Anonymous asked in Business & FinanceRenting & Real Estate · 4 weeks ago

There are empty rooms all accross the USA.  And empty houses.   Should there be a program to put the homeless in those empty rooms?

Like maybe if you house a homeless you get a tax break off your income? 

14 Answers

  • 3 weeks ago

    In a fairey tale world, that sounds soooo logical.

    But, the reality is that a high percentage of homeless people are drug addicts, alcoholics and or mentally ill people. Unstable people who will wreck havoc in anyone's home...the REASON they are homeless in the first place.

    The homeless need rehab, work training and or prescription drugs for their mental illness. Not free housing or to have other families ruined by their dysfunctional lifestyle.

    Empty houses cost lots of money to live in. Nothing is free... who heats the houses, who pays the electric bills, who pays the property taxes?

    Who feeds and clothes them or prevents them from having children?

    You really have not thought this through, have you?

    Yeah, I did not think so!

  • F
    Lv 6
    4 weeks ago

    In the UK, when advertising a property for let, many people put “no DHSS” , no social security. Basically because if the state is paying, you don’t care about losing your deposit and trash the place.

    Harsh but generally true.

  • 4 weeks ago

    During the Bolshevik revolution in the early 20th century the Bolsheviks (Later the soviets) declared personal property anathema and basically 'eminent domained' the homes of the  middle class and rich and moved other families in to them effectively creating boarding houses and apartments.  Imagine you have a 4 bedroom house with 2 bath rooms ..a kitchen, dining room room...etc...and then the military marches in and tells you that they are moving in 4 to each get to keep the living-room and dining room for your own family but have to share the kitchen and bathrooms.

    And you do not know these people...they were rounded up and dropped off at your door.

    I mean...yes....they deserve homes tooo....but a person should have a choice of whom they want to allow to live in their home for free.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Generally, the homeless trash units that they're placed in. And, who pays for the expenses associated with this? Is it the moral obligation of already overtaxed Americans to further dig into their pockets to pay for additional welfare programs for drug addicts and alcoholics? I don't  think so. 

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    Any place you rent out for habitation has to conform to certain codes and rules. This isn't too bad an idea, actually--and in a lot of places, tax breaks for housing low or very-low income people do exist. But you can't expect people to open their homes to homeless folks everywhere or in every empty structure. That's not really a practical solution. Homeless people are usually homeless because they don't work, and don't have any income. So would a tax break be enough of an incentive if you aren't going to get any rental or housing income after housing them? It's not necessarily something most people would think would be enough. 

    And there are the codes--neighborhood 'standards'--and those who would not want homeless people being 'given' a place to live without paying for it. 

    I do think this scheme might work if the city or county were more pro-active in seizing abandoned properties so they could be turned into housing. That's the biggest roadblock you would face with this issue--and I'm very familiar with this issue because it happened two doors away from me. A house was empty because the owner died--his family was not in the area--and it soon became a haven for squatters. Those squatters destroyed the inside of the property--stripped and sold all the pipes and appliances, left trash and litter inside AND outside--and stole utilities from the owners and from neighbors--and they turned the place into a drug house. It took us neighbors 8 months to get the city to even condemn the property--which doesn't mean much if the owners don't take care of it.  Then there was a fire and part of the property was destroyed AND dangerous--and trash had to be taken out with a BULLDOZER. In my opinion, the city could have worked harder to take over the property before it got to that stage. But those are the problems a scheme like what you suggest faces. The laws are written to protect the tenants, whether or not they own it, pay for it, or care for it. Not the neighborhood that has to face the consequences of things when they DON'T. We had flies, rats, raw sewage and a terrible odor from this issue--and the house is still owned by the out-of-town family, and has not been cleaned up completely--and the issues still exist. All those problems, along with reduced work forces due to the pandemic, have created nightmares everywhere. A municipality can't simply "take" a house or structure over. They must follow the laws and give the owners every opportunity to make things right. It can be years before that happens. 

    I love your idea, but practical things are at issue with it. However--if you think you have a plan to make your neighborhoods work with homeless people and rehab places for them to live, there might be some city or county officials who would listen to you. Why not write to them and ask? Sorry for this long answer. But this is a complex issue. 

  • 4 weeks ago

    No, it won't work. The homeless will frequently trash the places and wither the landlrod won't get paid and will refuse the program or they might get paid and then they'll start overcharging for repairs that were never needed. It just wont work.

  • R P
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    No, thanks.

    I do not want to government interfering any more than it already does when it comes to who I can disqualify from renting my property.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    There are more vacancies than homeless people.  But giving or subsidizing them a home will not work.  The reason is that 99% of the homeless are mentally ill and/or chemically addicted.  They cannot deal with the responsibility of having a home (or even a room in a home).  They will not take care of it.  They will not follow rules.  They will not respect others.  Think about it, if they could do those things, they would not be homeless. 

  • Enigma
    Lv 6
    4 weeks ago

    nothing comes free,it cost money to house the homeless.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    We already have a system where property owners can get tax breaks for providing low income housing.

    And after the homeless people are settled in, what comes next?   Do they get a free place to live for the rest of their lives?

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.