RFK Jr proposes federal solution to end homelessness: 'More important than funding wars'

[mystery-ak]

RFK Jr proposes federal solution to end homelessness: 'More important than funding wars'
Houston Keene
~4 minutes

Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. proposed using federal housing vouchers to combat homelessness, saying it’s "more important than funding wars."

Kennedy published a video on Monday in front of a homeless encampment south of Market Street in San Francisco.

"This is the Mission District south of Market [Street] and this is one of hundreds of street corners in San Francisco that has been occupied now by the homeless, by plastic shanties, by tents, and by people who are sleeping in the open air," Kennedy said in front of a tent.

"Part of the problem is mental illness and drug addiction, but it’s not the entire problem," Kennedy continued. "In fact, we can solve the homeless problem in this country. If you look at West Virginia, it has one of the highest addiction rates in the country but homelessness is a minor problem there."

Kennedy said that homelessness, "has its own ideology" and added, "part of that is that only one in four poor people in this country are receiving housing vouchers."

The Democrat presidential candidate then claimed that the U.S. "could solve the problem of homelessness on the federal level by providing homeless vouchers, Section 8 vouchers to homeless people."

"And we ought to be doing that," Kennedy said. "It’s more important than funding wars, it’s more important than funding overseas adventures."

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-proposes-federal-solution-end-homelessness-more-important-than-funding-wars

[roamer_1]

And voila! His liberalism shows through.

More Section 8 vouchers will INCREASE the problem.
Mark my words.

[Kamaji]

And voila! His liberalism shows through.

More Section 8 vouchers will INCREASE the problem.
Mark my words.

Whatever they'll do, they won't solve the problem because homelessness is predominantly a problem of drug use, mental illness, and other personal issues, not a problem of lack of money (although those other problems also lead to a lack of money).  Simply throwing money at the homeless will never solve the underlying problems and therefore will never solve the problem of homelessness.

Only an idiot, or a liberal (but I repeat myself) would think otherwise.

[LMAO]

Is there anyone running anywhere that has made trimming the federal budget a centerpiece of their campaign

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

SF needs to build more housing, period. More houses = less homelessness.

[roamer_1]

Whatever they'll do, they won't solve the problem because homelessness is predominantly a problem of drug use, mental illness, and other personal issues, not a problem of lack of money (although those other problems also lead to a lack of money).  Simply throwing money at the homeless will never solve the underlying problems and therefore will never solve the problem of homelessness.

Only an idiot, or a liberal (but I repeat myself) would think otherwise.

Right. Homelessness is hopelessness. Hopelessness generally taught by liberals.

[DB]

Again.

Nature has a very basic rule:

You reward something, you get more of it.

You punish something, you get less of it.

Government "free" stuff only increases the consumption of free stuff.

[roamer_1]

Again.

Nature has a very basic rule:

You reward something, you get more of it.

You punish something, you get less of it.

Government "free" stuff only increases the consumption of free stuff.

That's right. But wait, there's more!

Section 8 housing sullies the market.
By rights, the cost of living in SF is higher than it ought to be. The cost of housing is part of the issue.

People below the inflated standards should be strappin on their Keds and looking for greener pastures. That is demand leaving... which eventually lowers costs.

Section 8 housing (coupled with welfare), at least on a grand scale, tempers that action, providing what is basically a false floor, and real real estate builds on that with pricing continuing up from that established false floor.

More section 8 will increase real estate and rent.

[libertybele]

SF needs to build more housing, period. More houses = less homelessness.

Ok, but how are the homeless going to be able to afford a home or rent??? 

Getting people off the streets and finding a way to help them is the only thing that is going to help; be it retraining for job skills, addiction treatment, helping them find jobs, etc.

It doesn't help that San Fran is a sanctuary city -- they created more problems than they bargained for.

A federal solution?  I disagree -- leave it up to the state and local governments.  The feds indicate that you and I will wind up footing the bill in taxes.

[Kamaji]

Ok, but how are the homeless going to be able to afford a home or rent??? 

Getting people off the streets and finding a way to help them is the only thing that is going to help; be it retraining for job skills, addiction treatment, helping them find jobs, etc.

It doesn't help that San Fran is a sanctuary city -- they created more problems than they bargained for.

A federal solution?  I disagree -- leave it up to the state and local governments.  The feds indicate that you and I will wind up footing the bill in taxes.

That being said, cities with sky-high property values usually get there because they've artificially constricted supply, so another aspect of solving the problem is, precisely, allowing more housing to be built.  That, of course, requires giving up on a lot of other liberal shibboleths, like rent control, historical preservation nonsense, and the like.

[berdie]

The company I worked for converted one of the out lying complexes to Section 8. I knew why at the time, but it is long gone from my memory. I don't keep info that I no longer need, lol.

