California lawmakers vote to fast-track low-income housing on churches’ lands
California lawmakers vote to fast-track low-income housing on churches’ lands
California lawmakers have voted to fast-track low-income housing on surplus land owned by nonprofit colleges and religious institutions.
Religious institutions and nonprofit colleges in California could soon turn their parking lots and other properties into low-income housing to help combat the ongoing homeless crisis, lawmakers voted on Thursday.
The legislation would rezone land owned by nonprofit colleges and religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, to allow for affordable housing. They would be able to bypass most local permitting and environmental review rules that can be costly and lengthy.
California is home to 171,000 homeless people — about 30% of all homeless people in the U.S. The crisis has sparked a movement among religious institutions, dubbed “yes in God’s backyard,” or “YIGBY,” in cities across the state, with a number of projects already in the works.
ngl, but if the evangelical Christian folks can actually get a YIGBY movement going, they could really do some great work in the world.
For all our strengths on the secular side of things, we never could beat NIMBY problems. They're just very difficult to overcome using our methods, and help derail things like nuclear energy.
I think Jesus would have actually agreed that YIMBY is a genuinely valid and wholesome idea, and that it even harnesses some of the good traits of Christianity. If this actually works, you can color me impressed.
75Church housing used to be a part of the service that "missing middle" represents. Not literally stuff in the middle, but housing products that are largely not allowed anymore. They used to supply at the lower end that we now have to rely on extremely inefficient institutions like shelters to do.
All housing that gets built is good for the housing crisis. But what's particularly good is building housing at Market slices where there is currently nothing.
21Homelessness is not a certainty in society.
The idiotic thing here is that most evangelicals vote in favor of a party and a system of government that facilities homelessness.
I would respect these efforts a lot more if evangelicals would simultaneously support a system of government that would render these initiatives unnecessary in the long term. Take aim at the root cause. Look to the Nordic countries where homelessness is now, more or less, a matter choice.
4While it might feel good to judge religious people because you feel they are less generous to the poor in the way they vote, it is worth considering three things:
First, the religious easily out donate the rest of us both in percentage of donators and amount donated, whether it is to religious or secular causes.
Second, it is a lot easier to give away someone else's money than our own.
Third, most of them see a difference between donating, out of their excess, to a local organization that handles the money in a way they agree with, versus having their money taken by force, even if money is tight, by an organization (government) that handles the money in a way they don't agree with.
If someone likes donating to the Salvation Army and finds out that they are using 80% of their funds to pay for staff, then maybe they will stop supporting them and support Habitat For Humanity or a local food pantry instead. Whereas when the government takes their money and does what they want with it, they have little recourse when it is mismanaged.
2
I'd look for the monetary motivation. You know there is one beyond altruism, it's organized religion after all.
0
The bill would also require school boards to approve instructional materials that include accurate depictions of LGBTQ+ people and their contributions. It would ban school boards from rejecting textbooks because they mention the contributions of people with a particular racial background or sexual orientation.
For all the failures of my state (see 30% of all unhoused in the US without tearing our teeth out to solve it (that's a movie reference)), this is about as anti-Florida as one could get. I'm proud of this.
43This seems like a good idea, but it would have to be carefully executed. I can see two outcomes:
- Works out well it’s well maintained and everyone is happy
- Nothing is maintained and turns into a shanty town with the areas downgrading fast.
24- The religious assholes who own it force everyone to go to their church and support their sect.
37That was my initial thought. In general, churches are seeing loss of participation across the board NPR. It would really easy to funnel the homeless into church if they're literally living feet away from the narthex.
And what happens to those who refuse to come and worship? Are they booted out?
There's definitely a problem with homelessness, but I don't want to see these people be coerced into anything.
8While I agree this could be particularly harmful for the more extreme cults, I do see where it could be a safety net of safety nets.
I am not religious, I am an atheist. But I wouldn't have a problem returning to the church I grew up in if that was the housing I could afford for my family. The ELCA, at least from what I took away from it, largely helped me form my values I have today. Interestingly, it also helped me leave the church too, so not everyone's experience.
2Christians who actual act like Jesus told them to act become the most persuasive missionaries, by accident.
If every Christian was as accepting, offered physical, real help while teaching future solutions, and treated everyone egalitarian, or the same, no matter their job, past, finances, race, etc* as Christ was then fuck, Id be a Christian too.
- this offer not extended to bankers. Jesus even forgave his killers, but the ones he never forgave, and made him lose his shit and flip tables, were the money lenders.
2Most likely outcome. These are the people famous for holding bologna sandwiches hostage from starving people until they agree to hear indoctrination pitches under duress.
0
yigby is a pretty funny play on the whole thing.
7mmmm. While I like the idea of dismantling any barrier to building more-affordable housing, I really don't like putting churches in the position of having the homeless be beholden to them. Part of the reason so many churches object to public anti-poverty/anti-homeless policy is that they're angling for the bar to be lower so they can leverage people's desperation into the opportunity to proselytize to them and convert them to their faith.
I am reminded that Jesus didn't command his followers to keep people hungry and poor in order to make them into believers of Jesus, he said that helping the poor and downtrodden is the way to come to know Him.
Keep the church out of the poverty business, thanks. Also while we're at it, never ever forget that it costs the public more in taxpayer money and resources to keep homeless people homeless than it does to put them in an apartment and give them some time with a social worker.
5