Empty Homes Outnumber The Homeless 6 To 1, So Why Not Give Them Homes?

“Homes are built for people to live in,” said one activist, so why are there millions of homeless people and millions more empty homes?
By |
Share this article!
  • Reddit
    • Google+

    MINNEAPOLIS — Millions of Americans experience homelessness every year, and yet they’re outnumbered by vacant homes and government-owned buildings. A growing number of activists are calling for these empty spaces to be filled with the humans living on America’s streets.

    According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, almost 600,000 people experience homelessness on any given night in the United States as of January 2014. About 15 percent of those people are the “chronically homeless,” while the rest may lose their homes temporarily but find some form of recovery that keeps them off the streets on a long-term basis.

    Writing for Amnesty International in 2011, Tanuka Loha, then-director of Amnesty’s Demand Dignity program, put the numbers into a larger, annual perspective, and compared them to the shocking number of vacant homes left after last decade’s financial crash.

    official MintPress sponsor

    “Since 2007, banks have foreclosed around eight million homes. It is estimated that another eight to ten million homes will be foreclosed before the financial crisis is over.  This approach to resolving one part of the financial crisis means many, many families are living without adequate and secure housing. In addition, approximately 3.5 million people in the U.S. are homeless, many of them veterans. It is worth noting that, at the same time, there are 18.5 million vacant homes in the country.”

    Most empty homes sit vacant after foreclosures, leaving them owned by banks that are loathe to part with them.

    The numbers appear to be similar in Europe, according to Rupert Neate, writing for the Guardian in 2014. Neate interviewed David Ireland, chief executive of the Empty Homes charity.

    “Homes are built for people to live in, if they’re not being lived in then something has gone seriously wrong with the housing market,” Ireland told Neate.

    According to the Guardian, European Union figures show that there are 4.1 million homeless living across Europe, while there are 11 million empty homes across the continent.

    Back in the U.S., another report last year highlighted the 77,000 empty government buildings that could be refitted to house the homeless. According to Matt Lemas, writing in Ryot, while some existing legislation allows for these kinds of conversions, it requires local pressure and pro-active legislators to be effective.

    “In San Francisco, for example, the city passed the Surplus Property Ordinance in 2004, which gave the Mayor’s Office for Housing the jurisdiction of vacant lots so they could be developed into shelters for homeless people,” Lemas wrote. “Additionally, in Seattle, a homeless grassroots group called Operation Homestead re-opened abandoned apartment buildings and turned them into affordable housing for formerly homeless people.”

    In October, the Atlantic reported that activists in Baltimore are pressuring lawmakers to house that city’s 30,000 homeless in its estimated 16,000 empty homes. “Clearly there’s a moral crisis when you see so many people in need of homes and there’s such a glut of vacant ones,” said Rachel Kutler, an organizer with United Workers.

    And in April, Utah announced it has almost eliminated chronic homelessness through a pioneering program to put the homeless in vacant apartments, then provide them with social services like drug rehabilitation after they are safely housed.

    “[O]fficials announced that they had reduced by 91% the ranks of the chronically homeless — defined as someone who has spent at least one year full-time on the streets — and are now approaching ‘functional zero,’” according to John M. Glionna, a national reporter for the Los Angeles Times. “In 2005, when state officials began placing people in permanent housing, they counted 1,932 chronically homeless. Today, with 1,764 people housed, that number has plummeted to just 178 statewide. And officials have their sights set on those remaining.”

    Overall, data from the National Alliance to End Homelessness suggests the homeless population, defined as those who sleep on the streets or resort to shelters, has decreased since 2007. But the same figures look far less positive after factoring in the number of people who still lack homes of their own. According to the alliance, “The number of poor people living doubled up, has grown substantially over the last several years. These are people who are housed, but not living independently in their own homes. This is a symptom of the affordable housing crisis in this country.”

    Watch “Housing is a Human Right,” a presentation by Sczerina Perot, a human rights lawyer, at TEDxASL (American School in London) 2013:

    Share this article!

       

      Print This Story Print This Story
      You Might Also Like  
      ___________________________________________
      This entry was posted in Inside Stories, National, Top Stories and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
      • Pingback: Proposed Pot Tax Could Help End Homelessness In LAViral Pirate()

      • Pingback: AskReaders: What is NOT a fun fact? – KickassFacts.com()

      • Eric Scout

        The simple solution is for the bank to be convinced that these are liabilities not assets, to hire the homeless to deconstruct these sites, and have them sold to recycling companies for spare parts. Each place giving an income based off of a percent from the money gotten from the recycling companies. With the money from these projects the homeless should be able to increase their standard of living.

