Chicago's Radical Solution to End Homelessness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- Chicago wants to tax the rich to fund affordable housing. Their plan would raise the real estate transfer tax on million dollar homes, and lower it for everyone else. And they would use that money to help solve the city’s urgent homelessness crisis.
-----
More Perfect Union is a nonprofit media organization with a mission to build power for working people. Learn more here: perfectunion.us/
Follow us on Twitter: / moreperfectus
Instagram: / perfectunion
Facebook: / moreperfunion
Tiktok: / moreperfectunion
When corporate loses their shit, you know it's citizen centered.
They ganna fight this with everything they got
Coming next companies and stores leave Chicago, unemployment crysis
@@acacacacacacaccaca7666I disagree with you but find it interesting that you concede the coercive nature of america's economic paradigm, and the influence capital exerts on governments and populations. This certainly is "the way it is" but it doesn't have to be. Poverty and homelessness are policy decisions that can be changed when people recognise what's truly in their own interests, and vote accordingly.
@@space.youtube Doing meth and fentanyl is a "policy decision"? Interesting.
I completely and totally agree with your sentiment, but if you could find a more class conscious way to phrase what you're saying I think you could do a lot more good for everyone who hears you.
My initial thought was, "Genius move making the plan _lower_ taxes for regular homes. That'll incentivize people to vote for it even if they don't care about the homeless," but then I realized that's just going to encourage rental companies to gobble up more of the smaller residential properties on the market to dodge the tax.
What we _really_ need is there to be a law prohibiting any non-human entity from owning a residential property, period. If corporations and hedge funds buy all the properties, that creates an artificial housing shortage that raises home prices and forces more people into renting, and those people are forced to rent at ridiculous rates because a select few hold an oligopoly on the majority of homes so they can charge whatever they want in rent. It's a vicious cycle that can only be broken with major government intervention that turns homes back into homes instead of assets.
This is why 2nd, 3rd, etc homes need to be taxed at 33% of their value per annum.
@@alexcarter8807not even four homes should be taxed like that. It should be 5 and above and you have to disclose any company you have ownership that has housing as assets. Going after a middle class family because they had a primary home and prefabricated home on a lake isn't gonna do anyone good. What if the married couple both lose their parents and acquire multiple houses and you need to do maintenance to sell to pay off their parent's debt?
> What we really need is there to be a law prohibiting any non-human entity from owning a residential property, period.
Something in this direction does seem better at the end goal impact. Could impose a small transfer tax on a property owned by an individual, and if the property is owned by a corporation or LLC, impose a larger transfer tax. Another approach is to increase property taxes on properties owned by corporations / LLCs. Would be nice to provide an option for people who own shares in a single LLC / private corporation to be exempted if their revenue falls below a certain threshold.
Of course, this is all just a roundabout way of increasing taxes on the wealthy. This would all be simpler if we raised income taxes on the wealthy, eliminating loopholes like depreciation on a residential property, and raising taxes on capital gains (this last one would deliver the most bang for the buck of these three options).
No, zoning creates housing shortages. Repeat after me Zoning creates housing shortages. Corporations can buy (and often build) tons of housing properties but if Zoning Laws allow additional units to be built they is enough supply. Banning corporations from owning and therefore building housing will lead to a massive housing shortage.
China does it quite well: a few years back they implement a law that says:
A) only private people can own residential units
B) No more than 3 per person
Worked like a charm.
That is half the solution. The other half is regulations to stop capital owners from scooping up these properties and jacking up the prices for them again or from turning them into rental units.
Especially foreign capital. After learning how Switzerland manages things it became kind of weird to me how other countries, among them my own, allow for foreign investors to buy up the one thing that is finite in supply. The Swiss will have you wait for several years, even if you live and work there, before you are allowed to purchase a home.
100% agree. May I add, and manipulating the market by buying up huge swaths of neighborhoods but sitting on properties to push the cost up.
@@angelasylvain2476for sure. I’m not in the agreement of “banning” foreign capital but they should have to pay an extra fee or fine to discourage these practices. Make sure it costs them more to sit on a property than it would to wait for the value to skyrocket.
Exactly thank you. Democrat solutions are always about raising taxes which the price get passed on to renters to pay. The root of the problem is corporations owning homes simply stoping them from doing that will settle the housing issue, no one will get hurt but corporations with this solution. Why can’t they ever push for a solution that doesn’t involve taxes.
🎯
I seriously doubt that the landlord with a six-unit property will be selling their building for less than 1M in Chicago.
I'm always happy to hear _"Big corporate land lords are not happy"_
Same! Landlords are just leeches that commodify a basic need. They gotta go.
Yes, landlords have to go!
Of course, without landlords, there is no renting. That mean people who don't qualify for a mortgage are also now homeless. Still, so long as the rich suffer, it's worth it!
i dont, because that means they're about to start lobbying and are going to win
You have a pretty simple worldview, huh? Not much room for nuance in there I see.
There really isn't much nuance to see when big corporate landlords are generally bad for the well being of the population. Sure some of them may be nice people, but it doesn't change the fact that their position monetizes a basic need and that a lot of them get mad when people get basic needs and don't suffer for their benefit. People who get mad because others AREN'T suffering are generally shitty people, lol.
Last time I checked, they don't actually work either, they are just getting an income by owning property they purchased ONCE and saying "I own this property you need to live, pay me while I don't fix it/update it enough, upcharge you because I can far beyond regular inflation rates, and make people homeless while laughing."
I'm not even kidding. There are far more landlords who laugh about kicking out single mothers, than there are the ones who gave rent relief during covid.
And no matter how good of a person you are, you should never hold a position where you have the power to take away someone else's basic need. It's just cruel and obviously not necessary in literally the richest nation that has ever existed in human history. @@joleaneshmoleane8358
Don't call it "radical" when it's a 1-2% tax increase for millionaires homes, that's the least radical solution to anything I've ever seen in my life
I mean, like a small contribution could potentially help a lot of people. I felt that if I was that wealthy, I would be like who cares great. that’s how these people are. They just scrounge for every nickel and penny and don’t want to give anything up even if it may help a bunch of people.
