Always disheartening to see people come up with a never-ending list of reasons why empty state buildings can’t be used as temporary shelter for homeless people even though doing nothing and letting them live in the streets is a thousand times worse.
A conversation I’m following on Reddit started as a result of the takeover of a hotel downtown basically boils down to “but property values,” and honestly if that’s their #1 concern I wonder what they think is already happening to all the street corners, vacant buildings, and land where homeless have gone to live.
It’s really just about pushing people to the farthest edges of society where they aren’t seen or heard, without nary a consideration for any of the short or long term consequences.
Office buildings are some of the most colossal wastes of space and they cost the government an obscene amount of money.
The vast majority of jobs can now be done from home and the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. It’s outrageous that we are cutting people’s salaries and leaving people on the streets when money is being paid to keep the light and heat on in big shiny buildings that are mostly empty.
Also, there’s some dipshit on there jizzing about how seizing property equates to seizing the lives of the people on that property and if I had a profile I’d be tempted to say,
“Tell me how you feel about what we did to indigenous people, then …”
but I already know the answer I’d get.
—emily duchaine
Flommist Emily Duchaine lives in the Pacific Northwest. She likes to drink mead, learn about sharks, and listen to the Talking Heads. She pretends to be a professional businesswoman most days. Copyright © 2021 Emily Duchaine.
PLEASE SUPPORT FLOMM
TIPS + DONATIONS DISCREETLY ACCEPTED