I'm against clearing homeless out of parks given we live in a world where standards of living in between "homeless" and "a properly zoned/fully inspected building" are illegal.
Like, someone could buy a plot of land, build a bunch of tent-sized pods and rent these to live in for a tiny fraction of the price of normal housing. But despite this being an upgrade from homelessness, ppl would see it and go "wow that's inhumane, we can't allow this"
Often, when homeless people are cleared from parks, they are given living options safer than tent cities.
Of the many things that affect homelessness on a large scale, building health and safety standards isn't one of them.
We can reduce homelessness without this compromise.
maybe this is the case in some cities, but not the ones I've paid attention to. I used to be friends with homeless people back in Seattle and that was not the way they understood how homeless relocation worked
That doesn't mean they should live in parks though. I would say be for allowing substandard unsafe housing but still be against homeless in parks
Also just wondering not planning anything but it's probably not legal to just own like a wooded area and let people camp there is it?
You're right, but these bad rules are there for a real problem: some people are not capable of affording a decent home while other people own multiple homes and profit from them. A better solution must be implemented before the little protection offered by the rules is removed.
"What if we could profit off of charging rent to homeless people" is... not your greatest idea yet. Landlords exploiting tenets is common enough without removing all regulations and pulling extra vulnerable people into the mix.