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.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Homelessness 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.

    • Nahvi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      While 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.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don't doubt that religious people donate a lot to the things they agree with. But voting for selfish policies in order to serve your own conscience, needs, and wants goes directly against the altruistism of scripture. Government doesn't get a pass on doing good.