Nice!

Now, it would be good not to rely on good will of some individuals and actually enforce this for all the rich.

But still mad respect for the man.

Someone took 99 families off the streets? Wow fuck that asshole, how dare she have enough money to do that. How dare she not give up her home and make it 100 families off the streets, not good enough!

-Half this website, angry 99 families now have a place to live who didn't before this event

Millionaire? Nice. Billionaires should follow suit, but 1000x

(With ~800 billionaires in the US, that's 79,200,000 homes)

Do they pay him rent now?

I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

Good for him, but this is pretty much an Orphan-Crushing Machine moment.

that sounds an awful lot like communism to me. We can't have that.

Where are they built in relation to necessary services, and what other services are available?

Is there on site support for drugs and mental health issues?

Is anybody's stuff going to be safe there? Or are they dumped out of sight and mind?

You have to 'invest' in preventing the causes of homelessness in the first place, which has proved impossible under capitalism. I doubt corrupt dictatorships of the proletariat such as the Soviet Union did any better.

And why were they homeless?

Why were they homeless???

I like this because it is both a good story about an individual helping their community and it is proof individual action alone is not enough to rely on to solve social problems.

I'm of two minds.

• shitty bungalows are what is killing infrastructure costs and perpetuating urban sprawl. We have a generous home in a hyper-dense housing area and - thanks to triple paned windows and concrete - no claustrophobia.

• tiny homes for people returning from homelessness may be a good idea. The unfair concerns are mitigated by very repairable units separated from neighbours.

We need to keep these as transitional housing, though, and a feeder into a "starter" unit in proper dense mixed-use: every block (hectare) taken for tiny homes is 3 million cubic meters of space taken from a land budget we're already overdrawn on.

Now imagine if billionaires did it with their infinite wealth......sad. humanity and capitalism is just cancer.

A lot of people talk about taxing folks like this and then using the money to supply the housing.

The thing is, given the money, few people could pull this off well. The site isn't just being plopped down; from the sound of the article in the comments it's being actively developed as a community with other safeguards and support, by someone who sunk a lot of time into finding out what would work to help people rather than just appear to help.

A scheme like this is hard to replicate because, in addition to money, it needs a core team with a clear vision and the time to really make it a focus of their lives. It also needs a community that will embrace it - for example it would likely work in the town I grew up in, but the town I work in (and am sadly forced to live in) now would likely drive such a project to failure.

It's a good idea that worked against the odds, and should be celebrated for that alone.

Source? Did it actually work? Very cool if so.

Not everyone agrees with this thought but I'm also for allowing unused city parcels to be used for homeless tents and such. My city does everything it can to hide homelessness without addressing any of the underlying issues