        Utilities cost money, but housing doesn’t need utilities the homeless live without such. You can if the system allows not have taxes on the homes. And just have squatters. They already do this its just not legal or accepted. At the end the system just spites them and loses out on an opportunity to recoup some of the money lost.

        Some places can be renovated, but right now its more sensible to get some money back then start from scratch again.

      • Pingback: Armed Criticism – armedcriticism()

      • Pingback: Lessons We Can Learn from the Electoral Setback in Venezuela – Journal of People()

      • Pingback: A verseny pusztít, a kooperáció éltet. | Leleplező Magazin Kiegészítő()

      • neuterable

        “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” ~Margaret Thatcher

        Redistribution of assets can’t resolve this problem.

        The real problem is, the price of things has been detached from their actual value, mostly because the Federal Government got involved with the Lending Process, forcing lenders to lend at times when they shouldn’t and allowing people to buy homes based not on what they could afford to spend, but on what they could manage to borrow.

        These houses are standing vacant, because the owners can’t admit to the fact that they are not actually Worth what they are trying to sell them for. The prices need to be allowed to stabilize, at a level where they sell, for what people can actually afford to reasonably pay.

        Until then, the owners get to pay the taxes, pay the maintenance and pay to keep the hobos from squatting, year after year while they artificially inflate their balance sheets by pretending these rotting relics from the housing bubble are assets rather than liabilities.

        • Eric Scout

          Redistribution of assets would push the problem to the future, which is what all legislation is about. Having fewer homeless people and less suffering in the city would be beneficial to society, and if we could push these people into productive recycling citizens it would be best. Taxes and Maintenance are State side issues which go poof the moment when socialism legalizes this.

          When you live in a home, you have a ventured interested in its upkeep. The homeless will take care of the property or let it rot around them. What would be best is that these people are trained, and become productive citizens. The key factor is that this has to be new jobs, and not damage a haphazard economy.

          • neuterable

            While this is an interesting theory, the condition of every slum on the planet would suggest that it doesn’t actually work that way. Get the price right and more people would be able to afford housing and begin to work their way up.

            Start seizing and forcibly redistributing property and you will soon find that you have nothing left to hand out.

      • Dave Navarro Sr.

        Far left liberal thinking is way too insane for me. If you did let homeless move into these houses, who will pay the utilities and who will keep the property clean and safe? The homeless occupants? If you believe that, you are not living in reality. Most of these homes are owned by a bank. Do you really expect them to give away their investments? I tend to support the truly homeless to some extent, giving them a hand up. But it is clear, at least in my area, that the vast majority of homeless are chronic drug addicts who can’t or won’t get a job. Their method of income is begging and stealing… to pay for their next fix. Their little living areas around town are pig stys filled with the garbage THEY leave behind. You really want to bring that into neighborhoods? NIMBY would be the order of the day.

        • Eric Scout

          The Govt should treat the addicts as people with drug problems as a health issue as much as a mental one. Lock em up, and give em their fix. Keep em off the street until they shape up with a voucher from a person who’s sane. The Homeless cause much crime, and are a pain for many wealthy citizens to look at. Simply giving them what they want would be cheaper and more humane, as well as more safe.

      • Paula Plante

        Although I do understand the plight of the homeless (I am going to a Memorial Service for a homeless resident later today) and agree we need to help those in need, I am also living next door to a family who is on State assistance.My friend’s own the home and loved their home but a job loss forced them to move to another state where he found employment. The problem is that no one holds section 8 renters accountable for the home. Vernon CT Housing Authority does not make the renters abide by the contract stating the 2 adults and 3 children can reside in the home. These people had up to 15 people in the home, a home that they are destroying. Not only don’t they take care of it, there are holes in the walls, light fixtures pulled from the ceiling, sinks literally hanging from the walls, garbage in the driveway and on the lawn and they continually scrape the side of the home when they pull in and out of the driveway, breaking the shingles and taking off the paint. They don’t pay so they don’t care. It’s been 10 months and the owners cannot get them out. Vernon Housing Authority has not made them abide by the contract and now these The process for eviction began 8 months ago and they are still there. I own my home and these tenants have affected my quality of life in addition to bringing down the property value of my home and the neighbors. Unless tenants are responsible for caring for the home and someone holds them accountable if they don’t, this is not a good idea.

