How about... let those corporations EAT those fucking buildings and let's put that money to use IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE. First time home buyers. Put some federal controls on real estate; mortgage rates; put the skids on the goddam prime rate - there is NO need for that shit... the economy is suffering from PROFITEERING - NOT inflation.

I realize half or more of our elected officials will have to give back bribe money in order to do something for the people that doesn't doubly do something for their wealthy sponsors.

I know, I know... "just get to earth?"

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait, so what do we do with the buildings?

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They belong to corporations. The corporations don't get tax breaks if the buildings aren't used - but they still need to be paid for... which is a huge monetary outlay. Honestly, I don't care what happens to them and neither should anyone else. Am I sorry that corporations, the SAME corporations fleecing the planet right now with profiteering, are losing money? Hardly. They made the rules - they bought the politicians to enforce the rules- they made their own mess.

Converting office space to living space strains infrastructure in ways not intended by the original intent of the buildings. They can't put thirty apartments on a single floor of a high rise and have those residents use the same four bathrooms per floor that the offices had. Same with sewage. Same with electrical.

And I reiterate - as soon as the money is distributed to the "developers" - that money - OUR money - is gone... whether it is used for the purpose intended or not.

Keep in mind that trump is a 'developer'. Do you really think if Biden gave trump "three billion dollars" that trump would use it for what it was intended? Or do you think he'd pocket most of it? And he is a typical 'developer' as far as 'honesty' is concerned.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Converting office space to living space strains infrastructure in ways not intended by the original intent of the buildings. They can’t put thirty apartments on a single floor of a high rise and have those residents use the same four bathrooms per floor that the offices had. Same with sewage. Same with electrical.

Water and sewage is a real question, that's true. From the projects like this that I'm aware of, fire safety is actually the bigger issue, though. Usually sleeping areas are required to have an easier escape route than would be typical in the middle of a big office building. I guess you can add pipes and pumps without too much modification, and offices use plenty of electricity, although probably not in the same pattern.

As for the systemic issues, governments do manage to get things done sometimes. The exact details of such a legislation are more granular than I really would want to hammer out on Lemmy.

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I would think a commitment to intelligent solutions such as converting unused warehouse spaces rather than sticking billions of dollars down the "developer" black hole (trump is a "developer"... did you know that? Yeah, that criminal guy - he's kind of the cream of the crop).

So while government considers once again giving huge handouts to rich property owners does sound appealing, it's not really.

I would venture a guess that 10% of the "bailout" cash might get used towards... something related to conversion. And that would be that.

How about we NOT bail our some stranded ass rich assholes with our tax dollars and use those dollars wisely - towards fixing the problem rather than making another tax dollar hog trough.

[–] cobra89@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Corporations already do hold onto buildings without using them. Because typically real estate goes up in value, especially when there's scarcity, which there will be if corporations are holding property. This isn't the solution you think it is.

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Corporations already do hold onto buildings without using them.

I don't think you understand real estate holdings of that nature. Thanks for the response though.

[–] jimbo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that something the government needs to figure out? Seems like something will eventually be done with the buildings once the current owners get tired of losing money.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know the exact situation (and I admit I didn't read the article). Honestly the Canadian housing crisis is still confusing, and I live here.

[–] Fraylor@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Knock them down. Rezone, build shit that's useful.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like a skyscraper of the same size but with apartments? The original idea seems pretty practical to me.

[–] Fraylor@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One popular option is floor level businesses with apartments above them. Doesn't necessarily have to be as tall, many of these skyscrapers take a lot of space for landscaping that could be used for square footage. On top of this, other areas could also be rezone and recreated into city parks to make up for the over indulgent landscaping.