The mistake in what you're saying is that someone buying a home for a million dollars makes them a millionaire. It absolutely does not mean that at all. Home mortgages are amortized over a 30 yr period. Someone who only makes $300k annually can finance a million dollar home and it's INSANE to expect people to finance a 2 or 3 percent fee because it become SO MUCH MORE MONEY that buyers will be stuck paying over the life of a loan.
This is yet another way to punish the middle class who is desperately hanging on by their teeth while paying the lion's share of all the debts in the US.
@@PureMagma "only $300k annually"
Do you hear yourself ever. At all. That's the medium income of the entire US in like 3 months. If you can't figure out how to live on that cut down on the fuckin lattes
@@PureMagmaare you being serious?
On what fuckin planet is $300k/year "middle class" 😂😂
As a realtor I don't get how any realtor could be opposed to this. It makes housing more affordable to those who need it, and more expensive on people with gross excess. Together those forces will help balance out a tumultuous real estate market and shift supply and demand towards the center.
That's called a healthy market.
Chicago subsidizing small affordable home for middle class would be a real solution.
How do you explain many cities don't have a transfer tax. They don't have the high property taxes. Chicago spent over $200 million on migrants and the homeless get virtually nothing. The money is there. It's going to the friends of the governor and mayor.
This wouldn't have done anything about supply or demand. What are you talking about? It might have subsidized some units to make them "affordable" but that's not solving any problem long term, and even that much is unknown because they never bothered to commit to a real plan that would be legally restricted to prevent the usual abuses of routing tax dollars to someone's new stupid project down the road.
Less homeless on the streets would long-term improve the image and quality of life in the city leading to higher real estate value.
Housing should be free to anyone that wants it and in fact, everything should be free. You're 2.5% commission can stay the same but 2.5% of zero is still zero so who cares?
This is not too different from what the Social Democratic Party of Vienna introduced when they won their first city wide election. It's essentially a tax on the rich to fund housing the poor, and this model was so successful that it has not been repealed since, and Vienna is still one of the most affordable major cities in Europe. The only thing missing in Chicago's bill is funding for more social housing.
The government should be required to build housing in proportion with private capital if it’s going to exist as a form of profit market at all
Finland addressed it in two years. Get people into housing FIRST, not last. Once they're in housing the things which made them homeless are less of a pressure and people can climb out.
Our Housing LAST policy is cruel, forcing broken lives to perform like circus animals to earn housing.
Exactly. In so many cases in the US the opposition really seems to come down to plain spite. "I had to work for my home, don't give homeless people homes if they didn't do what i did!" i mean.
Rich people in this country are nasty to poor folks who didn't inherit wealth like they did
It's a little bit more complicated to be able to implement it. But yes, ideally housing first.
Finland owns a bit of the land, another thing that would happen here cuz it would absolutely happen here, because we already have a problem of this is city to city, county to county, state to state bus, and even fly there homeless, diverting their responsibility.
So as soon as you have something like that it will become a magnet, and a project that could have been feasible will end up becoming unfeasible, simply due to the geographical conditions we have.
I have personally thought about this and I think it would be lovely but you would have to have some very strict rules about it.
For one thing you should have to have proof of residency for several years, work, or proof of birth( lets at say at city).
Number 2 is that trying to reconnect the homeless to their families, while receiving short-term shelter. Especially if they are not from the said area that is providing the resources.
Number 3 finding permanent housing solutions for the long term for those who qualify.
The best solution of the course would be if it was done on a national basis, but we know how that goes. It probably wouldn't happen but there you go.
Personally, I would at least like it to be that states/cities have a personal responsibility to dealing with their own residents, instead of diverting their responsibilities onto other places like they do.
The entire country of Finland has a population smaller than the city of New York. They were able to take funds from their state carbon fuel exports and subsidize a couple thousand people out of homelessness.
The number of people who get housing assistance in the US is close to the population of the whole country of Finland.
@@alejohernandez75 This argument has always been tried and it doesn't make any less stupid. The country of Finland have less homeless and but also less people so burden on individuals can be more or less than USA based on ratio of homeless/population, scale doesn't make social programs inheritably more or less complicated
As born and raised Chicagoan, we need to see some uncorrupted change
What do u think of mayor Lightfoot?
@@scorpiocara6798 She's not mayor any longer.
@@scorpiocara6798 she has beautiful eyes but she's not mayor anymore
@@scorpiocara6798She ran on a very progressive platform but ended up not playing fair with citizens, unions, or departments..she betrayed everyone's trust. Brandon Johnson seems to be off to a better start even tho he's snoozing on things
There's more profit in keeping the homeless issue as is. You can't fix the issue by throwing money at it.
I was homeless in Chicago for a year and a half until this last September.
Chicago has some of the most helpful, well funded homeless programs in the country.
If you take advantage of these programs you will get help.
I now have my own studio apartment (Single Occupancy)
The lady at the end is a wonderful voice of reason. “Tax break? Hallelujah.”
This is an actual middle class/upper middle class person who would meaningfully benefit, who also wants the best for their fellow man.
Over 70% of Americans are currently living check to check. With rising inflation and cost of living along with stagnating wages, sadly homelessness will only continue to worsen as it has for the past 15 years. Meanwhile 60 corporations paid a combined $0 in federal taxes on their profits last year. Greedy corporations and crooked politicians got us here.
more homeless today than the Great Depression. This is the worst it has ever been.
i mean whats the problem with investor profits rising 10% year over year? middle class and lower get the shit end of the stick
And most homeless data points don't include people who are in long stay motels or couch surfing, so the numbers are higher than we even know.
Hmm... But why don't Americans just elect honest politicians who will solve their domestic problems by turning greedy corporations into innovative businesses? Isn't the USA a democracy? So why year after year, decade after decade, century after century there are always crooked politicians and greedy corporations? I can't find any other explanation than that the American people just want things to stay the way they are.
For example, the US always preached my country to be more democratic while we had 0% unemployment or homelessness. But as the democratic institutions in my country start to develop under the strong guidance of the US, we begin to have these things. So it turns out that people everywhere, deep down, just want to be homeless. There is just no other logical explanation that I can think of.
For real. This is a prime example of why capitalism doesn’t work. Commodifying basic needs is a horrible idea, especially in this day and age with our current knowledge, infrastructure, and resources.
