The more permanent solution is to provide people fucking housing but that takes time.
Counterpoint: Everyone should just share Gavin Newsom’s house. When he wakes up and sees the length of the toothbrush line, hopefully he’ll reconsider ever showing his face in public some policies
A toothbrush is personal property not private property. I am a big believer in personal property but fuck private property. If you’re using it it’s personal. If you’re holding onto it to try to extract monetary value out of it it’s private.
Your apartment and your toothbrush are personal property, not private property. Theirs a distinction between the two.
That’s not the worst short term solution, but commandeering hotels is pretty quick too.
Either San Fran or LA had some project to convert a bunch of abandoned motels into apartments for homeless people. They blew like 50 mil on it and I think they’ve yet to open a single unit because corruption and scummy contractors are so that bad in this shithole of a country. Hence why actually providing people with permanent housing is sadly gonna take a while in this county.
