Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dannyjbixby t1_je9ynsx wrote

Seems like a sure fire way to force homelessness onto thousands of people in Springfield.

2

GeneralTonic t1_jeaim3j wrote

The article is about the council beginning to discuss how to handle abandoned or seriously dilapidated properties. Surely you don't mean that this discussion itself will force homelessness onto thousands.

Is there a more particular policy or program which you are opposing?

1

dannyjbixby t1_jeaiw57 wrote

The specific recommendations that are spoken of in the article are what I’m referring to

3

22TopShelf22 t1_jeaesci wrote

Absolutely. Added regulation and costs will be passed onto the end users, people struggling to pay their bills already. Rents go up, fewer can afford them. These fools will cripple the same people they claim to be helping and few will take the time to realize it.

−1

dannyjbixby t1_jeafcaw wrote

I was thinking more along the line of condemning tons of houses that are currently housing people. But yes also that.

I’m all for regulation and making sure things are safe, but we need a plan of what to do on the way of getting there. It’s missing steps.

2

Jimithyashford t1_jeb04u8 wrote

Isn’t the article specifically talking about abandoned properties, not properties with current occupants?

Edit: nvm, I didn’t get to the rental housing section near the end. I see what you mean.

4

dannyjbixby t1_jeb0w5g wrote

Not at all. It’s talking about nuisance properties, and even utilized statistics about the percentage of them that are rental properties.

2

Jimithyashford t1_jeb1cnz wrote

Yeah I didn’t get that far before replying. My bad. Should have known better.

1