The thought that anyone working/has a job is homeless, is utterly bewildering, as is.. it's objectively inexcusable and unacceptable that there's people out there working TWO fucking jobs, and STILL homeless. Hell, I say that, but it's unacceptable for anyone to be homeless, really.
In the US it's around half. Half of homeless people have jobs but cannot afford housing of any sort.
Get a third job problem solved
@@acacacacacacaccaca7666 🤣
@@KesSharann yeah, I learned that a while back, couldn't believe that shit. I make sure to mention that any and every time I hear some far-right ass saying they should just get a job and that they're just lazy. Of course, they always just ignore it, or claimed that the statistics were fabricated by the 'woke media' for their woke agenda or some shit🙄.
I work full time and homeless in California . What's crazy is CA spends so much yearly to fight homelessness it actually be cheaper to buy every homeless person a 30k house. I mean like way cheaper . Most programs and shelters are crap beggars can't be choosers but when you know how much is being donated you know for a fact they are miss allocating funds and alot goes to wages of staff. And then showers don't work PBJ for dinner everything's broken or dirty and it's like on public record the foundation made millions last year its like obviously people's are taking the money. No on really monitors how money is spent in shelters or programs its just a money bag. Then someone with out a college degree has the balls to tell you you don't know how to manage money. Also alot of people called " social workers " have literally 0 education one of my social workers made 70k a year didn't even graduate high-school Its like insane and they are giving life advice to people while blaring rap and smoking weed . .. I could technically not be homeless but rent is so high I'd spend about 80% of my monthly income on rent which is financially a horrible investment and also it be extremely difficult to find a person to rent to me but i make enough where i could rent maybe a room off craigslist but I need to save for retirement, medical expenses, emergencies which I guess is now a luxury??
There's actually a lot of cheap housing in Chicago that is ripe for repair. The issue is safety. Think Austin (right next to affluent Oak Park) even Englewood. You can get properties there dirt cheap, but you might get shot at when you fo to fix up. The next issue is these small cities that will give you a giant hassle when trying get or close out permits. The real question but answered is how is the money going to actually be spent? 75% will probably end up in a politician's pocket or friend etc.
You'd think these investors would realize there's a connection between homelessness and their property values. You pay either way -- might as well pay the way that solves the problem.
5:28 investors have never been and never will be the “key to providing affordable housing”, all they do is scalp supply lmao
How about when they started building really tiny apartment to shove a ton of people into one building
@@acacacacacacaccaca7666 THAT'S WHAT I WANT. I have no problem living in a studio. Zoning doesn't allow it and continues to flood the market with single family units, $2400 a month.
@@blehhleb you will live in the studio and you will pay 2400 a month for it
Warren Buffet told us years ago, "so long as they can still make a percentage point or two, they'll pay it.".
@@acacacacacacaccaca7666 Yep. That's what their doing, as well as dividing up single family homes to rent by the room.
Corporate investors/investment groups need to be out of the residential market. Housing should not be a Wall Street commodity (neither should water).
This is what California should be proposing!
Unfortunately rich people control government here, many of them ar3 also part of government and won't allow it on the ballot.
nope. newsom is too busy being corrupt and bending over backwards for the resniks
EVERYWHERE should be proposing... A national tax standard...
I don't mind this plan so far - but the brackets should be adjusted for market price change every 5yrs or something....otherwise in 20yrs all the homes might be over 1M like places like in most of the Bay Area...
You can easily crunch some back-of-the-envelope numbers and come up with the fairly simple fact that America could end homelessness nationwide *today* by spending less than the budget for *just air conditioning* at Afghanistan militarily bases. It’s not that we can’t do it. We just don’t want to.
I think Detroit might have a theoretically stronger plan in motion than Chicago, targeting underdevelopment, overpricing, absentee ownership, and speculation all in one.
5:41 waiting for landlords to provide lower rent properties is like waiting for a weasel to return your chicken.
Corporate landlordship should be hugely aggressively controlled and limited in this country in every way. To do otherwise only brings us to where we are now.
We need a greater control over everything in the us, letting capitalism have its way with every sector has brought us where we are today. We can still make profits, but we need to ensure taxes are collected effectively and used for the public good!!!
@@lisa5249 well that plus more private sector control in my opinion but yes. 100%
There should be a cap on how much money trades people can charge a landlord and how much money repair supplies can be charged to a landlord and how much insurance. increases can be charged to a landlord and how much property taxes can be charged to a landlord...
@@Joce123 holy cow why are you stanning for landlords? Are you one? There's a difference between expecting LLs to operate at a loss and controlling the excessive profiteering. Are you a LL?
I'm not saying it has to be either or. Everyone has the right to afford a roof, a most basic human need, and private providers have a right to make a reasonable profit. But where do we draw the line between reasonable profit and extreme profit?
How do you expect to end homelessness if 60% of people cannot afford the current rates being demanded?
Local authorities could just leave the tent cities alone after all they're not doing anything good by just treating them like animals, that shouldn't be allowed either. That's completely unethical.
So either we commit to housing everybody who wants a permanent address or we commit to accepting the fact that tent cities are the new normal. You know, like under the Depression. Which would you prefer? And what is your plan?
@@lisa5249 we need to reverse the supreme court decision that classifies corporations as 'people' when political campaign donations are concerned. that way politicians could actually get in trouble for accepting bribes.
They also need options for people who are disabled and can't work or who take care of disabled family. You can't get an "affordable" place on something like ssi where you get around $900 a month when "affordable" housing is $900+ a month. Some places will even charge you $900 per person living there, on top of having 2-3 xs the rent!! For some people living in a shelter or living with strangers isn't an option.
The big rich derp pocketed RE industry is not in an ‘existential crisis’ - What a gaslighter
93% taxes lowered compared to slight increase tax for corporate overlords plus it helps solve a huge social issue. Sign me up!
Fuck yeah. You can see the fear in their eyes as they desperately try to convince us this isn't 100% good.
Fuck yeah. Free money for everyone!
Blockchain will fix it and a surveillance state
@@DemPilafian Um. What? I think it's trying to communicate. 🙊
Nothing i ever 100%, this will trickle down to the consumer and renters. Go walk down state street and Michigan avenue. It’s already 30-60% vacant,
@@DemPilafiancapitalism is literally “free money if you have money” 😂
Is this really radical? This is common sense. And the lobby knew that which is why they preemptively put in measures to prevent this.
