7 ms·

In a few of the threads, the mention of SROs and need for housing come up. Gentrification, affordable housing, etc. But, one question I fail to see answered w

In a few of the threads, the mention of SROs and need for housing come up. Gentrification, affordable housing, etc. But, one question I fail to see answered well is, why should a city that isn't affordable be required to find and provide housing for individuals in said city? I can't afford to live in Carmel, Los Altos, etc, but I live where I can afford. California has places like Modesto, Stockton, etc. that have available housing that is not expensive. I'm sure there are places in rural washington as well. Why not have the city partner with neighboring (affordable) municipalities and establish housing, maybe jobs and recovery programs, etc. at a fraction of the cost of trying to wedge the same into places like Seattle or Washington? A UC Santa Cruz / Civinomics study for homeless in Santa Cruz found roughly 2/3 of the individuals arrived here either on the edge or already homeless. At what point do municipalities say "enough" and put their own first? I have friends locally going back generations that can't afford to live here and move, yet I am told that someone living in their RV has every right to camp on the street and demand local services, yet arrived here recently.

intopieces 10y ago
> I can't afford to live in Carmel, Los Altos, etc, but I live where I can afford. Have you ever considered that maybe you should be able to afford to live in those places? That the wealthiest nation in the history of humanity ought to cultivate a society that encourages freedom of movement? That cordoning off sections exclusively for the rich leads to a decrease in empathy for the less fortunate? That safe housing and access to the amenities of a city ought not to be exclusively for those who happened to have the lucky combination of skills and money? Have you considered that the people you hope to exclude are people no different from you?
- microcolonel 10y ago
  The wealthiest nation in the history of humanity had the guts to build things they couldn't afford to give everyone. Some day everyone gets those things, and somebody like you will say: have you ever considered that maybe you should have a private aircraft? Inequalities like this only apply in the current frame of reference. Also, from the basic market perspective, it is entirely impossible for everyone to live in Carmel; and if everyone lived there, you'd want to live somewhere else.
- jmspring 10y ago
  My inlaws are from a part of Germany where I could buy a 60 square meter apartment for cash without really thinking about it (low 5 figures), my truck cost more. A similar sized apartment in Munich would be probably be at least 20x the cost. Should I expect the city of Munich to provide such a unit at a similar cost to the country side 3 hours away? No. No, I do not think every municipality has the requirement to provide affordable housing to everyone that has a desire to be there. Do I think regions need to do better at providing a balance of housing to accommodate the spectrum of people working jobs in the area? Yes. But should a single municipality be expected to accept everyone wanting to be there at a price that individual can afford? No. In the case of individuals (there are many in Santa Cruz) that don't want to work, want to live the way they want, and have done nothing for the community, the community has every right to say "no".
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  If we pretend scarcity doesn't exist, and that the proper way to deal with it isn't at least partially though the free market, then ok.
- gxs 10y ago
  Do you not see your own contradiction? If you want to give people freedom of movement, that includes giving like-minded people of similar means the right to cluster up and live where they choose. This is why it's so hard to take the "science" of economics and politics seriously. It's just arguing in circles. As for me- I'm with OP. I want to live in Beverly Hills, but tough shit I can't afford it so I live in Oakland close to my job. That said, we should keep opportunity open so that if someone wants to try to do something to generate enough value to be able to afford to live there, they should.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Does this mean that I'm entitled to have someone else give me a house for free anywhere I want to live? If not, where are the limits on this largesse?
- dave_sullivan 10y ago
  You're essentially arguing for a "name your price" eBay. Scarcity in real estate is very much a real thing. How do you determine who gets what, if not by "highest bidder"? I'm free to live anywhere I want provided I can find the coin; to me, that's the definition of fair. In fact, the more you mess with that basic concept, the more you ensure someone willing and able to pay will be (unfairly) locked out of the market.
- hueving 10y ago
  Under your scheme I demand a penthouse room on a 100+ story high rise with a view of central park. The idea that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want is untenable and frankly idiotic. It's the same as saying everyone can have as much gold as they demand.
wallace_f 10y ago
Economists and policy makers don't work in a competitive environment the way that software developers do. The arena is also extremely political, unscientific, and uncompetitive--no matter how much effort the field of econ has put forth in arguing that they are scientific, primarily through quantifying the study of economics, if you can't experiment, test, observe and reproduce you're not doing science. And no one ever was untrustworthy or incorrect using math and statistics, right? Nobody gets to make a hypothesis and conduct an experiment on 32 Seattles. Without the scientific method, I've come to learn not to expect much from the human race, what there is to see here is mostly just politics. Add to that a lack of competition (very high barriers to entry, little incentive structures to get involved seriously) in the market space for creating affordable housing... What we're left with is programs that are highly political and even often run counter to what most economists themselves would argue for: market-based solutions, lump-sum transfer payments(or at least in the form of housing vouchers), or no intervention at all.
putlake 10y ago
This is a good question. There are many reasons for a city to be responsible to its homeless citizens. e.g. 1. Many homeless people actually have a job in the city. 2. Many homeless people need access to services that are only available in cities. e.g. drug rehab. Having the methadone clinic close to where you live (even if you live in a tent under the freeway) significantly increases the odds that you will go there. If you live in a rural area and have to travel 40 miles every day to get your methadone, you'll not have a good chance of recovery.
- jmspring 10y ago
  Yes, large cities can provide services at scale, but two things again factor in: 1. The original commentor above has a good point, who pays? A lot of times, a regional issue ends up costing a single municipality the bulk of the costs (Seattle w/ the east side communities; Santa Cruz as the county seat) 2. Services for locals first. I hope she has left, but here in SC, we had one young lady from Santa Barbara that was arrested over 15 times (i think 30 to date all told) for assorted drug and theft issues. She was still getting services from local homeless services. She arrived here, hopped on the Santa Cruz heroin/meth downward spiral and made a nuisance of herself. Honestly, I'm surprised she's survived this long, but as a community that she was new to, what obligation do we actually have to offer her a seat at the services table versus the grizzled vet or other local who's been here for years? Re: (2), municipalities should have an obligation to say "no". Unfortunately, I don't know about other areas, but locally, there is a cottage industry (hundreds of individuals employed, upwards of mid 8-figure overall budgets) around "homelessness". I am jaded, but locally when I hear "we want to cure homelessness", I know it's bullshit because the number of jobs that would be lost would be in the hundreds if not thousands. I also know, locally, those "in charge" preach "best practices" without any real evidence beyond arguing and name calling when you ask about results.
  - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
    Where do those people who serve you fancy food in restaurants and coffee shops on Pacific Avenue supposed to live?
apendleton 10y ago
There are several answers to this question. On a moral level: major cities are the economic engines of the US, and are unrivaled in the opportunities they can offer their residents, in terms of education, employment, upward mobility, etc. I don't think you have to think everyone should have a right to live wherever they want to be uncomfortable with the idea that only people that already come from money should have access to those opportunities, just like a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea that only rich people should be able to go to college. It smells of entrenched aristocracy of the kind that at least in theory Americans aren't wild about. On a more practical level: even many (most?) gentrifiers with money like to live in vibrant and diverse cities. They want there to be people to work in their coffee shops and clean their officers, and they want access to the pho joints and bodegas that come with immigrant populations. That requires making accommodations for people less well of than them to be able to live in their cities.
- jmspring 10y ago
  I don't live in a major city, I live, ostensibly in a suburb of San Jose/Silicon Valley (have for 25 years, and a bay area native). Living close to Silicon Valley (being in tech) as well as being a part of a community that is tied tightly to agriculture, looking at how people work and what they require/demand from society is interesting. Santa Cruz, based off of really questionable "point in time counts", has a homeless population of around 3500. If Santa Cruz was to scale to the size of San Francisco, we'd have nearly 50k homeless. Basically 5% which is absolutely nuts. We are a mixed community, tech, service, labor, farm, etc. Even with a "day labor" center, I daily see individuals from central and south america looking for work. Do I see the "indigent" white kids freeloading downtown trying to work? No. There should be a need to require (or at least work towards a path of) doing something gainful for the community in exchange for services, housing, and rehab. Homelessness is a real issue. Unfortunately, the majority of those in the "industry" can't/won't/refuse to distinguish different categories and that is a problem. The 20-something meth-head from Santa Barbara, I reached out to her "friends" on Facebook to get her the hell out of the local spiral, no response. Our community owes her nothing. A friend of mine who lived across the street, works in the arts, couldn't find a single room rental in his budget is currently couch surfing and thinking about an RV/Van, he's been here 20 years; I'm trying to help him out. He has enough contacts/etc, to not enter the system based off of a housing need, he's an exception. The system should provide for locals and those with a track record of ties. Yet, in liberal areas, like the military industrial complex, there is a homeless industrial complex...Non-profits and others that "mean well", but require those state, federal, and private dollars to "do good" and justify bloated salaries. If "homelessness" was cured in Santa Cruz tomorrow, I estimate that 1000 people would be out of a job, at the least. I understand the need for non-profits and those willing to do the hard job, but many times "compassion" is bandied about as a means to milk $$ and do nothing.
ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
Who is going to serve that latte at Whole Foods Los Altos? Where are they going to live?
- gxs 10y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with this, but FYI the thinking goes something like this: If people truly don't want to come in and work in the city/expensive area, the market should take care of it. Eventually wages will have to rise to where it's worth it for someone to take that job, either because the higher wage makes the commute worth it or the higher wage enables them to live in the area.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    It'll be a coffee bot first.
habosa 10y ago
What happens when you have no affordable housing in cities is an impossible situation for low-wage workers. All the jobs are in the city, all the homes are outside the city, and the cost of traveling back and forth is very high relative to the pay. Also you need socioeconomic diversity to have all of the things that make up a high-quality urban or suburban life. You need doctors, lawyers, and bankers but also bartenders and cashiers. If you only have one or the other, it won't be a very enjoyable place to live. Building affordable housing can achieve this type of diversity, whereas a free market approach will likely do the opposite.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  What can happen is the for the counties / cities to provide subsidized housing for those making below a certain age and working in that country / city. I have seen this happen and lived next to a community like that. It was a peaceful and nice place, well maintained without the associated stereotypes for a such a community. It was mostly taxi drivers, service workers, construction, recent immigrants and so on.
- shuw 10y ago
  If there's a scarcity of bartenders or cashiers, then their wages will go up until that scarcity is filled.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - habosa 10y ago
    In a theoretical economy, maybe. In reality you'll have a small increase in wages, but likely business owners being chronically short staffed, going out of business, or choosing not to start a business. Even if wages to go up perfectly like in an econ textbook, that will increase the cost of goods and services which may not matter much for the wealthy residents but will make the city much less attractive for visitors/tourists and cut into the elevated wages. Remember, workers are consumers. There's also the issue that raising wages will not fix the problem if landlords capture the wage increase by raising the price of housing. It's all about buying power, the absolute numbers mean nothing. The free market can't solve all of our problems, and even if it could housing in particular is too important to wait on supply and demand forces to fix everything. Moving has very high material/time/emotional costs and humans need uninterrupted housing to maintain a decent life.
gumby 10y ago
> But, one question I fail to see answered well is, why should a city that isn't affordable be required to find and provide housing for individuals in said city? I can't afford to live in Carmel, Los Altos, etc, but I live where I can afford. Well to be selfish about it: Palo Alto was a much more interesting place to live before the SRO hotels were converted to boutique hotels and before the city council sold out the prior commitment to Section 8 housing and diversity. Until the early '00s we had a lower median income than MP, MV & LA much less PV and LAH. Also I like that my housekeeper lives in town only a mile or so from me; that one of her kids is a scout like my son, that her kids go to the palo alto schools. I wish the cops's kids did too -- there would be less stress between the cops and citizens.