But I do remember that it was an operational nightmare and the paperwork for compliance was also a nightmare. They ended up donating the property to the city since they couldn't unload it any other way. I'm sure there was a tax benefit...but again...I don't remember any longer.

My point being, rental property in this state (and I'm sure other states) is at a premium. Even for crap properties the owner gets top dollar. So why would any one want to deal with Section 8 if they don't have to? RFK, jr might want to take that into consideration.

[Kamaji]

The company I worked for converted one of the out lying complexes to Section 8. I knew why at the time, but it is long gone from my memory. I don't keep info that I no longer need, lol.

But I do remember that it was an operational nightmare and the paperwork for compliance was also a nightmare. They ended up donating the property to the city since they couldn't unload it any other way. I'm sure there was a tax benefit...but again...I don't remember any longer.

My point being, rental property in this state (and I'm sure other states) is at a premium. Even for crap properties the owner gets top dollar. So why would any one want to deal with Section 8 if they don't have to? RFK, jr might want to take that into consideration.

Section 8 works pretty well if one is lucky enough to get a decent tenant who doesn't destroy the property; unfortunately, tenants like that can be very hard to find, and if, God forbid, one gets the typical low-income tenant, one can find one's property being destroyed without having the ability to evict the destroyer before the property is completely ruined.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ok, but how are the homeless going to be able to afford a home or rent??? 

Getting people off the streets and finding a way to help them is the only thing that is going to help; be it retraining for job skills, addiction treatment, helping them find jobs, etc.

It doesn't help that San Fran is a sanctuary city -- they created more problems than they bargained for.

A federal solution?  I disagree -- leave it up to the state and local governments.  The feds indicate that you and I will wind up footing the bill in taxes.

More houses = more affordability in general. We don't build enough houses in the US.

[libertybele]

More houses = more affordability in general. We don't build enough houses in the US.

I'm judging by the area that I live in.  We have had a huge influx of newbies.  House have been built, apartment buildings have been built, and people are selling and getting above asking price.  With the increase in population, rent and price of homes have skyrocketed.  So affordability just isn't reality.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm judging by the area that I live in.  We have had a huge influx of newbies.  House have been built, apartment buildings have been built, and people are selling and getting above asking price.  With the increase in population, rent and price of homes have skyrocketed.  So affordability just isn't reality.

We are building houses, we're not building enough. When market is saturated, the price should eventually come down. Supply and demand.

[mountaineer]

How is "homelessness" a federal issue?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We are building houses, we're not building enough. When market is saturated, the price should eventually come down. Supply and demand.

The cost of land acquisition and construction still sets a floor for making housing.  If people aren'taking enough money to pay that cost plus a reasonable profit, houses aren't going to be buiilt.

You have to why why there isn't a whole bunch of new construction to take advantage of the high prices.

[Hoodat]

And voila! His liberalism shows through.

More Section 8 vouchers will INCREASE the problem.
Mark my words.

Subsidize something, and you get more of it.  Tax something, and you get less of it.

[Hoodat]

How is "homelessness" a federal issue?

It's a Democrat issue.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Again.

Nature has a very basic rule: You reward something, you get more of it. You punish something, you get less of it.

Is allowing our cities to be overrun by drug addicts, used needles, human waste, crime and street tents a punishment or a reward ----- and, specifically, which is it for the law abiding American citizen versus those who have become legal human debris?

[sneakypete]

We iz da wurld......

We iz da peep-pulls.....

[sneakypete]

Is allowing our cities to be overrun by drug addicts, used needles, human waste, crime and street tents a punishment or a reward ----- and, specifically, which is it for the law abiding American citizen versus those who have become legal human debris?

@Right_in_Virginia

That's all about buying votes to gain power,and once the left has absolute power,those people will be turned into soap bars.

They are merely "tools" to be used to start the "revolution" so the left has an excuse for cracking down on lawlessness and establishing Martial Law,which  will NOT be rescended.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The cost of land acquisition and construction still sets a floor for making housing.  If people aren'taking enough money to pay that cost plus a reasonable profit, houses aren't going to be buiilt.

You have to why why there isn't a whole bunch of new construction to take advantage of the high prices.

From my understanding lack of labor and materiel shortages from supply chain issues are a factor.

[libertybele]

From my understanding lack of labor and materiel shortages from supply chain issues are a factor.

Lack of labor is a continuing problem (at least around here). In talking to a couple of contractors, they can't find people to work!  They are many help wanted signs around here.

All these people that have moved into the area, I wonder what they're doing for $$??

[massadvj]

This is the side of RFKjr that worries me.  Nonetheless, I might support a guy who is pro-border, anti-war, pro-freedom, but also pro safety net over a guy who, say, gave everyone in the entire country money for doing nothing.

I will look at him carefully if he is nominated by the Dems, in other words when monkeys fly out my butt.