I’m sorry. If you offered those mansions as dorm housing they’d be filled in seconds. Or homeless shelters, or senior centers, or anything else. Look at Gaza and Ukraine; people turn an empty warehouse into a hospital in an hour.
Yes I have heard of that. It didn’t apply here. They would not be legally habitable for those purposes UNTIL those changes are made. The buildings are not currently designed for that purpose. We have these housing codes for a reason.
A community can allow people who are rehabbing a building to live on site while improvements are being made.
A homeless person would much rather live in a building without water and power then have to sleep in an open park, or even a shelter where they are cohabiting with mentally ill folk.
Since we’d be changing laws to let people live there in the first place, making other changes would be a minor consideration.
Sure, they could. Then a fire happens, and that community starts pointing fingers at how all these people died. Surely, someone should have prevented that…
Do you not understand why we have fire codes for buildings, residential or otherwise?
Things catch fire. It happens. It’s even more likely if major renovations are occurring, between flammable paint fumes, potentially exposed wiring, power tools strewn around…
Actually try to think through your own proposals for a second before vomiting them into the universe.
I’m sorry. If you offered those mansions as dorm housing they’d be filled in seconds. Or homeless shelters, or senior centers, or anything else. Look at Gaza and Ukraine; people turn an empty warehouse into a hospital in an hour.
Oh well if we are just going to steal them, then sure. Especially if you don’t plan on maintaining the building.
Would people move in and live there if you let them? Yes. They’d figure it out.
Would it be up to code to actually support that? No. Not without extensive retrofitting.
My dorms in college were century old Victorian style “mansions”. And they’d had the interiors redone to suit the purpose.
Ever heard of “sweat equity?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity
People could move in, improve the buildings with hard work instead of paying rent, and then you’d have housed people and given them valuable skills.
Yes I have heard of that. It didn’t apply here. They would not be legally habitable for those purposes UNTIL those changes are made. The buildings are not currently designed for that purpose. We have these housing codes for a reason.
There’s an order things need to be done
A community can allow people who are rehabbing a building to live on site while improvements are being made.
A homeless person would much rather live in a building without water and power then have to sleep in an open park, or even a shelter where they are cohabiting with mentally ill folk.
Since we’d be changing laws to let people live there in the first place, making other changes would be a minor consideration.
Sure, they could. Then a fire happens, and that community starts pointing fingers at how all these people died. Surely, someone should have prevented that…
Now you’re just pulling things out of thin air.
What’s keeping people from having fire extinguishers on hand? Why would they need open fires in the first place?
Might as well bring in a Godzilla attack.
Who the fuck said anything about open fires?
Do you not understand why we have fire codes for buildings, residential or otherwise?
Things catch fire. It happens. It’s even more likely if major renovations are occurring, between flammable paint fumes, potentially exposed wiring, power tools strewn around…
Actually try to think through your own proposals for a second before vomiting them into the universe.
Literally laughing out loud when I read that.