Buying Airspace?

[Thermodolia]

The Oracle of Delphi said that every thing has a measure. But NY don't care.

Maybe in the future more lands will be under water, but taking airspace is a nonsense.
Bigger the building, bigger the weight (gravity) over the soil.
Why don't they live in the towers?
However in the case of an earthquake all those higher towers are just perfect for destroying the suburbs, the poor. And what's left from towers standing next is owned by the rich. If earthquake? If underwater? Perfect plan for depopulation. Anyway, earth economy is controlled by the rich, right?
You, the rest of people are like slaves for them. If you're poor or living in suburbs.
Who has property rights and wealth he won't worry for others because he's the master.

...the fuck is this?

Like the oracles of old drugs where involved

[Yusseria]

The poor can't live there anyway, so what?

No matter if you even let them live rent free there's still extremely high food costs, transport costs .. why should everyone subsidise them?

Much cheaper and better to move them out to suburbs. Or other cities in NY.

Why not just ban towers like this by fixing the loophole? Suburbs are bad for the environment anyway

You wanna ban towers but you also don't like the suburbs?


...where the fuck are people supposed to live?

Cities are way worse for the environment than suburbs are.

[The Objectivist Commonwealth]

I think these towers are pretty as fuck. Gonna build at least ten when I can just to punish your poor taste.

[The South Falls]

I think these towers are pretty as fuck. Gonna build at least ten when I can just to punish your poor taste.

That's not very objective of you.

[Ifreann]

There's still four times more empty houses than homeless people.


Abolishing the housing market entirely will help everyone except those who profit from owning housing. Anyone currently paying rent will be better off if they don't have to pay rent any more. Anyone currently paying a mortgage will be better off if they don't have to pay that mortgage any more. The only people who won't be better off are bankers and landlords and property speculators, and who gives a shit about them?


So instead of giving houses to the homeless, you want to give small, shit houses to the homeless, small, shit houses that do not currently exist, on condition that they do pointless busy work for the government. Yeah, fuck that, I still prefer my idea.


Relocate the homeless to the streets of some other neighbourhood? Why? And isn't that kidnapping?


Which is to say, imprison the mentally ill. Charming.


It really is the best way, though.

Your source does not actually say there are 4 times more available houses than homeless people.
It says the majority of empty homes are not actually available for people to move in to.
Plus most of those are apartments, not houses.

I didn't say "available", I said "empty". Even if most aren't available, there's four times more empty houses than homeless people. There's probably space to house all the homeless.

And apartments are a type of housing.

And show me a place the completely banned the property market and still has a well functioning economy.

Show me a place that did what I'm proposing and had the entire economy collapse for specifically that reason and no other.

Offering them housing elsewhere is not kidnapping, but getting the housing could be contingent on moving.

Saying that you want to relocate the homeless doesn't really imply asking nicely.

Some people do need to be institutionalized, de institutionalization was a complete failure and total disaster. It is indefensible because it did not improve the quality of living for the mentally ill.

People who need help to look after themselves should receive that help with the absolute minimum abrogation of their rights. We should not lightly take away the freedom of the mentally ill.

It should only be mandatory as a last resort, but needs to be an option.
Voluntary institutionalization needs to be available for whoever wants and needs it though.

Not all the homeless are the same your know. Different ones will need different solutions.

Homeless people need homes. What help they need after that to further improve their lives will, I'm sure, vary, but by definition they need houses.

---

I don't really care about what examples you want to cite to assert that the poor are inherently inferior and cannot have nice things without ruining them.


Because it is an empirical fact that you can only have nice things when your bank balance is at least...what, five digits? Six?


People usually leave therapy when their session is finished. But I see from your other post that what you have in mind is locking up the mentally ill.


A shit home that they might have to share with a hundred other people. Not really suitable for most people's needs.

You cannot keep dodging the issue.
Please explain why so many of the the 50s housing project were completely trashed by the 70s.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you that you very directly that the poor are not inherently evil and destructive. I really think that this is self-evident. Moral character is not measured by wealth or income.

You are the one stereotyping.
Some of the homeless are willing and able to upkeep a apartment.
Some are not.

