• Dae@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 hour ago

      He sold his company for eight figures and used that wealth to build these communities for the people most in need, not (just) his (now former) employees.

      But even if he was still CEO, the fact remains that it’s not just for his employees and pay is still just half the equation: he doesn’t control the price of rent, and the real solution is rent control. Otherwise nothing stops landlords from just raising rent higher ans higher once they figure out that employers will just pay their tenants more.

      So yes, good pay matters, and we need comprehensive minimum wage laws and worker protection, but we also need rent control. And preferably to banish all landlords to the shadow realm.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        39 minutes ago

        Rent control is a stopgap measure. Without enough supply, it doesn’t matter how controlled the rent is if your odds of obtaining a unit are miniscule. Adding to the supply as a response to rising rental rates and property prices is the correct way to keep things stable. Which should be the govt’s job, but…

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I’m of two minds.

    • shitty bungalows are what is killing infrastructure costs and perpetuating urban sprawl. We have a generous home in a hyper-dense housing area and - thanks to triple paned windows and concrete - no claustrophobia.

    • tiny homes for people returning from homelessness may be a good idea. The unfair concerns are mitigated by very repairable units separated from neighbours.

    We need to keep these as transitional housing, though, and a feeder into a “starter” unit in proper dense mixed-use: every block (hectare) taken for tiny homes is 3 million cubic meters of space taken from a land budget we’re already overdrawn on.

    • blackfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I think thats always the hope that they are first steps of stability to move up. None of the projects like this I’ve seen have been intended to be life time residence.

      • turtlesareneat@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 minutes ago

        There are tiny-home dwellers but they’re often highly educated professionals who decide to live Buddhist for a while. Some of them wind up enjoying it.

        The better analogy for homeless folks would be living in cars, aka the invisible homeless - is this better than that? Fuck yes. Even if it WAS permanent it’s better than that.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Spacing looks a bit odd. Would a communal park and then less space between each be better? Not really enough space around each one to be much use beyond a few plant pots anyway.

    • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I would say that this particular millionaire did his part to help out. If every millionaire/billionaire spent the same percentage of their wealth on similar projects we would be in pretty good shape as far as homelessness goes.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        99 would take in every homeless person in a wide berth around here. WIDE. And I’m next door to the second poorest county in Florida.

        • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 hours ago

          one thing most people don’t realize is: most homeless people don’t look homeless… they actually go out of their way to not look that way.
          the people that look homeless to you are just the most extremely disabled homeless…

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

      Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 hours ago

      This statement might be true, but we’re not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn’t be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 hours ago

      If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won’t be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government and the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.

    • suoko@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Corruption could make that money go to some people’s 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Corruption already makes most millionaires’ and billionaires’ money go to that anyway. At least if it’s taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it’s not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 minutes ago

            You’re worried that if we collect money from the wealthy through taxation, it might not be used to reduce homelessness. However, if we don’t tax the wealthy, they’ll spend the money on their own goals, which definitely won’t be to reduce homelessness. While you’re right that taxes are largely wasted, they do still fund important things such as fire departments, medical research, and yes, government housing. It’s true that we need to implement better tax management systems, but we also need a wealth tax.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        So we’re so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?

        • suoko@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          45 minutes ago

          It’s clear that a lot of people switched to that way of thinking, thanks to those corrupted people.

          That’s what current voting results say all around

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    How many stories have I seen about billionaires building housing? Zero. Though, to be fair, I’ve only seen a meme about a millionaire doing so. No verification that it happened.

  • twice_hatch@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Good start, weird that it’s built like a CPU heat sink. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build duplexes or quadplexes? Fewer walls, less insulation per person…

    • el_eh_chase@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      These are tiny homes that are built in a shop and just dropped onto the little concrete pad once they’re done. A small crew was able to build them out over time, so I can’t say which option exactly is cheaper. One advantage was they were able to move people in as they were built too.

      Edit to add a word

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Even lower income people want a places they can call their own. Even lower income people prefer not to deal with other people’s noise or stomping or flooded sink. Even lower income people don’t want to deal with a building manager for repairs. Even lower income people want to be able to make choices in their living accommodations.

      Plus these are probably all factory built and I see a simple gravel foundation. Cheap and fast to set up, but it’s still a house. Probably much cheaper than full scale houses

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      probably zoning laws. that’s a HUGE part of why we don’t just build more apartments in many places. it’s why people get so passionate about the “white flight” as it’s known and nimbyism. everyone wants to fix homelessness, but in any of the places that one could effectively build community housing it is illegal to make anything that provides housing to more than 1 or 2 families. the people that live there want homelessness to go away, but when it’s proposed to build low income housing nearby they freak out and say “poor people and drug addicts? they do crime. low income housing is cool, but not in my backyard”.

      being poor in america has such a stigma that homeowners consistently vote to ban them from living nearby by banning apartments. to be perfectly honest, I’m just waiting for zoning laws to try and make these tiny homes illegal now that people are building them for the poor.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        And building codes. The foundation alone can be the reason. A regular full scale building requires a concrete or piered foundation or slab depend8ng on the area, which is fairly expensive and time consuming. These look like simple gravel foundations, which is fine for that size structure

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      What !? Sharing a wall with someone else because it’s more efficient in terms construction and maintenance costs?! Get outta here you commi!

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Millionaire? Nice. Billionaires should follow suit, but 1000x

    (With ~800 billionaires in the US, that’s 79,200,000 homes)

    • morphballganon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 hours ago

      They didn’t become billionaires by being charitable.

      Quite the contrary. You CAN’T accumulate that much money except by exploiting others, creating issues like homelessness.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        104
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Funny story, we actually have enough housing for everyone. It just isn’t always where people want to live, and corporate landlords would rather leave a space vacant to drive up rents than make all of their inventory available, so there is a shit ton of residential (and commercial) property that is basically abandoned.

        • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          73
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Some estimates say there are as many as 12 vacant homes per homeless person this country in the United States.

          Edit: millionaire in OP is from Canada

        • Landless2029@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          6 hours ago

          What we need is tax on vacant property. Make it a ladder system so its worse based on number of vacant units and value.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            5 hours ago

            And eliminate corporate ownership of residential property. Tax the shit out of anyone owning more than three residences, and bring property values back down to earth. Bail out homeowners who owe mortgages for more than the value of the properties, and let the market self-correct.

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I’d go so far as to attack the idea of a corporation. Letting a business own property or act as a liability shield for human choices is clearly bad for society.

              • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 hours ago

                It goes both ways though. I have a corporation for my contracting business to shield possible frivolous lawsuits from unscrupulous people. I do my best to screen clients and not work for wackos, but that’s not necessarily enough to protect myself and family.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The official homeless number for 2024 in the US was 771,480. That’s probably just reported and not actual.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Analysts think we’re about 4.5 million homes short of what we would need to a well-functioning housing market. I’m not sure exactly how they’re defining that.

  • Hellsfire29@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The government should have done that. At least Trump will build homes for the homeless veterans at least. This guy is doing his charitable work. Good for him. Even if it isn’t his responsibility just because he’s wealthy.