The problem is not the builders. The problem is those who hold them back: government red tape, bureaucracy and investors who prefer to put their money on another cat app.
I don't get why it's not ok to steal food from a grocery store but it is ok to not pay rent. Both are basic necessities and in both cases you hurt someone else by not paying for service (food/shelter).
Most people see a vast moral difference between failing to pay a debt you owe and taking something that doesn't belong to you in the first place. If you broke into an unoccupied apartment and squatted there, that'd be at least as stealing food from a grocery store.
If an apartment is unoccupied, chances are it's used for speculation and/or short term rentals. If that's the case, I'd rank squatting better than stealing and failing to pay your rent. I'm sure others share this position, given posts like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22852570.
Or it's being renovated, or someone's due to move in next month, or all kinds of legitimate reasons. I'm definitely on board with the idea that people should be structurally discouraged from owning housing they don't plan to put to use, but enforcing that by allowing people to steal non-compliant housing seems pretty bad.
Those are both potentially morally acceptable. If you are on the verge of starving and have no money and no other source of food, it's ok to steal something from a grocery store. If you are on the verge of homelessness and have no money and no other source of shelter, it's ok to not pay your rent.
I'm sure there's a moral framework where it's never acceptable to hurt someone else when you could sacrifice yourself instead, but I don't think that's a particularly common school of thought. More often people will weigh two potential harms to make a decision, like "I can't pay my rent, but property taxes and foreclosures have been suspended during the pandemic, so my landlord will likely suffer less harm than I would if I became homeless."
Finally, "can't pay the rent" doesn't necessarily mean silently fail to mail a check. It might mean talking to the landlord about a payment plan, or frankly telling them you have no money and can't even afford food for the week. Landlords are humans, just like grocers who might give food to a starving person
If you're starving, stealing from the food delivery network is about the worst thing you could do about it. Robbing random strangers in the street would do less damage than victimizing the specific people you depend on.
People without incomes right now can probably afford food, even if they can't afford rent. The fact is that a significant fraction of society is in an impossible situation right now, through no fault of their own. And probably very few rentiers are in that group.
Very few rentiers is likely true. However, very few landlords are rentiers. The average investor owns 2 rental units [1]. And the vast majority of property investors have full time jobs and mortgages on their rental properties (I can't link directly to a source, but Buildium regularly conducts surveys to understand property investors).
To paint landlords as rentiers who can easily afford to go without rent or with greatly reduced rent is wrong. It mischaracterizes the problem in a way that will lead to bad solutions.
If there is to be rent reductions or forgiveness, there must also be reductions, aid or forgiveness on mortgages, property taxes and utilities. Somebody needs to pay for these things. Yes, profits will be reduced, but losses cannot be sustained for as long as social distancing measures are expected to last.
Most of the people who can't afford rent are probably living in apartment complexes, not houses, which probably means they're renting from a real-estate conglomerate of some kind and not a private landlord.
That said I agree there are many edge cases in this crisis and that, ideally, assistance should be given fairly liberally to all individuals who find themselves in tough situations.
There is florist in the article that is introduced as someone who could pay rent from her savings. However, she has decided she would "rather conserve her money than pay bills now."
And even worse, there is a guy in there who still has a job, has the money, and isn't paying rent because of "solidarity" with the florist! What sort of weirdness is that? I feel sympathy for those in precarious finances who really can't pay, but then articles like this come with examples of people who can pay but don't because... theoretical "social injustice"? That surely doesn't make me sympathetic to any cause...
Solidarity is a principle of social justice [0]. It's very simple, and related to tragedies of the commons. When there is some common resource, solidarity is the idea that we should all adopt common attitudes towards that resource.
I can afford to pay my rent. I have no problems doing so. However, if I were to learn that my rental management group were facing a large rent rebellion, that I believed that the rebels had legitimate complaints, and that the rental management group could survive the rebellion by evicting all of the rebels but only if I paid my rent, then I would consider not paying my rent.
Therefore, I can imagine a situation where I would not pay my rent despite being able to afford it, and be expressing solidarity by doing so.
I don't really care whether or not you're sympathetic right now to this particular cause, but you should consider the principles behind the actions that people are taking, and spend some time putting yourself in everybody else's shoes.
I liked it when you announce it's open source till I checked your Github page:
> At the moment we don't provide support for easily self-hosting the code. Currently, the purpose of keeping the code open-source is to be transparent with the community about how we collect and process data.
So basically you ask people to work for free on something only you can use? No thank you.
if you had to guess.. what are your thoughts on why this was open sourced? everybody i listen to seems a little confused by the "why" of this specific action