No. There is nothing radical about this. Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings. It's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home. This video was clickbait. It will not end homelessness at all. Chicago spends $2,000,000,000 (2 billion USD) on police every year and only 1% of that on helping the homeless. It's also 50% of our education budget. Homelessness is a policy choice, but the one being promoted in this video has nothing to do with it. More Perfect Union is really giving Buzzfeed and 5 Minute Crafts vibes.
Major corporations scooping up homes left and right and then charging insane amounts of rent are a major part of the issue. Housing costs are insane these days, renting or buying, across the entire US.
Idk I think lot of people just don’t want to get the eduction to make more money. My advice is to get the education to learn a trade or medical job. What’s so hard about that
Exactly so why isn’t the solution to address that. Why do democrats always want to raise taxes which the cost gets passed on to renters.
@@nofurtherwest3474 problem with that is you can do that, and then those jobs still don't pay shit, $50-$60k today isn't the $50-$60k it used to be in the 2000s where a house was affordable
@@nofurtherwest3474 Average cost of a trade school education is $17,600 a year. Let's say it's a 2 year school and they need to take out a loan. Interest on that loan will be high because of their low income so let's put that to 7%.
I'm going to guess they will take loan with the lowest monthly payment. Let's say $272/mo for 20 years. That's a total of $65,497 to payback the loan.
Now tell me how that will lift them out of poverty when the morning decision is to buy soap to be presentable for that minimum wage job interview or breakfast for them and or family.
I live in a mfg home community in Davie Florida
Being self employed, I chose this property in 2019, 1st as a rental which I later purchased for 30K, the Lot lease for the long time owner was under $800, once it sold, ELS has raised my lot lease annually and as of May 2024 I will begin to pay $1,323.07
I wrote a letter to one of my state politicians and received back a response that basically brushed me off.
This home is old and unhealthy but it’s all I can afford and I can’t afford the repairs to make it safe for me and my 2 cats.
The system pushes us down. For people like me there isn’t a hopeful end on the horizon.
The rich get richer and the poor are the stepping blocks to their wealth.
You nailed it. Your situation is all too close to homelessness, and it's a lot of stress because you know there's basically no buffer between you and rock-bottom, as is true for far too many people in the USA. Not your fault, but who gets the blame when people like you and me get into deeper and deeper poverty? We get the blame, because that's who politicians and corporations WANT to take the blame.
The power class is afraid of the one-way money train stopping.
Capitalism is not the best we can do.
We have the money and resources RIGHT NOW to provide for basic necessities (housing, food, healthcare, education, internet, utilities, etc.) if we taxed corporations and cut our near $900billion military budget in half.
Those who want more can work towards it in safety and ease bc they aren't threatened with living on the street.
And fret not for the billionaires (of which you will never be). Even paying their fair corporate taxes, they'd STILL have centuries' worth of generational wealth.
As for our political system, we have neither a democracy NOR a republic here in the good old USA. We have political theater. We have a corporate kleptocracy where CORPORATIONS are people: "people" whose lobbying and donation power give them control of our system of supposed checks and balances; "people" who don't pay taxes, who pollute the environment, and who won't pay a living wage.
We can do better, and Chicago will hopefully be a start.
preach~
@@charvisaur4184 ❤️
the poor stopped the 2 way train. we want to give the money back to you but you wont come get it!
P.S. - Consider not feeding the trolls like @SgtJoeSmith who will, no doubt, attempt to refute what I'm saying. They're either woefully ignorant (which is not a crime; they could read 2009's Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher to alleviate that condition); willful deniers, or unpaid lackeys.
I could not agree with you more. 💚
How is it possible that people working 2 jobs are homeless? That's insane, the minimum salary should be enough to have a decent life.
Many jobs are not full time allowing the employers to avoid paying for benefits.
Even full time jobs don't guarantee enough money, and you can't live off of benefits. I know some people who work two jobs - one of them offers really low pay but great benefits, the other offers higher pay to help get enough money to afford living
Imagine what good the nearly $2,000,000 could have done on this issue instead of fighting against this initiative.
There was a large grocery store in my town, it sat empty for almost 15 years. The owners were in no rush to find someone else to open in there because the negative helped their other lots. The same can be seen elsewhere in the county (not the wealthiest but a "decent" county), with businesses closed down for years and blocks of empty buildings. I understand things take time, but when you see business after business empty for almost a decade, they could be put to better use.
Private equity is at fault make them pay
Privatization is the root of many of our national woes
Landowners are the biggest leeches, I'm not american but my city in brazil has a problem, a lot of neighbourhoods have empty lots that lazy locals use as trash dumps, those empty lots become breeding grounds for mosquitos, snakes, scorpions etc. Those lots are owned by speculators, I lived for 20 years and there are lots that are surrounded by development, so their land gains value while they don't only not contribute but also take away value, not from jus land but endangering locals with several disease carrying pests
They dont even cut their grass, nor fence it off or allow community gardens, they just put up a sign saying not to dump trash
@@furinickif the lot isn't developed in a certain time frame, it's deeded to a fund for community improvement. We have properties around in Florida that are land banked the same way. There is one particular that has a structure on it, but has remained untouched for 30 years. They have paid more taxes in 30 years than it's currently worth.
For the $2 billion they spent to try and not get this to pass they could have just housed all the homeless.
Well, that would make too much sense…😏
Yeah that's crazy
$2 million not $2 billion
@@hopefloats7573 ah, they said billion in the video.
@@BladeoftheImmortal2005 No, they said million. 8:01
7:19 I like this lady who's like "I like the idea that we will pay less taxes; who could be against this? Plus we'll help fix this social issue."
Pretty heavily implies she would not be in favor of fixing this issue if it cost her more in taxes.
This needs to become *national* news, because this needs to be implemented at the *national* level!
I hope this gets put in place
Well if big corporations don't want it then it must be good for the people.
👏👏👏👏
I’d LOVE to see one about the homeless in NYC!!!
