This Graffiti Artist Had An Interesting Idea You Probably Haven't Thought Of Before

[Playinghardball]

Kind of makes you think, right?


Found on the Facebook page of Realnews24.com

[gateley]

1. Wow. Couldn't be any simpler than that. Well done! nt

[IDemo]

2. I and I'm sure many others have had that thought before

But nice to know we're not alone.

[intheflow]

3. Seriously.

Who hasn't thought of this? Crimminy, I've been waiting 30 years for people to wake up to this.

[TahitiNut]

36. 'xactly.

[intheflow]

39. Hey, TN!

Long time no see!

[TahitiNut]

40. Hey, itf!

Yeah ... been lurkin' but not postin' much.

[Odin2005]

4. I hope that is an empty building, otherwise he's a vandal.

[Arctic Dave]

5. I would guess it is unoccupied since the electrical meter is removed.

[WingDinger]

10. That makes it unoccupyAble.

The city will not allow folks to live in a building that doesnt have power.

[HuckleB]

8. And that matters ... how?

[Odin2005]

14. I certainly would not want anyone spray-painting on my house.

I don't care if I agree with the message, you have no right to vandalize my stuff!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. Get a clue.

[Odin2005]

24. Yes, because it is so progressive to...

Make people spend money to paint over your spray paint. Learn something called EMPATHY and think about whomever lives in the house!

[HuckleB]

62. You mean it's bad to make the big banks pay to stop people from telling the truth?

BS.

[lunatica]

27. I think the point of the graffiti is to point out that it's an unoccupied house

and that the homeless aren't allowed to live in it.

[Odin2005]

28. that's why I was saying that I hope it is unoccupied.

[JDPriestly]

30. I carried a sign with a similar message in the Occupy portion of the Rose Bowl Parade

If you like the sign but don't want it on your house or some other house in your neighborhood, why don't you make a sign and go to a street corner and Occupy that corner with your sign?

Because, while I can't stand graffiti, I think it is pretty safe to predict that we are going to have that message spray-painted on the walls of a lot of houses across the country before long if we don't get together to do something about homelessness.

A lot of young people have moved in with their parents and vice-versa.

Most of them are getting along pretty well, but the honeymoon with that lifestyle will soon be over. Why? Because the average American cookie-cutter house is not built to provide privacy for a multi-generational family. It's going to get pretty tough for a lot of families to keep the "harmony" going.

And that is when, unless the economy turns around to the point that wages rise enough for Jr. (or Sr.) to pay his/her own rent and live on his/her own or with people of a similar age, we are going to have even more homelessness than we do now.

Instead of worrying about protecting our houses from graffiti, let's get a collective soul and do something positive about homelessness.

We should ask the banks to open up some of the foreclosed houses to the homeless.

I used to work on a project that housed homeless people and helped them get jobs. It's really hard to get a job if you can't take a bath or afford your meds.

[HuckleB]

61. Who's spray painting your house?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. No, he's socially aware.

You probably think that the Underground Railroad broke the "rules."

[Odin2005]

25. It's not about rules, it's about empathy.

If there are people living in the house one should think about the people LIVING IN IT. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

[intheflow]

21. Whether the house is empty or not

someone owns it. So I guess, yes, that makes them a vandal in your eyes. I don't see how that matters, but it's a good way to completely miss the point.

[Odin2005]

23. If it is bank-owned I don;t care who fucks with it.

[JDPriestly]

31. If it is bank-owned, it is owned pretty much by the Fed and by their depositors

and borrowers (including us).

Banks have investors who might be viewed as owners, but without the Fed and the deposits, the investors can't make any money from their shares in the banks.

So, I think we should have at least some say in what the banks do with the houses on which they have foreclosed. And I think they should use some of them to house homeless people.

[Recursion]

6. There are more abandoned foreclosed buildings in Florida than there are homeless people in the US

Let me repeat that.

There are more abandoned foreclosed buildings in Florida than there are homeless people in the US.

Think about that.

[JDPriestly]

32. Maybe we should impose a special tax on houses while they are not being lived in.

This could make it more expensive to own more than one house but also impose a cost on keeping a house empty while someone is homeless.

