Try the political quiz
+

Sort by

Filters

Discussions tagged as:

Choose more filters:

Options

 @9MN6C94 from Texas answered…25mins25m

Yes, but only if they are trying to get a job or already have one

 @9MN3HZG from California answered…28mins28m

No, funding should try to address the causes of homelessness. Priority should be on creating equal opportunities for hom…

 @9MN587F from Wisconsin answered…1hr1H

in places like New York and California yes because they have very high population but in places like Montana where popul…

 @9MN4X2K from California answered…1hr1H

No, but but fund more public shelters and low income or free housing, such as tiny homes for those who need to get back…

 @9MN3DDP from Connecticut answered…2hrs2H

Goverment should reduce regulatory burden on builders to reduce cost of housing.

 @Fearless261from Georgia  answered…2hrs2H

Yes - But only if there is more than 3 years of timely payments on record.

 @9MN37YC from Virginia answered…2hrs2H

I would say yes and no, i believe that there should be grounds for homeless people in parts of not accepting shelter, bu…

 @9MMY8QC from Ohio answered…4hrs4H

Yes, they should be allowed to camp on public property, but only from certain hours and only for so many days. No long t…

 @9MMVN85 from Minnesota answered…5hrs5H

We need more apartments because the population is growing quickly, but houses are very important, for families and not e…

 @9MMVMKS from Texas answered…5hrs5H

Dependence on worth of house and the persons income. If its where someone cant afford a basic house then yes, but if som…

 @9MMTXQY from Wisconsin answered…6hrs6H

I believe yes but only in certain areas. For example, they could scare kids if they sleep at a playground.

 @9MMTS58 from Indiana answered…6hrs6H

If the first time buyer meets minimum requirements

 @9MMS87Z from Hawaii answered…6hrs6H

There should be alotted places for them to camp and can continue living in which they currently wish (assuming they do n…

 @9MMRX8D from Virginia answered…7hrs7H

I think the answer would be no for me, because these buildings would take up more space that could have been used to pla…

 @9MMRWGV from Minnesota answered…7hrs7H

No, instead take homes that have been on the market for awhile and make them more affordable

 @9MMJGLG from North Carolina answered…16hrs16H

yes but give them specific areas to sleep at bc they cant be at every public area bc some homeless people be doing thing…

 @9MMHXMM from California answered…17hrs17H

No, but I think if we invested more in better temporary housing, food, and better public healthcare - it would really de…

 @9MMHKYX from Washington answered…17hrs17H

No, but provide more free shelters for the homeless and social programs to get people back on their feet.

 @9MMH4RL from Virginia answered…18hrs18H

Yes, but only for those homeowners who are truly trying to pay their mortgage, and not being irresponsible with their fi…

 @9MMGZ2G from California answered…18hrs18H

yes but only if homeowners are facing foreclosure due to job loss, Medical reasons or a unforeseen situation not caused…

 @9MMFML6 from Louisiana answered…18hrs18H

Yes, but if homeowners do not show improvement on mortgage payment in months after receiving financial support/loans, fo…

 @7Y7VN8H from Florida answered…20hrs20H

Yes but, the homeless person should remove themselves from the property when the building opens for business as usual. N…

 @9MMFD7J from Massachusetts answered…20hrs20H

Yes but done in a way and place that is safe to do and okay for places to handle a boom in population.

 @9MMCWY5 from Florida answered…21hrs21H

Yes, as long as they remove themselves when the public building opens for business or regular operations. No loitering o…