And that is why it cannot be a one size fits all solution.
Why we cannot assume we can just give all housing and expect that to work.

The aim of giving people houses is for them to have a house. By this standard it very obviously cannot possibly fail. You seem to want to expand the aim of my proposal so that you can insist it will fail, but this is obviously a bullshit move by you. "Giving people a house won't solve their mental issues!" Yeah, fucking duh, I didn't say it would. I'm not trying to solve their mental issues by giving them a house, I'm trying to give them a place to live. It's like you're telling me I shouldn't be using a hammer because it won't turn screws, but I'm not trying to turn screws, I'm trying to drive nails.

[The Objectivist Commonwealth]

I think these towers are pretty as fuck. Gonna build at least ten when I can just to punish your poor taste.

That's not very objective of you.

Not much about this nation is.

[Pope Joan]

At common law the air belonged to the ground underneath it.

So, if your apple tree hung over my side of the property line, i could eat those apples.

[Novus America]

Your source does not actually say there are 4 times more available houses than homeless people.
It says the majority of empty homes are not actually available for people to move in to.
Plus most of those are apartments, not houses.

I didn't say "available", I said "empty". Even if most aren't available, there's four times more empty houses than homeless people. There's probably space to house all the homeless.

And apartments are a type of housing.

And show me a place the completely banned the property market and still has a well functioning economy.

Show me a place that did what I'm proposing and had the entire economy collapse for specifically that reason and no other.

Offering them housing elsewhere is not kidnapping, but getting the housing could be contingent on moving.

Saying that you want to relocate the homeless doesn't really imply asking nicely.

Some people do need to be institutionalized, de institutionalization was a complete failure and total disaster. It is indefensible because it did not improve the quality of living for the mentally ill.

People who need help to look after themselves should receive that help with the absolute minimum abrogation of their rights. We should not lightly take away the freedom of the mentally ill.

It should only be mandatory as a last resort, but needs to be an option.
Voluntary institutionalization needs to be available for whoever wants and needs it though.

Not all the homeless are the same your know. Different ones will need different solutions.

Homeless people need homes. What help they need after that to further improve their lives will, I'm sure, vary, but by definition they need houses.

---

You cannot keep dodging the issue.
Please explain why so many of the the 50s housing project were completely trashed by the 70s.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you that you very directly that the poor are not inherently evil and destructive. I really think that this is self-evident. Moral character is not measured by wealth or income.

You are the one stereotyping.
Some of the homeless are willing and able to upkeep a apartment.
Some are not.

And that is why it cannot be a one size fits all solution.
Why we cannot assume we can just give all housing and expect that to work.

The aim of giving people houses is for them to have a house. By this standard it very obviously cannot possibly fail. You seem to want to expand the aim of my proposal so that you can insist it will fail, but this is obviously a bullshit move by you. "Giving people a house won't solve their mental issues!" Yeah, fucking duh, I didn't say it would. I'm not trying to solve their mental issues by giving them a house, I'm trying to give them a place to live. It's like you're telling me I shouldn't be using a hammer because it won't turn screws, but I'm not trying to turn screws, I'm trying to drive nails.

Home and house are not interchangeable words.
A house is one type of home, a type not suitable for this situation.
An apartment is a home, but it is not a house.

And you do not know how many of those are actually available.

I never said all homeless people are evil and destructive.
But some clearly are. And need different treatment than those who are not.
Again different homeless need different treatment.

That is your mistake.
Some homeless are capable of mantaining a home.
Some are not.
You assume all are good.

Giving a home to those who are not able to maintain is not a long term solution.
We tried it. It did not work.

And countries that start seizing property without compensation generally have completely dysfunctional economies.
It is not good for the economy. It harms the economy. Your idea is very bad for the economy,

I agree involuntary institutionalization should be a last resort, but it still needs to be an option.
And voluntary institutionalization should be available to all who need it.

De institutionalization was a disaster that created far more problems than it solved.

[San Lumen]

At common law the air belonged to the ground underneath it.

So, if your apple tree hung over my side of the property line, i could eat those apples.