OK. So it's kind of a kookie idea. But you have to admit there is some odd appeal to it.

[HuckleB]

7. Not exactly novel, no.

This part of the issue has been debated for centuries.

Yet we repeat history.

Heck, if you were a fan of The Clash, this would be obvious.

[pipoman]

9. Now if someone would just buy

the empty buildings and renovate them so they could actually house people..lots of money..

[rational_democrat]

11. ..

These abandoned buildings are often bought from people outside the area looking to invest. Many homes and buildings in Detroit for instance are very cheap and can be a good investment in the long term.

[freshwest]

12. True, it always infuriates me and I always point that out.

[JayhawkSD]

13. Thanks for crediting us with being idiots. n/t

[niyad]

15. reallllly????? you think none of us has thought this before? wow.

sorry to tell you this, but have had this idea for DECADES not that it ever gets anywhere, thanks to the powers that be.

[pipoman]

19. Actually it never gets anywhere because someone actually

owns those empty buildings.

[Cleita]

22. They only own them because our laws allow them to own them

and keep them empty. Maybe it's time for change.

[pipoman]

33. Flawed as it may be, I opt for

freedom and private property ownership, thank you..

[Cleita]

35. Yes, but should they let property go vacant from greed?

If they truly believed in free market then the supply and demand should determine what they get in rent and how much should remain vacant, very little actually in a real free market, true ownership society.

[pipoman]

41. Supply and demand don't lower

the mortgage amount, the cost of renovation to accommodate people, utility costs, liability or the cost of maintenance and upkeep. Who's going to pay all that? Sometimes it is cheaper to have a property empty than to have it occupied. Further, many of the homeless are homeless because they can't afford to pay or they have mental health issues. Your beef isn't with property owners looking out for their best interest, it's with a government who would rather spend hard earned money on foreign wars, prisons and wars on drugs, while exporting jobs, instead of spending that money on health care, mental health services, job creation, and addiction services.

[Cleita]

42. Did you ever have a course in economics?

Supply and demand fuels all free economic systems. Also, your argument is historically incorrect. I remember a time when we didn't have homeless. Even free spirited hippies weren't homeless. They found communes that would take them in and the reason the communes had property is that property prices weren't through the roof. The only homeless were itinerant hobos and vagabonds who wanted to be homeless. When they got tired of it, there was always a cheap rental and a minimum wage job to cover it and drop back into society so to speak. Back then we took care of our mentally ill until Reagan and his minions came along and destroyed the whole system.

I personally saw my rent triple in six months time after Reagan became President. It's also the first time I started seeing homeless people on the sidewalk and alleys around where I lived. Younger people always figure that the homeless have always been with us. It's not true. We did it as a society back then because the super wealthy had to pay progressive taxes that covered all the programs that kept our society largely an affluent middle class. Now, we are just another third world country and your argument about the government spending money on wars is only half right. We still had wars back during the sixties and still were able to take care of everyone.

[pipoman]

44. Why didn't you answer my question?

Supply and demand don't lower the mortgage amount, the cost of renovation to accommodate people, utility costs, liability or the cost of maintenance and upkeep. Who's going to pay all that?

You say, "Supply and demand fuels all free economic systems.". I say, yes ultimately, but not instantly. Before your economically ridiculous suggestion in post 22 could become reality you have to answer the question of who will pay for the cost of housing homeless people. The initial cost of your home, the structure, is only a portion of the cost of you living inside the home. Insurance, maintenance, repairs, cleaning, utilities, taxes, etc. Who will be paying these bills?

The owners of these properties have no personal obligation or moral obligation to bankrupt themselves to house the homeless.

"I remember a time when we didn't have homeless."

I'm no spring chicken and I remember a time when there was less, there has never been a time since the time of "poor houses" when there haven't been homeless. I remember a time when we as a society took care of and housed the mentally ill...interesting that at that time people walking into malls and shooting up the place was rare..wonder if there's any connection.. We were not exporting jobs to 3rd world countries at that time so it was a workers market and anyone who wanted to work could find a job. Insurance premiums had not become the behemouth they have now become. Healthcare was easy to get and generally affordable.

