Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Why can't they use these buildings to house homeless people?

Yahoo video about the governments billion square feet of excess building space that has to be kept cool and warm even when they're empty and will most likely remain empty.  This is how our tax money is being used. OMG imagine what we could all do if we weren't taxed as much....


Asked by hellokittykat at 6:27 AM on Jun. 7, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 23 (16,483 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (8)
  • It really is a shame to waste money heating and cooling empty buildings. It's too bad they can't be put o some use. Case in point--our church met in an empty school district building that we rented each month. Win win for everybody. We didn't get our lease renewed because the fire department said the building needed a sprinkler system, and the school district refused to put one in. So now the building sits empty and has for years, costing the district money. The sprinkler system would hav been paid for many times over by now.

    Answer by Ballad at 1:18 PM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • To answer your initial question, if they allowed that to happen, there would be mountains of paper work, a plethora of red tape & a zillion hoops to jump thru to have those bldgs. classified as shelters. There's another waste of tax dollars for ya.


    Answer by mrsmom110 at 7:13 AM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • It is stupid to have to heat and cool them if they're going to remain empty, but there are many reasons why they can't house the homeless there.

    Answer by maecntpntz219 at 8:31 AM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • Besides what everyone here has stated, the real solution to homelessness isn't housing. In most cases people are homeless for a reason besides simply not having a home (addiction, mental health issues, domestic violence, etc) so simply moving them into an empty buildingwwouldn't solve anything. They'd be homeless again very soon

    Answer by Nimue930 at 11:59 AM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • I understand what you're saying, but imagine the costs of housing the homeless in these places. You would have to have tons of paperwork to re-zone these areas, you would have to pay for licensing and admitting, you would need a lot of liability insurance, and you would have to reconfigure the buildings to add in plumbing, wiring, and new walls. Furniture, too.

    Answer by JulieJacobKyle at 10:52 AM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • So true Mrsmom....we're f-ked either way as taxpayers

    Comment by hellokittykat (original poster) at 9:21 AM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • well obviously it's only part of a solution. I agree they're homeless for a reason but at least they would have shelter. Either way, we're paying taxes for stuff that does not good sitting there unused. Maybe some buildings could be used to provide health and mental services in a campus style setting for total rehabilitation.

    Comment by hellokittykat (original poster) at 12:03 PM on Jun. 7, 2013

  • This is actually a difficult question IMO
    The buildings have to have some heating and cooling in order to keep them in decent condition. The mention of the pipes and mold are only two things that can make them unsellable, if a when they decide to do so.
    Especially right now we are in an uneasy peace time. In other words we may have an all out war here if the world picture changes and that is not that hard to see some signs that it can easily go that direction.
    Let's say you did house the homeless in these buildings and then you need them. How is the public going to react to these poor people being kicked out?
    They mentioned the paperwork. These buildings would probably have to be altered because most barracks do not have private bathrooms.
    Think to of the PR of sending the homeless to live in a "concentration camp" You would cut of almost any chance to find work.
    How about the economics of the town nearby?

    Answer by Dardenella at 11:44 PM on Jun. 7, 2013