Being a socialist, a radical, or an anarchist is not the same as 'bitching loudly on the internet every day'.

from US Politics thread

In the better world where all housing is social (either state-owned or communes or co-ops of somekind) or personally owned, we wouldn't be evicting people for failure to pay, obviously. In the event that someone was so loud (or whatever) it became a problem - which comprises what percentage of evictions? - then we're going to have to work up a system for how to deal with it! Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

If only it were so simple ... like, if only money didn't exist or the only problems with shared housing were noise violations. If only ... there are so many complex issues I have observed (mostly in terms of the aftermath / dealing with fallout and mess). Some of them are very "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Vienna has one of the best housing situation in the western world and it's a very complex system that uses a mix of social housing, a whole set of rent control that varies rather wildly and new developments, it works much better than what we see throughout the US and Canada. Simple solutions for complex problems never work for anything, it's rather the opposite in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting that the only conceivable problem is having a 26-piece drum set in your one bedroom apartment, that was an example - but the greater point is that whatever problems arise, they would not be dealt with by evictions as we know them today. In a socialist future where housing is a guaranteed right, we would have to create a system to deal with these issues.

ie no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances, which is what evictions are in our current world.

here are some of the issues I have observed that have led to evictions/threatened evictions in communal/co-op housing outside of failure to pay rent or contribute labor in lieu of payment:

sexual assault
racism
homophobia/transphobia
substance abuse
mental illness
cruelty to animals/negligence of care for animals
romantic breakups
lack of concern for safety of others in terms of external security (failure to lock doors, etc)
slovenliness/bad housekeeping
hoarding
unsafe construction, maintenance, etc.
theft
defending the "wrong person" in a dispute

ie no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances, which is what evictions are in our current world.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39 AM (twenty-six seconds ago)

people should have the right to housing, but to me, that means, if they get evicted, there would be other housing available, not that they have a right to stay where they are no matter what.

That would be the system I'm talking about that has to be figured out.

Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

Regardless, you're pointing to various outlier cases for eviction but those are not the prime movers of eviction in our world - Nazis running dogfighting rings are not running up the getting kicked out numbers. Women, persons of color and families with young children are more likely to be evicted than other persons or groups.

Once you take rent out of the equation, you're simply dealing conceptually with far fewer cases overall.

Let me know when the goalposts are in their permanent position, milo.

? That was in the part you quoted initially.

Like, the entire last half of what you quoted is about the need in an evictionless/landlordless society to deal with problem cases.

you were arguing that evictions shouldn't happen ever.

and the things you were saying, and the ways you were saying them, made it sound to me that you really are trying to re-invent the wheel, and like, you have little experience or knowledge of actual practice of communal/co-op housing in the US.

Simple solutions for complex problems never work for anything

tell that to finland
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

which is why I revived this thread ... as people actually "doing the work" will likely shake their heads in recognition of the unfortunate real problems that radical housing has. And I am not advocating for the status quo here, I'm saying, "people are messy. community is messy. The work can be hard."

Yes, and I repeated it like five posts ago - no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

That's what an eviction in our world is. You don't get kicked out after failing to pay rent for 90 days to be moved into another home.

How easily can the model be replicated in other European countries?

The Housing First model can be replicated even though housing conditions may vary from country to country in Europe. Providing permanent homes for the homeless should be a target instead of temporary solutions.

There is no quick fix to all life situations but a solid base provides the foundations upon which to improve the welfare of the homeless. The first step in change is the change in attitudes.

id need to know a lot more about the housing situation in finland before i was in any way convinced anywhere else in the word had one simple finnish step to success tbh

I wasn't asked about "communal/co-op housing in the US," I was asked, in what you quoted, about the principle behind an objection evictions and landlords.

That principle is centered in no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances. It's also fundamentally a question of remaking society, because you have to get rid of the landlords doing 99.9% of the evicting to start with.

so, in the meantime while we're waiting for the abolition of private ownership of real estate, what should we do, milo?

You've to count houses and people and then do a lot more than counting to determine housing need before you start looking at who owns what ime

"get rid of landlords" is worthless cant

That was answered in the other thread, right under the part you quoted!

But no one should ever, under any circumstances, be rendered unhoused - which is what eviction in the here and now reality does. And if you get evicted in the here and now, no one should tell you not to fuck up the drywall or that you're a bad person for doing so.

Because the initial offhand comment was about Trump being a bad guy because he'd be the sort to do property damage after getting evicted.

So while we're waiting for the abolition of real estate speculation, the landlord can pay to resod the yard where you did a donut on your way to sleeping in your car.

the landlord can pay to resod the yard where you did a donut on your way to sleeping in your car.

but we do still live in this world and the abolition of capitalism is nowhere in sight, so in the meantime that's your brilliant idea of what to do? pull your finger out.

xp - uh, you know that depending on the amount and type of property damage, that could result in more people getting evicted for life safety hazards and unhabitable conditions ... but hey, everything is so simple in miloworld!

