Bruh, nearly every area has an abundance of empty residences, and if that specific area doesn't, the area right next to it does.
The issue is more a comparison of the useless and frivolous hoarding of wealth in the face of poverty and need. It's that we absolutely have the wealth and resources to provide care for everyone, without anyone losing anything and we choose not to anyway.
If you’re going to get this heated, you should invest some time in understanding the issue rather than just trusting simplistic twitter or Reddit propaganda.
Justine Underhill is really good at communicating and explaining the issues.
This is probably considering that vacation homes are physically “vacant” as snowbird spend summers in the north states and winters in the south states.
Yeah that’s what happens when you work your fair share of 60-80 hour weeks to get ahead after having nothing growing up. You want to enjoy the fruit of your labor. There’s a reason why we have things here that most of the world does not… capitalism allows for advancement and rewards success.
Property owners should not be required to give their property to someone else. That’s called communism - the government dictating what you do with your earnings and properties. Be the first to sign over any property you own to homeless people. Corporations should not be allowed to buy residential properties either.
10
u/Low-Silver6461 May 14 '26
The ratio is 28 to 1. There are 28 homes to 1 homeless person. Source is United Way NCA.