I’m in a shelter here and I totally agree with everyone, what I’d like to add is how lack of medical accessibility also makes most people homeless. I’ve met so many people in shelters and I’ve stayed in several myself. I have several disabilities and I only found out while staying in my 4th shelter. I’m autistic and I’ve developed a “special interest” in mental health/disability/domestic abuse. Going through my own and my daughter’s diagnosis journeys, I’ve learned a great deal about symptoms and behaviors that show up from untreated medical conditions. I’ve never met someone in a shelter who did not display signs of major disabilities (I’m including those developed from domestic violence). Being unhoused is traumatic and it stays with us. I’m not saying people cannot overcome this, but we cannot deny the real daily challenges that we face. 💖💖💖 Thank you for your humanity and empathy towards us. I hope this catches on!!!!!!!!
Just got back to Chicago for spring back and I’ve seen two ads already telling people to vote against it
I’m worried that people will see those ads before they ever even hear about the actual plan
A living wage would help.
surprisingly, it'd actually make things worse: if people have more money but the supply of homes hasn't increased, that will lead to increased housing prices. unhoused people who typically make less than housed people will be even harder pressed to afford a home. (plus increasing housing prices leads to inflation.) ... anyways, i'm not trying to attack you, lol... we also need a living wage, but I keep telling everyone that housing needs to come first or it'll backfire
5:26, yeah dude "small and middle" investors for sure who buy houses at >1 million dollar, yeah. There should be limits to number of homes one can buy as well, with increasing tax with increasig number of homes bought. Otherwise the large companies/rich people would just buy out the cheaper homes because of lower taxes.
The backbends I've seen attempted, to invent some reason why it isn't a good idea, "would be funny, if it weren't so sad"
Sounds good and responsible. Land as well. Some some elites are buying up our farmland and much more around the world--whatever they can get buy with.
Communist much?
@@neiljohnson6815 You say that like it's a bad thing. That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means
@@neiljohnson6815 You say that like it's a bad thing. That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means
if the corporate landlords are against it, I'm for it.
While I think that this is a superb idea, I didn’t hear much of a discussion regarding how the money would be spent. Without a well-defined plan in place, there is a huge risk of failure and with it, killing the prospect of future beneficial changes.
As an Australian, housing being an investment commodity is the exact problem we're experiencing. In my city the median house price is over $1.5 million, and it doesn't look like it's going down. This is an issue that exists worldwide, and I'm glad to see people coming up with solutions.
Capitalism is a sickness everywhere. They exploit and extort the working class in the name of good business.
It’s not a solution. Adults need to work and stop partying all night. There a toxic ghetto culture in certain neighborhoods in Chicago that thinks they’re owed a living. Poor neighborhoods are heavily subsidized in the wrong ways.
Seems like a reasonable and sustainable plan!
Rent gone increase good luck
In NYC, they used to have the Mitchell-Lama program, where landlords would rent to civil servants at below-market rates, in exchange for a tax break. But the program stopped years ago, and the buildings have all left the Mitchell-Lama program. So nowadays, a 25 year old lower-paid professional has nowhere to go. They'll move into lower-income areas, and then a 25 year old with a minimum wage job has to move into the projects.
Wishing you the best of luck Chicago.
oh no, someone might not be able to buy their fifth Belenciaga bag if this passes!
how about we take profits from Belenciaga then? They only need $5 a bag not $2000.
#nationalizeBalenciaga@@SgtJoeSmith
We need this, and we need cities around the country to take a look at Vienna and emulate their non-market housing model
Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings. It's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home. This video was clickbait. It will not end homelessness at all. Chicago spends $2,000,000,000 (2 billion USD) on police every year and only 1% of that on helping the homeless. It's also 50% of our education budget. Homelessness is a policy choice, but the one being promoted in this video has nothing to do with it. More Perfect Union is really giving Buzzfeed and 5 Minute Crafts vibes.
There’s plenty of countries that should adopt this strategy to reduce the effects of poverty that is NOT a choice but from chance circumstances that are overwhelming to overcome alone.
Good luck Chicago, I hope you end up being able to help your people.
All cities facing increased homelessness should consider doing something like Bring Chicago Home
There is nothing radical about updating a property tax policy. It's not groundbreaking. It won't end homelessness. Not in the slightest. The only thing this bill does is make homes slightly cheaper for the majority and a little more expensive for the rich. It doesn't guarantee shelter. It doesn't actually mention anything about accessibility. More Perfect Union is cooking a crock of sh*t by with this garbage. Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings. It's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home.
They should definitely do it! But it's not the only solution, there needs to be more.
I work with homelessness in Indianapolis, and what I've found is that most people need mental health help, along with help finding housing. A lot of them, if you gave them easier housing, then they'd lose it due to being exploited, lack of support, and because it is a giant change for most.
The price of housing is one aspect, but there are more things that affect them.
@BeerMoneyforTokyo Yeah, there is a lack of mental health support. But I'm just saying from my experience working in mental health and homelessness what is needed.
Absolutely. It's a good start to solving a very solvable problem.
@@cencent2189 "If you give them easier housing" is not a solution, because the pressure is still on them to magically solve all of their problems quickly enough to maintain that housing. They need a place that is theirs, paid for for as long as it takes until they can pay for it themselves, not conditional.
The solution is Housing First, where people are housed, permanently, with no strings attached and with wrap-around support to help with the issues that stand in the way of people's health, well-being, and potential independence.
If you give people housing that they CANNOT lose, then they don't lose it and they have a chance to work on all the other struggles they have in their lives. Every single problem, from disabilities to drug addiction to poverty, is easier to tackle when they're not scared of being harassed by police, beaten up by strangers, having all their property stolen, or just plain being stressed by extremes of heat, cold, mosquitoes, rain, and snow.
*The idea is to not blame the individual who has ended up homeless, but to put the blame on the failures of our society that have created their situation.*
We're trained by our culture to blame the victim: homeless people must have done something wrong to get there, and they're the ones who must solve their own problems. NO, it's housing costs, loss of protections for tenants, the fact that people still can't afford medical care and can go bankrupt due to accidents or illnesses, stagnant wages, loss of any social safety net, especially for single adults. Drug addicts have been looked at the same way, but that's starting to change after it was revealed that our towns and cities were being flooded with oxycontin, people not warned of the addiction potential, doctors not told the truth about what would happen to their patients. No more blaming addicts for the behaviors that addiction caused; we need to blame the factors that created the addiction to begin with. Poor people are blamed for being poor. Uneducated people are blamed for not being able to find jobs that pay enough to live on, and blamed for not going to college when they never had any hope of going. People with brain-chemistry disorders are blamed for behaviors that they had no control over, especially when there's so little access to medical care for their particular problem, "mental illness."