Yes, my brilliant idea is to not clutch my pearls and shame people who are being put on the streets. Part of capitalism is risk - even if you're a sweet little elderly person with five rental properties, you're taking a risk that when you evict someone, they might do some damage on the way out. Tough.

i should stop posting on this thread, as I value ILX as a respite from work, as opposed to a reminder of the stress of my work

from "no more landlords" to "everybody but me shames the homeless" in zero steps

your substance is showing, buck

you know, I would have plenty of sympathy for the sweet elderly lady if the person she were evicting was like Donald Trump, an abusive, racist rapist douchebag.

Not everybody but me, specifically the person who illustrated Donald Trump's badness by saying he'd do a donut in the yard after getting evicted in the other thread - the genesis os my basic statement of principle that no one should be evicted, that no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

glad to know that Donald Trump can crash on yr couch until he finds a place, milo!

trucker hat guy from Gear!'s house

absolutely love threads like these

A: lol you just love bitching about stuff and not offering solutions, what should we do then?
B: well they do it like this here
C: lol whatever there’s more to it than that, but in the meantime I’m going to outright condescend to you and then call you the dickhead for reacting to it

There must come a point, at some point, where certain ilxors might think how their posts might read to someone who, for example, might never have voted for the winner in a general election in their life, who might still be living at home at an age their parents had independent lives and families, who might be spending tons of money on shared accommodation. Surely you might consider at some stage how someone faced with a future as bleak as the one oncoming might react to being constantly prodded for sport on here by people pretending to agree with them? If you’re not going to bother engaging properly then killfile and move on, tbh.

Milo, what do you think of the housing first program in Finland?

from "no more landlords" to "everybody but me shames the homeless" in zero steps

your substance is showing, buck

Sure, if Donald Trump loses all of his money and goes to New York prison for a couple of years, it would be unconscionable for a 80 year old man to be pushed out to living on the streets. This is a hill I'm overjoyed to die on.

tell that to finland
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

I've read a lot of housing first and no, it wasn't as simple as 'let's end homelessness uh'.

The Donald Trump hypothetical is so wild, why is it even used?

milo, I don't use killfile so I know there isn't some phantom poster you are arguing with whose posts I have hidden. Maybe if there were I wouldn't be so confused.

i never have any idea where milo finds all this patience. a real inspiration.

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

xp real mystery why this site can’t attract younger posters, isn’t it

As someone who works with homelessness quite a bit, I've seen situations were evictions saved lives.

Homelessness on the other hand is a scourge that shouldn't happen to anyone ever.

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

yes! yes it did!

milo, I don't use killfile so I know there isn't some phantom poster you are arguing with whose posts I have hidden. Maybe if there were I wouldn't be so confused.

? You quoted me, from another thread, where that Donald Trump post is which lead to the offhand comment about the ethics of doing donuts if evicted, then took issue with my lack of 40 point plan to achieve the goal of problem-free housing in a world without evictions.

For instance, you took issue with my lack of planning for problematic individuals making others' lives difficult:

people should have the right to housing, but to me, that means, if they get evicted, there would be other housing available, not that they have a right to stay where they are no matter what.

But as I pointed out, I referred to that in the very bit you quoted initially:

In the event that someone was so loud (or whatever) it became a problem - which comprises what percentage of evictions? - then we're going to have to work up a system for how to deal with it! Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

ok. as a declaration of principle that's very broad, but not bad. a lot of us would subscribe to it as a worthwhile goal. but, considered as an ethical principle, in no way does it stretch to justify willful damage to a rental property, simply out of spite. that's your own particular ethical addition.

you do realize that people who, through spite, do damage to a rental property on their way out, are the same people who also are most likely to be selfish shitheads who trash that property when they are living there. uh, don't you?

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

It started because "Donald Trump is the kind of shitty person who'd do donuts in the yard because he got evicted" (re: White House lawn being dug up). My statement was that that was a bad example of Trump being a shitty person because you're not a bad person for lashing out after being evicted.

seriously though, one thing that could help a lot of folks out (in addition to actually building affordable housing) is improving and expanding the Section 8 voucher system and removing a lot of the really bad regulations about grounds for eviction from public housing.

It started because "Donald Trump is the kind of shitty person who'd do donuts in the yard because he got evicted" (re: White House lawn being dug up). My statement was that that was a bad example of Trump being a shitty person because you're not a bad person for lashing out after being evicted.

The one person it hurts the most is the tenant who lashed out, most of the time it follows him and make it harder for to find new rentals, especially with NGOs who operate with tighter budgets.

Actually this is how it started:

Trump is exactly the sort of person who, facing an eviction notice, would do donuts all over his own front lawn.

― OrificeMax (Old Lunch), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:30 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Bad example, everyone getting evicted should fuck the place up.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:35 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

um, no, speaking as someone who worked for a small scale DIY property manager

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

I'm good with "most" there, ftr

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:41 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

"most everyone"

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:41 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Everyone. Landlords shouldn’t exist.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:55 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

yes yes I know but here in the real world some of them are still cool/actual humans/nor corporations, sarahell to thread

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:56 PM (yesterday)