I would like some houses without people. Having a little surplus is usually a good thing. So like if some houses become unlivable, we have houses for the suddenly unhoused people.

[–] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 4 days ago

I guess they mean it from a sustainability perspective. Stop building homes that aren't being used to house people, ie, stop building homes for speculators.

[–] match@pawb.social 11 points 4 days ago

no houses without people while there's people without houses

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But then the house will be lonely :(

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Run it as a pet café. In the above-mentioned emergency, people can move in, but they have to foster the pets.

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

That's perfect. I'm voting for you for king of the world

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 4 days ago

That part of things could be aimed a China. They have something like double the amount of housing their population needs. To someone in a country with out of control housing prices, that might sound like a good problem to have, but it's still wasteful.