18.6 Million Empty Houses in America

How many of those are in New Orleans?

Anyone have any figures for the UK? (or elsewhere, for that matter)

Thank the market. Owned as investments (by non-occupiers), not as places to live.

Add to the homeless all those who are stuck renting (thanks to the investor-driven inflated prices).

Force the owners to sell, I say, but only to occupiers, or some kind of affordable housing association.

The photo paints one picture, but in my city, the newest McMansions are the empty houses - 5000 sq. ft. monsters with green mucky swimming pools. The run down cheap houses are full of renters.

I wonder if there is a business here. There are companies around who will "de-construce" your house, have the value of the parts appraised and give you a tax credit for the value.

I wonder if some of these houses could be bought by wealthy individuals looking for a tax credit for a few dollars, de-constructed, and they get the tax write-off? Maybe the land could be donated to a land-trust and turned back into park or open space?

Truth is most of the homeless people cannot financially affort the houses.

I think government should really think about stop over expanding city/suburb There're older towns out there that has low population (I'm not talking about those sticks out in the country). The more spaces, privacy and freedom people want means to more remote some people would live.

The more land it's developed, the less plantation there'll be.

How exactly does the census get an accurate count of the homeless?

How do you think? They tag them of course!

So what?

Since when did being homeless bestow a right on anyone to a home?

True, but society's way better off with poor people in houses (where they can have a safe, stable place to put,say, as their home address on a job application) than with them sleeping under a bypass.

@But Free's Good

"society's way better off with poor people in houses "

Says who? In the U.S., we have a little experient of putting poor people in houses, and you know what it created? Crack dens. Lot of poor people met with an earll demise thanks to that policy.

Mayber that's what you meant by 'society's better off', but I doubt it.

Think about the huge percentage of homeless that are homeless because of their own inability to make good life decisions. There are many exceptions, naturally, but saying there are "24 houses for every homeless person" is a meaningless statement. You could give the homeless one of these houses, but, just like in their past, they would lose it, trash it, sell it, have it seized in a raid, etc. You could hand every homeless person in New York 50,000 dollars, and in six months,I'd be ready to wager more than half would again, or still, be homeless. We have both types of homeless in my area. People who are victims of horrible circumstance, and people who are victims of their own foolish ways.
As for the article itself, I question the reasoning behind the study, and the methods used to reach their numbers. Studies like this, which are far too numerous, are a worse waste of resources than the empty homes.

There are that many homeless in just California alone!
If you're depending on a government agency to tell you the truth you are a fool.

1 person being homeless can cost tax payers an insane amount of money is social services. It is lest costly to get them back on their feet and in supportive, or transitional housing. One of these houses could support 8-10 homeless until they are able to sustain themselves and save you as a tax payer a very large amount of money. I agree not everyone wants help, but even if 60%, hell 40%..its a big help.

Check out an article called Million Dollar Murray