When someone becomes homeless, and it's due to these things that they had no control over, we need to stop blaming them and asking them to fix those problems before they can get a hand up.
91% of people who are homeless are able to have long-term success in a Housing First model. The emotional and brain-chemistry issues most people face when homeless are alleviated by finally having a stable, safe place to live, which helps everyone; and for those with a brain-chemistry disorder that caused them to become homeless to begin with, it makes their brain-chemistry more managable because most Housing First programs come with to resources that help people get medical care so they can manage their brain-chemistry imbalance and emotional trauma.
The price of housing is putting more and more people into homelessness, and increasingly, these are people who did not have a brain-chemistry disorder such as schizophrenia to cause it. For anyone who is homeless, the solution isn't to examine their individual reasons for living unhoused--the solution is to give them housing.
$100 million!!! For just taxing 2-3% on 7% of sales! That’s insane to think about. So many amazing things could be done to help homelessness. And all these talking heads talking about investors and high rises? That’s more important than people living on the streets? Smh.
Does this encourage more homeless people to move to Chicago for free housing?
@@guyserious2468well if they get free housing they won’t be homeless, which means they can get jobs and sign up for benefits that will lift them out of poverty… idk what your comment was supposed to be but I’d rather see people taken care of rather than taken advantage of so that corporations that are treated like people can build more ugly high rises downtown
As much as $100M is, it will only put a dent on reducing homelessness in a city the size of Chicago. A noticeable dent, but that's all - unless there is some innovative development such as tiny house villages where the money goes much further.
It's not a smart way to tax property. It discourages older people with larger homes from downsizing, lowering housing supply. A monthly tax on land makes more sense.
More Perfect Union is the new Vice as far as I'm concerned, but without the lies and being sold out to corporate advertisers.
Vacant units, per Census bureau. The US Census Bureau says there are 1,258,704 dwelling units in Chicago, and that 10.2% of them are vacant (128,796 units).
Would you please quit confusing the confused with facts...
MSNBC told them what to think. You know, kinda like in the olden days when someone would say, "The Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"
The views spounted on MSNBC, et al, are part of the new religion for the majority of people commenting on this matter; and they don't want facts. They want confirmation of their views by others equally uninformed.
It's "Ready, fire, aim", again and again.
If we ever stopped to analyze a problem with ALL the facts, proposed a few possible solutions, debated these solutions honestly, and then had trustworthy people implement the chosen (and hopefully best) solution, we might actually solve a problem or two in the US.
This could be a viable solution.
Agreed! I hope it’s implemented. We have to try something…
they could build 1000 units of social housing per year
@@HesterPrynne293nope not at all. An average 3 unit apartment in pilsen is 1mil. Now you living in unit 1 rent will increase from 1500 to 2500.
This video is clickbait. There is nothing radical about updating a property tax. It's not groundbreaking. It makes no mention of homelessness. It makes no mention of shelter accessibility. None. Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings, but it's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home. Chicago spends $2,000,000,000 (2 billion USD) on police every year and only 1% of that on helping the homeless. It's also 50% of our education budget. Homelessness is a policy choice, but the one being promoted in this video has nothing to do with it. More Perfect Union is really giving Buzzfeed and 5 Minute Crafts vibes.
Then nobody will build homes in 5 years because all new homes will be over a million dollars.
To many people are making money off homelessness...To end homelessness...
... and that's the problem. Playing Robin Hood never truly helped anyone except Robin Hood himself. I bet Robin Hood never went hungry.
I've got a couple of spare bedrooms in my house that I would like to help someone with a roof over their head. But I have issues like having things stolen or these renters having other people over that I don't know and in turn those people stealing from me. I'm doing okay, I'm not rich, but I have had people stay here and the results were just damaging my well-being and I don't think that I can even try to help anymore.
Just a reminder, tell UA-cam this content is worth pushing by going through their videos and watching a few more that interest you
I was born in Chicago and am very proud! Unfortunately I live in Arizona now but I hope the rest of the country will follow Chicago's lead. Corporate and political corruption is the norm across the States and it needs to end right now. If the rich find out they can just kill the poor en masse without consequence... where will we go from there? Lobbying must be made illegal.
Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings. It's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home. This video was clickbait. It will not end homelessness at all. Chicago spends $2,000,000,000 (2 billion USD) on police every year and only 1% of that on helping the homeless. It's also 50% of our education budget. Homelessness is a policy choice, but the one being promoted in this video has nothing to do with it. More Perfect Union has become the Buzzfeed version of progressive news. It's giving brainrot.
Spoken like a lobbyist.
@@crimson4066 Police are necessary as well as good judges, prosecutors and jails.
In the same situation as I type, crashing on someone's living room. Even with a Bachelor's Degree, you'll still end up homeless in the new economy living on a dirty mattress on the floor... If you're lucky! If this doesn't pass there is something fundamentally wrong with society. Period.
I dont have a college degree and make more in construction than all of my peers... You must want to be homeless its too easy to make a fat paycheck this day and age.
skills>degree
It passed in Los Angeles and did not work out well. When commercial sales prices and volume drop, you'll see what a good plan it was. Real Estate is not as simple as they make it sound.
This country has gone so downhill rapidly.. the amount of evil and greed is overwhelming and can only go on for so long before we snap as a society and fight back
Chicago used to have SROs: single room occupancy buildings. These were rented weekly or monthly. They were studios with two or three piece bathrooms. Quality ran from clean and safe to really dangerous places to be. During the 1960s-1990s, the SROs were a help with homeless.
1 - vacancy tax that increases every year things are unoccupied, including retail and officr and empty lots. eminent domain for unclaimed lots.
2 - Ban corporate and foreign sales. Tax sales of 2nd and 3rd homes a lot.
3 - Unscrew all the suffocating zoning and redtape issues.
4 - Repeal the Fairchild act and build affordable housing.
We need to unite and ensure this gets implemented in Chicago and everywhere in America!
Thank you for doing your part to keep this issue at the forefront of our thinking. I've lived in my car before, and currently my daughter lives on the street. It's a heartbreaking existence. 😢
My home city. I don’t live there anymore but still love it and love this idea.