I dont follow

[Thermodolia]

At common law the air belonged to the ground underneath it.

So, if your apple tree hung over my side of the property line, i could eat those apples.

I dont follow

Meaning that if you theoretically draw a wall between the property lines anything that crossed that line would be the other guy’s property.

However the way the NYC zoning laws work the air around the Apple tree belongs to only one person. Even if that tree crosses the property line of another person

[San Lumen]

I dont follow

Meaning that if you theoretically draw a wall between the property lines anything that crossed that line would be the other guy’s property.

However the way the NYC zoning laws work the air around the Apple tree belongs to only one person. Even if that tree crosses the property line of another person

That ought to be changed

[Ors Might]

Meaning that if you theoretically draw a wall between the property lines anything that crossed that line would be the other guy’s property.

However the way the NYC zoning laws work the air around the Apple tree belongs to only one person. Even if that tree crosses the property line of another person

That ought to be changed

But why though.

[San Lumen]

That ought to be changed

But why though.

Because these are buildings for the mega rich who will never occupy them plus they are ugly

[Ors Might]

But why though.

Because these are buildings for the mega rich who will never occupy them plus they are ugly

The mega rich can have buildings, you know. Like, they’re allowed. And something being ugly is just your opinion.

[San Lumen]

Because these are buildings for the mega rich who will never occupy them plus they are ugly

The mega rich can have buildings, you know. Like, they’re allowed. And something being ugly is just your opinion.

At the expense of everyone else? No thanks

[Ors Might]

The mega rich can have buildings, you know. Like, they’re allowed. And something being ugly is just your opinion.

At the expense of everyone else? No thanks

Didn’t realize some rich bastard buying land that nobody else could afford negatively impacted everybody else. But I’m sure you can prove this.

[San Lumen]

At the expense of everyone else? No thanks

Didn’t realize some rich bastard buying land that nobody else could afford negatively impacted everybody else. But I’m sure you can prove this.

Why do we place value on land anyway? Why do we we need ugly towers like this anyway so the rich can look down upon the peasants?

[Ors Might]

Didn’t realize some rich bastard buying land that nobody else could afford negatively impacted everybody else. But I’m sure you can prove this.

Why do we place value on land anyway? Why do we we need ugly towers like this anyway so the rich can look down upon the peasants?

Because land has value? A plot of land out in the desert sands doesn’t have the same value as a plot of land with fertile soil and nice climate.

So this is basically you throwing a hissy fit that the rich have nicer things than you?

[Hammer Britannia]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to again? Because, like, a couple of rich dudes decided to buy some land/air to build towers and that magically caused the New York housing shortage?

[Ors Might]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to again? Because, like, a couple of rich dudes decided to buy some land/air to build towers and that magically caused the New York housing shortage?

Apparently, the rich buying uber expensive land prevents the homeless from buying it. Or something. Lumen hasn’t really explained how someone buying land even other wealthy people have trouble affording leads to housing shortages.

[San Lumen]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to again? Because, like, a couple of rich dudes decided to buy some land/air to build towers and that magically caused the New York housing shortage?

It raises rent across the city and pushes people like me out

[Hammer Britannia]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to again? Because, like, a couple of rich dudes decided to buy some land/air to build towers and that magically caused the New York housing shortage?

It raises rent across the city and pushes people out

How so?

Or could it just be your urban utopia fetish is wrong and your just looking for a scapegoat?

[Ors Might]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to again? Because, like, a couple of rich dudes decided to buy some land/air to build towers and that magically caused the New York housing shortage?

It raises rent across the city and pushes people like me out

So there should be an income cap on who can buy land? Because thats your only possible solution, aside from banning the construction of towers altogether.

[San Lumen]

It raises rent across the city and pushes people like me out

So there should be an income cap on who can buy land? Because thats your only possible solution, aside from banning the construction of towers altogether.

No you change the zoning law to ban these ugly pencil like towers

[Ors Might]

So there should be an income cap on who can buy land? Because thats your only possible solution, aside from banning the construction of towers altogether.

No you change the zoning law to ban these ugly pencil like towers

You use ugly a lot. Me thinks that your problem with them is mostly aesthetics.