Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

garden_ofaedan t1_iy3z0fj wrote

Reply to comment by thisoneisnotasbad in Why can't vermont tax Airnbn by Old_Ad_1301

Those are fair points. I’m not saying ending homelessness is a simple issue with an easy answer, and I do not claim to hold the solution, but again, if we put people’s lives over dollar amounts, it’s possible. Complex, difficult, but possible. For example, lack of public transport can be addressed. If people get homes/shelter, then they are far more likely to be able to save money and therefore patronize local businesses. Since realistically not every houseless individual or family would be given housing in stow, that would allow for certain dwellings being allotted for tourism, and wealthy patrons would still spend their money there.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy3zy5n wrote

Right, but now you have started a project where the housing part is only a small part of the whole. If you were to do that, why not invest in actual affordable housing in places that need it instead of take existing stock. Why take 1000 units on stowe for people who want housing in Burlington? Why not just build cheap dense housing in Burlington funded by a higher tax on secondary homes.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy40aay wrote

You’re exactly right, why not? What I was doing was responding to the hypothetical you posed. As far as what I’m proposing— what I’ve been proposing here is housing the homeless. That’s not all I’m proposing, though it’s all I’ve mentioned. Of course we need to address the root causes of homelessness. So many are unsheltered because the state and the system are broken and have failed them. Housing them is one of myriad issues contributing to it. I fully agree with taxing secondary homes and building more affordable housing projects in places like Burlington.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy44qna wrote

Housing and shelter are not the same thing.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy450yt wrote

I’m aware of this. Those who are unsheltered are typically unhoused, I thought that was evident.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy4aywl wrote

You switched from housing to shelter in your post so I wanted to level set on what was being discussed.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy4e63t wrote

I thought I had been encompassing, maybe I had not made that clear.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy61py1 wrote

I think disagree on a core level. I agree shelter is a “right” and we as a society can not let people die on the streets because they have nowhere to go. I think housing is a privileged and redistribution of it is a general “bad idea”

0

garden_ofaedan t1_iy61yu9 wrote

How is every person having housing a “bad idea”? Housing itself is a human right.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy65qck wrote

I never said that. Not sure if you intentionally misunderstood or not so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I said shelter is a human right.

Housing is a privilege.

Distributing existing housing this is a bad idea.

0

garden_ofaedan t1_iy6kk3f wrote

Can you please explain why, to you, housing is a privilege? Here was my line of thought with my last comment: you believe housing is a privilege and believing redistribution of housing is a “bad idea”, ergo by that logic, you think housing everyone is a “bad idea”.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy7ongg wrote

Again, not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or not. You continue to focus on the wrong part of my statement. Housing everyone is a great idea. Doing so via a redistribution of private property is a “bad idea”. Did that help?

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy87ys4 wrote

Not quite. I’m failing to understand why redistribution is a hangup for you. From each according to ability, to each according to need— everyone needs housing, no one actually needs to own a second dwelling, especially left unoccupied. Rent control could also do a lot of good. Our society has failed the most vulnerable of us. Redistribution, while only one idea, does not seem like a bad one at all.

1