It is naive to blame this entirely on either party, both have contributed and both have been in a position to make change. I expect the rethugs to to side with huge business and not care about the needy. It is sorely disappointing to see the "labor party" destroy our job base and refuse to treat our social ills in favor of wars. Not until the last couple of decades have big industry figured out ways to get our government to pay out huge money to perpetuate these wars. We dropped dumb bombs which were nominally priced, now we are using bombs which cost tens or hundreds of thousands. Outsourcing shit to haliburton and hundreds of other companies whose only interest is in keeping the checks coming, and the bigger the better.

[Cleita]

46. I thought I did. The 10% on top of the economic pyramid, should pay for it like they used to

before the Republicans gave away the store in tax cuts. And yes exporting our jobs has created a wonderful economy for those 10% so they can pay less and less in wages for those jobs that are still here. Here's a question for you? If you are no spring chicken look back at which year did you start looking at homeless in the streets? When did your main streets start looking like Calcutta? For me it was 1981 when Reagan took office. Yes, there were always bums and alcoholics, but those guys for the most part could find cheap hotel rooms for the night or space at the shelter. Many were old vets who lived in the Old Soldier's Homes at the VA. I used to be a bartender. Many of them were my customers and none were homeless that didn't choose to be.

Some of my neighbors were single mothers on welfare. They and their kids were also entitled to Medi-cal. There was public housing for those who really were at the bottom. Some didn't want to live there and it was their choice not to, so if they were homeless it was by choice. The mentally ill were housed in state institutions that cared for them. In 1980 the funding for that dried up and they were all tossed into the street.

I personally have never found medical care affordable until I was old enough for Medicare. But even back then, those fortunate enough to get Blue Cross or something at work, only had to pay $100 deductible and 80%. But the same 10% came along and made it possible for Blue Cross et al to start putting up huge deductibles and the obstacle course of pre-existing conditions and denials of payment for various technicalities. There were once regulations that prevented that.

[pipoman]

49. So then, do we agree or disagree?

The main disagreement I have with you, that I can see, is in your post 22.

"They only own them because our laws allow them to own them and keep them empty. Maybe it's time for change."

Maybe if you explain what change you have in mind that would be cleared up? I interpret this to mean owners should either have their property taken away, or they should be made to spend as much as necessary to house homeless people at their own expense.

[Cleita]

50. Yes, like in any business, if you can't make it work, get out.

So, in order to get rent, shouldn't you rent at a marketable value? If people can afford $350 a month but not $700 and your vacant spots stay vacant because you can't get the $700, isn't this a problem? Shouldn't you try to fill those spaces at $350 a month? The reason landlords let rentals go vacant is because the rentals determine the worth of their property so they would rather have them go empty at the last rate they got than lower the rents.

As far as mortgages and foreclosures, there is just so much that is wrong with the present day system, that I truly believe the government will have to step in and take this market from the banks, fix it and then put some regulations in to prevent this from happening again. I would have to write a chapter to define everything that is wrong and that needs to be fixed but I think you get it if you have been keeping up with the news.

[pipoman]

53. No..

landlords let rentals go empty because it costs more than the tenants can pay and depreciates faster with people living in it. Especially if the people aren't able to pay their bills. Now if HUD was expanded to insure rent payments sufficient to warrant the renovation needed to meet the HUD guidelines..more property owners would enroll I'm sure. Do you own any investment real estate?

Oh, and as for "getting out"..that is likely what they are hoping to do..waiting as patiently as their finances allow for a recovery..

[Cleita]

54. Well, a lot of people overpaid for their rental real estate when

there was a boom. Like in any business if you misjudged the market, you need to get out, maybe either file bankruptcy or foreclose. That's business! That's how the entrepreneur class likes to play the game. Too bad they can't follow the rules when the gamble they made doesn't pay off. However, it's a sin to have a bunch of empty buildings when people are living in the street.