Housing costs have always been my biggest expense every month, whether I owned the house or rented. But, now, the rents are insane even here in FLA. At some point someone has to pay to get these people into secure housing. The Gov't can help make up the difference. But, it needs to be done - in the "richest country in the history of the planet".
I’m a born Chicagoan and I’ve lived here all my life, our homeless situation is awful and we need change, our shelters are disgusting and people are not safe there and will often find the same abuse they were running from in the first place (also anything that pisses of landlords makes me happy)
Imagine what could happen if Chicago consulted those working on the frontlines and renters just getting by on this issue. What would happen if they provided resources, access, and the opportunity to address the real issues to those directly impacted by it?
I was fortunate to grow up in a time when an average person could purchase land and build a house. Rent was always high, often uncomfortably high for me but now it is outrageous. When rental property changes hands these days, it seems that the buyer probably pays too much but realizes that they can just tighten the the screws on their tenants to still make a profit. The real estate and tax laws that benefit buyers and sellers of rental property seem to systematically work against the interests of the renters. The market is OBVIOUSLY not working, time to challenge the status quo.
Those with capital are able to influence legislation and local politicians to get government to subsidize their development of rental property and then allow them to extort citizens to generate profits. I see politics these days as a battle between ordinary citizens that don't have the money and lawyers to compete effectively with the corporate equivalent of organized crime. All citizens have left is their vote so they damned well better get out and exercise it!
so excited to see this happen!!! Chicago is ready for some change, I really think this will go incredibly well if the word is spread and a vote happens
It's really bad here in Chicago, a few years ago they removed all the homeless people from around Wilson or Montrose. I would like to see Chicago fix this issue without using taxes, there's plenty of abandoned homes and the citizens are the ones helping the homeless here out of our own pockets.
Here's an idea for the local govt. 1) drive around and find pieces of land that isn't utilized in any way that brings value to the local community (been in Chicago, there's plenty of that). 2) speak to the owner of the land about their plans 3) if no real plan exists to utilize the land in a mid-term period it will be repurposed for modular constructed apartment complex 4) sign a lease agreement to reimburse the owner for the land use, sign that agreement for a period of at least 10 years but make their income tax free 5) gradually build the apartments out of modular units that can be added and removed as needed, house anyone who wants to get off the streets, not for free but for as compensation for their new job of working in the modular construction company.
Making it a tax on sales is smart. There are lots of people who bought houses cheap and who are hit hard by the increase in the book value of their homes: they're not investing, they need the house to live in, so "it's worth $1m" doesn't matter nearly as much as "now you gotta pay taxes on $1m" to them. Now, I rent, so my sympathy for people lucky enough to have bought in back when that was something a working person could do isn't enormous... but it's not zero either. Taxing high-ticket sales is a way to claw back something from the people who are using housing as an investment, as a money-making scheme, without hitting people who are living in their houses.
Pure clickbait. There is nothing radical about updating a property tax policy by a few percentiles. It's not groundbreaking. If this were a video game, nobody would care because nothing about it is game-changing. This bill makes no mention of homelessness. And it makes no mention of shelter accessibility. None. Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings, but it's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home. Chicago spends $2,000,000,000 (2 billion USD) on police every year and only 1% of that on helping the homeless. It's also 50% of our education budget. Homelessness is a policy choice, but the the policy being promoted in this video has nothing to do with it.
@@crimson4066Why are you replying to me? If you read carefully, you will notice that my comment ALSO makes no mention of homelessness. You're not even strawmanning here, you're imaginarymanning.
I'm not from Chicago and I've no familiarity with the city's budget, so I really can't speak to how the money's going to be spent. I am a police abolitionist, so I certainly agree with you there!
As to the substance of my comment, I might also point out that doubling the tax rate on sales over 1.5m could well send real estate investors elsewhere, which could help limit the rise in housing prices in Chicago even if the city just takes the money and wastes it on a bigger police black site and shiny new city council letterhead.
I want to take everything you own that you are not using and give it to the needy, except the things I want for myself. I decide who is needy BTW.
All I need is a place to park my van and exist between shifts at my full-time job. Unfortunately, American society does not allow that.
I wonder how well this video is going to age.
I’m a former homeless man from Illinois and listening to the opponents of bringing Chicago home makes me angry because I spent two years living on the streets and when I finally did find a place somebody wanted to put me right back on the streets so that they could feel safe and the issue I have with that is I had a child to take care of But I couldn’t take care of my child because of this person who had everything handed to her and so the opponents of this program who are griping and complaining because of tax that in some cases will lower and come down .15% and a lot of cases in Chicago aren’t willing to Help subsidize the cost of getting people off the streets. What I think that this program needs is proper oversight, but it also needs people that are in there who are truly driven to make sure that homelessness ends however people who are wealthy want to stay that way and so the idea of homeless people Not being homeless anymore, even though it would lower the cost of court fees and drug addiction and programs that deal with that and mental health services and programs that deal with that kind of thing because people are now stable proposing that we stay in the situation and make it worsethose people who blame drugs on the fact that the lowest income people can’t find a home in fact, Jamie diamond said something like that today
Let's
f*ckin
GO!
We need something like this in Los Angeles.
There’s a huge portion of chronic homelessness that can just be solved with homes. A moment of stability. It should absolutely be done. There is a significant portion thats more complicated, though. Mental illness and some unknowable portion of drug addiction is tougher to tackle. Homes make these people safer, so it should be done, but just housing them also causes issues for the others they are housed near. Thats happening now, so no net loss, but now that friction is more visible and the project can be seen as causal. Just like lifting camping bans. Not advocating against it, just seen good anti homelessness projects like these collapse within a couple years for these reasons. Obviously they were fought against by interest groups, but these issues can swing public opinion back against them.
5:25 What a load of sheet. Investors are not the key to providing affordable housing, they are why housing is unaffordable. If it was illegal to buy up dozens of properties and build a slumlord empire where you set rent at double the price of the mortgage + property taxes, there wouldn't be a housing crisis. Being able to buy homes you aren't even living in is literally what drives the price of the homes up, there is no more supply plus a huge "investment" demand, prices skyrocket, rents increase, maintenance of properties goes down, eventually you are paying $1500 a month for the cheapest rental in town - a 400 sq ft "studio apartment" that is actually just half of a house that they split apart using thin fiberboard walls.
