The threshold for deciding if a house can be condemned should be based on if living in it is worse than living on the streets

Exceptions: if kids or dependents live in the house, the state should be allowed to relocate them based on a different threshold. And if the house is being rented, there should be a higher standard of amenities for it to be rentable. If the house is causing pollution or sewage to spill into the surrounding environment, or is super close to other houses and poses a fire risk, then that ofcourse needs to be addressed.

But if you are an adult and own the house, you should be able to take whatever risk you want to live there. If there’s a massive mold or vermin infestation, water leaks, even a significant risk of collapse. If someone is chosing to live in a house rather than the streets, chances are it’s better than the streets. Chances are condemning it and forcing them to live on the streets produces a worse outcome.

Heck, I’ve heard in many cases it is probably cheaper for the state to help bring the house up to code, compared to all the outcomes of condemning someones house, putting their kids into foster care, etc. Obviously not for every house. I don’t know enough about it, but if that is the case, why not just help bring it up to code in the cheapest manner possible?

Also, I get living on the streets might be different fir everyone. Someone might sleep in a crackhouse, some might live in a car and go to the library or gym. But I guess if a person hasn’t abandoned their house yet, it is probably better to keep living there for them.