[pipoman]

56. Nobody has a right to

make you get out. And what "rules" would that be? There are no rules which require people to cut off their nose despite their face, nor should there be. Maybe the government should buy up some of this real estate to house the homeless, but Joe-puttin'-his-kids-through-college has no obligation, moral or legal. A "sin" eh? A religious person are we? How about this...you go break out your life's savings and buy some property to house the homeless...let us know how that works out for ya, huh? You probably have room for a couple of people in your home, no? Your floor is better than the sidewalk. What are you doing? Or is this moral responsibility you speak of only incumbent on others? How about you open your church up to the masses of homeless, it sits empty except for the couple of hours each week people are there preening themselves and engaging in self congratulatory do-gooder business..sometimes complete nonsense spews forth in these parts..

[Cleita]

59. Now you are talking.

Last edited Tue May 22, 2012, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

"Maybe the government should buy up some of this real estate to house the homeless..."

It would help out the homeless and the property owner who made a bad deal.

You asked what I'm doing? I'm trying to convince people like you of what needs to be done. If government does what it should in a real democracy, then the government is us the people and collectively we should all be there fixing this situation not trying to reach into already empty pockets to try to help someone worseoff than yourself. I have spent almost ten thousand dollars out of my social security in the last five years to try to help some homeless people.

Yet, by myself it does nothing to make such a sacrifice and it is a sacrifice for me because I have to do without. Now that the RWing nuts are talking about taking away my Social Security, I would be homeless myself, then how would I help anyone out? Those empty buildings need to be filled with homeless and it takes our government to accomplish this, not individuals.

[U4ikLefty]

55. The flaw in this case is the hoarding of wealth (land in this case) by too few people.

A big flaw you tolerate.

Do you own many houses/apartments?

[pipoman]

57. Who, pray tell, do you speak of?

The real estate rolls are diverse and voluminous throughout my state. Some people have 401k, some people invest in stocks, some invest in real estate, the majority are simply trying to build a retirement and/or a better life for their families. There are plenty of other places around the globe for those who wish to live in broken collectivist societies.

[Cleita]

60. Investing and speculation used to come with risk, not

winner take all as it has evolved today. Incidentally, 401ks have turned out to be very risky for those who can least afford the risk. It's time to rethink our economic model. No one should be able to profit at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

16. Anarchism 101

Property is theft. Posession is everything.

[Odin2005]

26. But vandalizing other people's possessions is vandalism.

[Quantess]

20. I see what you did there.

You added a snarky title sure to make people post to tell you a thing or two, therby keeping it kicked.

[Initech]

29. Not just a fail - an utter spectacular epic fail.

[WillyT]

34. HUGE K & R !!!

[TahitiNut]

37. The GOP is building housing for the homeless as fast as they can.

We call 'em "prisons."

[just1voice]

38. 1 in 7 houses are empty. 1 in 402 Americans are homeless.

--1 in 7 houses are empty. 1 in 402 Americans are homeless. 24 empty houses are available for each homeless American.--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25976845@N06/6815027081/

[Scout]

43. makes me think some asshole has a can of spray paint

i've already had that thought independently, myself

[pipoman]

45. There is graffiti and there is graffiti art

this is the former, not the latter...therefore the writer isn't actually a "graffiti artist"..jus' sayn'

[Cleita]

47. So you would rather a gang banger with some creative colored

spray paint cans do it instead? Then it's okay?

[pipoman]

48. Wow..

no..where did you read that?

[Cleita]

51. What was the point of your post then? n/t

[pipoman]

52. Simply that the OP mischaracterized

the photo in the title...in addition to aforementioned unusual statement made in the title...that is, luring people in by using a arguably deceptive title.

edit..This Graffiti Shows An Interesting Idea You Probably Haven't Thought Of Before (or some such)

I honestly don't think I would have clicked the link in latest threads if the word artist wasn't in the title. I'm sort of artsy and appreciate all kinds of art. I've gone out of my way to look at street art while traveling.

[Shankapotomus]

58. This what happens when you make

money a condition of living somewhere. This is a man-made problem.

[ErikJ]

63. How would that practically WORK?

Our car dependent suburbia is so car dependent that I doubt the hiomeless would last long if you gave them a house.
Maybe if they had 5 homeless per empty house with a monitor or something to prevent vandalism/drugs/drinking/prostitituion etc.