The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules.
SROs are undesirable from the perspective of most of the community: they are broadly viewed as overcrowded, low quality, unsightly, and associated with crime. Put simply, the people who would live in an SRO are, for the most part, people not desirable in the community.
The same goes for "Make it clearly legal to open your home to someone else who needs meals and daily help". Are you running an unlicensed nursing home or halfway house? We already have rampant Medicaid fraud, and then there's cases like: https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-fo....
These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.
TFA doesn't discuss why cities widely banned boarding houses. The most commonly cited reason I've heard is the decline of state mental institutions. People who would otherwise be in those facilities fell to boarding houses, and the overall quality of these facilities went down.
I'm not trying to argue that this was an appropriate response, but we shouldn't act like these were banned for no reason at all.
> NIMBY blocks some nursing homes, but another barrier is that 34 states require a Certificate of Need just to add nursing home beds. You need state approval to build supply. Sixteen states go further with outright construction moratoria.
What kind of communist shit is a "Certificate of Need?"
It was surprisingly hard to find an answer to this, as most sources did not appear unbiased. One source mentioned that in the past there were cost plus billing schemes instead of pay for service schedules. So unnecessary capital expenditures could be profitable, not sure how true this is.
This article was a good read and I am happy to read something from a person with a positive vision in the morning, for a change.
The welfare states in Europe also face difficulties, there will be no retirement money or housing for many people who struggled all their life and did everything they could to live a normal and productive life.
"The poor" for many people becomes very close to "those who are not rich" and/or gifted with a large social network of mutual care (financial, social).
Being single is expensive. There are more single person households than ever.
Care for sick elderly people will probably not exist anymore for the people who today pay for that of the elderly today, again, unless you are pretty rich.
We need a renewed culture of sharing things.
And regarding the boarding house threads:
I can imagine the dirt and filth around unchecked shared housing for sick people.
But why does it have to be this way? Why is it not possible for some people to choose living in a simple way, sharing some aspects of housing such as bathrooms and kitches, and still be safe? It's not a novel concept. People seem to be just to be very entitled nowadays.
It requires an authority in some cases, sure.
But many people around the world do live in lockable small rental units that share bathrooms with others, without being drug-addicted outcasts.
Sure, comfort and space and luxury is nice and I'm not a saint either, who chastices themselves into living from nothing. Not at all. But I think it's worth exploring other forms of living. We are clearly in a dead end. The standard of owning a house is not achievable for everyone, and renting an apartment as a single is not much cheaper in the long run either.
IMO, the demands of people are so high, and I for one would welcome more simple possibilities for people who live on their own to instead live in "managed" communities.
Love the concrete examples!
It is not possible for millions and trillions of people to all live like a duke in their own house, it is not sustainable, and not even desirable. At the same time, I hate the attitude that everyone without a caring family or lots of property and money should be an outcast. Or, in other words, society should provide some leeway for those who can't match the standard family-household-model, without pushing them on the street.
The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules.
SROs are undesirable from the perspective of most of the community: they are broadly viewed as overcrowded, low quality, unsightly, and associated with crime. Put simply, the people who would live in an SRO are, for the most part, people not desirable in the community.
The same goes for "Make it clearly legal to open your home to someone else who needs meals and daily help". Are you running an unlicensed nursing home or halfway house? We already have rampant Medicaid fraud, and then there's cases like: https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-fo....
ok, so let them sleep on the streets
These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.
TFA doesn't discuss why cities widely banned boarding houses. The most commonly cited reason I've heard is the decline of state mental institutions. People who would otherwise be in those facilities fell to boarding houses, and the overall quality of these facilities went down.
I'm not trying to argue that this was an appropriate response, but we shouldn't act like these were banned for no reason at all.
> NIMBY blocks some nursing homes, but another barrier is that 34 states require a Certificate of Need just to add nursing home beds. You need state approval to build supply. Sixteen states go further with outright construction moratoria.
What kind of communist shit is a "Certificate of Need?"
It was surprisingly hard to find an answer to this, as most sources did not appear unbiased. One source mentioned that in the past there were cost plus billing schemes instead of pay for service schedules. So unnecessary capital expenditures could be profitable, not sure how true this is.
This article was a good read and I am happy to read something from a person with a positive vision in the morning, for a change.
The welfare states in Europe also face difficulties, there will be no retirement money or housing for many people who struggled all their life and did everything they could to live a normal and productive life.
"The poor" for many people becomes very close to "those who are not rich" and/or gifted with a large social network of mutual care (financial, social).
Being single is expensive. There are more single person households than ever.
Care for sick elderly people will probably not exist anymore for the people who today pay for that of the elderly today, again, unless you are pretty rich.
We need a renewed culture of sharing things.
And regarding the boarding house threads:
I can imagine the dirt and filth around unchecked shared housing for sick people.
But why does it have to be this way? Why is it not possible for some people to choose living in a simple way, sharing some aspects of housing such as bathrooms and kitches, and still be safe? It's not a novel concept. People seem to be just to be very entitled nowadays.
It requires an authority in some cases, sure. But many people around the world do live in lockable small rental units that share bathrooms with others, without being drug-addicted outcasts.
Sure, comfort and space and luxury is nice and I'm not a saint either, who chastices themselves into living from nothing. Not at all. But I think it's worth exploring other forms of living. We are clearly in a dead end. The standard of owning a house is not achievable for everyone, and renting an apartment as a single is not much cheaper in the long run either.
IMO, the demands of people are so high, and I for one would welcome more simple possibilities for people who live on their own to instead live in "managed" communities.
Love the concrete examples!
It is not possible for millions and trillions of people to all live like a duke in their own house, it is not sustainable, and not even desirable. At the same time, I hate the attitude that everyone without a caring family or lots of property and money should be an outcast. Or, in other words, society should provide some leeway for those who can't match the standard family-household-model, without pushing them on the street.
"Abundance" is retreaded neoliberalism, not progressive. Sigh.
- instead of the 50 fixable things, have you considered that one thing?
- like changing the culture of the country where people start taking care of old people
- they did take care of you when you were a kid, it is only fair you reciprocate no?