      • Pingback: POLL: Why Aren’t People Throwing Bricks Through Bank Windows Right Now? | wtf()

      • Pingback: How to Be Happy While Homeless in Jackson Hole: Part Deux Be D’eux Be Do | The Sheepeater()

      • KelleyELawrence

        vccv

      • Mottee

        <❶❷❸.%@^@^@??????????????. +mintpressnews +Part-time working I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk6 < Read more info here='' ……..''

        <║████║░░║████║████║░░║████║████║░░║████║

        31

      • WandaKPier

        First Few Days To Get Smart Deal with mintpressnews…. < Find Here

      • Shavithe

        <❶❷❸.%@^@^@^!^!^!^!^.. +sltrib +Part-time working I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk6 < Read more info here='' ……..''

        11

      • Pingback: AMERIKA: Empty Homes Outnumber The Homeless 6 To 1 | RIELPOLITIK()

      • JeremyEHayes

        Some New Features with mintpressnews….. Go To Next Page

      • Pingback: Empty Homes Outnumber The Homeless 6 To 1, So Why Not Give Them Homes? - Business English Hamburg()

      • Pingback: Cyrano's Journal Today | Empty Homes Outnumber The Homeless 6 To 1, So Why Not Give Them Homes?()

      • CassiePBurgess

        22222Ultra Income source by mintpressnews < Find Here

      • Pingback: Independence Day | RESPONSIBLE HUMANITY()

      • joz molody

        So the author would like to force all property owners to forfeit property they aren’t using currently so they can decide who would receive it. What about the property owner’s rights? What about the neighbor’s safety and property values when people move in who can’t afford basic upkeep on the home? And what about when the homeless complain that the property isn’t in the location of their choice?
        Everyone wants to give homeless people all kinds of handouts-as long as they homeless aren’t housed next to their home or business.

        • inbredyokel

          I do hope that you never have to rely on charity or compassion from someone like yourself.

        • labormaid

          Geeze, really??? These are properties that are abandoned for many reasons. If a property owner is too lazy to keep up their property, and stops paying taxes on it, they deserve to lose it. Houses that are abandoned cause way more problems for neighborhoods that ones that are lived in. They can quickly become dumping and breeding grounds for rodents.

          BTW, Most of the homeless aren’t any more dangerous than you are.

          • Eric Scout

            Abandoned locations owned by the Govt should IMO need a tag to reserve the place, without such tag from the Fed Govt Courts it should be open for some Agency to hop in to recycle the location for spare parts. The metal, wiring, and abandoned items can all be recycled. Then sold for pennies to a recycling company to make raw resources for other companies to use.

      • GALT

        This is a remarkable game being played by “idiots” who actually think
        this “economy” is going to recover……….but the infinite growth model
        of “economics” is over…….there exists a brief period to transition from
        where we are to a “sustainable entropy based model of economics” where
        the reward is “you get to live” and maybe for the first time in the history of
        civilization, enjoy the time you have……..or?

        • UTNVOLN

          HAVE you even read a newspaper lately?? The economy HAS recovered, unemployment is @ the lowest level since 2007 (when DumbYa was finally leaving), the Stock Market is high AND steady. I’ll tell ya what…give me your email addy, and I’ll send you the OMB (govt) report. OK??

          • GALT

            Thanks for jumping in….

            • Eric Scout

              The economy slanted upwards, the job market has basically decreased wages for the same old work. While inflation always rises.

          • GALT

            You just funnin with me?

          • neuterable

            Are you familiar with the term “Seasonal Adjustment”? The BLS figures on unemployment were not designed to account for multiple bad years. Prior years are used to determine a baseline for new years so even if employment doesn’t improve, every year the number goes down a little at a time, not even including people who just don’t count anymore.

            Instead, try looking at the Workforce participation level, in which case your shiny new banana republic is about on par with South Africa.

            But wait, there is more, a nice way to keep your stock market afloat, borrow trillions of dollars you can’t pay back to inflate it, brilliant.

            Here are the facts zombie, in terms of actual assets, China has a bigger economy than you now and when the countries keeping your craptastic nation afloat stop feeding you rope, you will stick your fat neck through the noose on the end and hang yourself with it.

      • Lil25

        This is just terrible. We are fortunate enough to have a six-figure income, but we haven’t been able to buy a home because of a lack of inventory and very high prices. The fact that banks won’t allow anyone to live in these houses is downright immoral.

        • Eric Scout

          They need to keep the value high, its plain economics. Immoral is right, but they get no benefits otherwise, and they stand to lose more long term by being good. They might lose out in the short term, but housing is something people will want/need sooner or later.