Feeling curious, you pull up the property records and find the last major property improvement happened in 1999 (a new roof). Meanwhile, the foundation is crumbling, there are areas of safety concern that are simply "taped off" with caution tape instead of being repaired, the shingles on the roof are half missing, water drips down your interior walls when it rains, there is black mold present, none of the major appliances work, you smell a gas leak occasionally (but cannot figure out where it is coming from), your front door is a repurposed interior door that doesn't properly fit the doorframe and does nothing to keep heat inside, and you can't do anything about it, they won't fix anything, reporting them will cause them to evict you, and to add insult to injury - you don't have money for a lawyer because they have been taking more than half of your income in rent every month.
The house was last sold for $40,000, 30 years ago, property taxes were at $1000/year then and have gradually increased to $3500/year. After doing the math on rent and taxes you realize the owner has profited over half a million dollars in that 30 year timeframe. Half a million dollars profit on a $40,000 house, or an average of ~$16,700 PROFIT per year which is 42% of the original investment... *yearly*. All of that money just for exploiting less fortunate people on a basic human need - shelter. If they had not done that, someone would have been able to afford to buy the home, live there, actually take care of it, be a positive part of the community. When people complain about how trashy "urban" areas are, they seem to not realize that not having ownership of your home simply because someone else bought it to exploit you through rent make the occupants pretty apathetic to caring for it. It is dehumanizing to be essentially forced to live in a property that is falling apart, with a landlord who refuses to do any maintenance, while continuing to pad his bank account with your hard work.
I often hear the argument, "No one would do that, property is an investment and letting it fall apart would be bad." I argue that maintenance doesn't matter because they are making the original cost of the house in profit per year. Even if the properties are condemned after 2 years, you would have doubled your investment, so why would you pay to maintain anything?! Bonus points when you are wealthy enough to buy most of the properties in a section of town, because you can run that whole part of town into the ground, lowering the values of the neighboring properties, which you can then buy to continue gaining rental income after the original properties start being condemned.
If you own investment rental properties, go F yourself. I'm sick of hearing the "altruistic landlord" fairytale bs, the only reason to buy additional rental property is to screw everyone else out of home ownership. Period.
The root of the problem is not building enough new housing to meet demand because of nimbyism. Everything else is a symptom of that.
Good luck Chicago! Hope this is the start of something big
Thanks for posting.
Nah, rich people who pay less taxes than the rest of us could end homelessness, but they gotta have that 3rd home and 2 yacht this quarter, not next quarter.
Let’s go Chicago, this could be replicated everywhere!
I just went to Chicago, and saw some ads for it. Hope it passes on March 19!
Ye they need to fix homelessness usa
I just moved to Chicago on Friday and I'm stoked to see this!!!
Pure clickbait. There is nothing radical about updating a property tax policy by a few percentiles. It's not groundbreaking. If this were a video game, nobody would care because nothing about it is game-changing. This bill makes no mention of homelessness. And it makes no mention of shelter accessibility. None. Bring Chicago Home is fine and dandy if you're looking to buy a home AND you have an above average income WITH above average savings, but it's completely worthless if you're actually in need of a home. Chicago spends $2,000,000,000 (2 billion USD) on police every year and only 1% of that on helping the homeless. It's also 50% of our education budget. Homelessness is a policy choice, but the the policy being promoted in this video has nothing to do with it.
One of the challenges is how the recent and massive vacancy of commercial office real estate is financially squeezing landlords. Most office buildings are currently half empty. Many of the investors have had to, or soon will, file bankruptcy. You may say they are rich, but when any investor loses half of the rental income, they are no longer making any money on that property.
Please do a story on disability and mental health housing, and services, service providers across the country in particular nonprofit service providers. Reach out to the ARC to get started.
I really hope this passes, need some good news in this world
I am always amazed at the mind boggling simplicity of those who propose a quick fix "solution" to very complex problems. As always, the law of unintended (or unaccounted for) consequences cones to the fore.
I did some back of the envelope analysis of this proposal, based on some quick research. Yes, you would increase the amount of transfer taxes you might receive in any given year. HOWEVER, the TOTAL taxes would NOT increase according to my calcs, cuz you would lose an equivalent amount of revenue from the annual PROPERTY taxes paid by residents.
I am more than happy to discuss my simple calcs with anyone wishing details. Essentially, if you increase the transfer tax, you are going to push down the value of the property on these high value homes. If you do that, you diminish the revenue from the annual property tax, since the value of these higher-taxed home will decrease slightly.
My analysis could be wrong, but I believe that this proposal simply transfers revenue from one tax to another. No additional revenue is raised. You "solve" the homeless" problem (which, in reality is NOT about lack of housing but about substance abuse and mental illness) with this new transfer tax money and reduce property tax income (I assume its for the schools in Chicago) by an equivalent amount, exacerbating problems for the schools.
another big key is increasing housing supply. reducing costs by subsidizing rent and providing transitional housing is one element, but on the other side the city needs to get into building apartments and providing new units across the city to drive up the supply of homes which will naturally decrease costs. look at austin
Most people's lives are being ruined by financial capitalism.
There are plenty of empty homes 🏡 that are highly inflated.
We don't have a homeless issue. We have a reasonable affordable issue.
😳
Markets aren't equipped to deal with the problems caused by markets.
The thing is, in most markets am entry level fully detached single family home is a million bucks. In major markets, it's 2 million. For a thousand square foot fixer upper bungalow on a 30 × 100 foot lot. You will make it more difficult for working families to buy a home, in favor of the homeless.
Building a house to existing housing codes will keep the minimum cost house well above the reach of many people. Those on fixed incomes, the uneducated, the handicapped, just can't pay for a to-code house. Designating special zones for smaller scale houses would bring housing to those less able to pay. There needs to be simple, low price, limited convenience housing, somewhere between a $100,000 to-code(present) house, and a cardboard box.
TAX THE RICH!!
AND THE CORPORATIONS!!
No call the poor.
@zentierra7803 You do realize tons of super small businesses are incorporated in some way right??
@@kyles2232incorporation is a method to evade liability. Make business owners responsible for their own actions again.
Look around the world. USA is the richest country. That makes YOU the rich. I agree. Tax you, not me.