This is a repeatedly debunked myth that does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
First, the number of vacant homes. The vast majority of these at any given time are vacant because they are on the market, someone has signed a lease but not moved in yet, or they are undergoing repairs. Of the homes that are legitimately vacant, many of these are in very poor shape, and in areas where no one wants to live. Suggesting that these homes are a solution to homelessness means that you want to send homeless people to live in condemned structures with no running water an hour outside of Detroit.
Second, the number of homeless. The number used in this factoid is only the number of chronically unhoused, often mentally ill homeless. These people need a lot of support and medical treatment. Sending them to live in a random vacant home, much less one with no running water an hour outside of Detroit, is not going to help them. But people spouting this factoid don't actually care about the homeless. They are simply a prop for a cute political point. If you counted the true number of homeless, sheltered, and housing-insecure folks, this dumb factoid wouldn't sound as good.
Third, the entire concept. Vacancies are lowest in the areas in the country with the highest homeless populations. So the entire implication that some evil (probably foreign) real estate investors are causing homelessness is baseless. The reality is that vacancies are mostly associated with how competitive the real estate market is, which is associated with the economic opportunities in an area vs the supply of housing. Higher vacancies means it is easier to find a place, which means that landlords get nervous and drop the rents. There was a very clear demonstration of this in San Francisco during 2020 when a lot of renters left. Rents dropped by 1/4 or more, while vacancies rose.
First, the number of vacant homes. The vast majority of these at any given time are vacant because they are on the market, someone has signed a lease but not moved in yet, or they are undergoing repairs. Of the homes that are legitimately vacant, many of these are in very poor shape, and in areas where no one wants to live. Suggesting that these homes are a solution to homelessness means that you want to send homeless people to live in condemned structures with no running water an hour outside of Detroit.
Second, the number of homeless. The number used in this factoid is only the number of chronically unhoused, often mentally ill homeless. These people need a lot of support and medical treatment. Sending them to live in a random vacant home, much less one with no running water an hour outside of Detroit, is not going to help them. But people spouting this factoid don't actually care about the homeless. They are simply a prop for a cute political point. If you counted the true number of homeless, sheltered, and housing-insecure folks, this dumb factoid wouldn't sound as good.
Third, the entire concept. Vacancies are lowest in the areas in the country with the highest homeless populations. So the entire implication that some evil (probably foreign) real estate investors are causing homelessness is baseless. The reality is that vacancies are mostly associated with how competitive the real estate market is, which is associated with the economic opportunities in an area vs the supply of housing. Higher vacancies means it is easier to find a place, which means that landlords get nervous and drop the rents. There was a very clear demonstration of this in San Francisco during 2020 when a lot of renters left. Rents dropped by 1/4 or more, while vacancies rose.