intopieces 10y ago

> I can't afford to live in Carmel, Los Altos, etc, but I live where I can afford. Have you ever considered that maybe you should be able to afford to live in those places? That the wealthiest nation in the history of humanity ought to cultivate a society that encourages freedom of movement? That cordoning off sections exclusively for the rich leads to a decrease in empathy for the less fortunate? That safe housing and access to the amenities of a city ought not to be exclusively for those who happened to have the lucky combination of skills and money? Have you considered that the people you hope to exclude are people no different from you?

microcolonel 10y ago
The wealthiest nation in the history of humanity had the guts to build things they couldn't afford to give everyone. Some day everyone gets those things, and somebody like you will say: have you ever considered that maybe you should have a private aircraft? Inequalities like this only apply in the current frame of reference. Also, from the basic market perspective, it is entirely impossible for everyone to live in Carmel; and if everyone lived there, you'd want to live somewhere else.
jmspring 10y ago
My inlaws are from a part of Germany where I could buy a 60 square meter apartment for cash without really thinking about it (low 5 figures), my truck cost more. A similar sized apartment in Munich would be probably be at least 20x the cost. Should I expect the city of Munich to provide such a unit at a similar cost to the country side 3 hours away? No. No, I do not think every municipality has the requirement to provide affordable housing to everyone that has a desire to be there. Do I think regions need to do better at providing a balance of housing to accommodate the spectrum of people working jobs in the area? Yes. But should a single municipality be expected to accept everyone wanting to be there at a price that individual can afford? No. In the case of individuals (there are many in Santa Cruz) that don't want to work, want to live the way they want, and have done nothing for the community, the community has every right to say "no".
jknoepfler 10y ago
If we pretend scarcity doesn't exist, and that the proper way to deal with it isn't at least partially though the free market, then ok.
gxs 10y ago
Do you not see your own contradiction? If you want to give people freedom of movement, that includes giving like-minded people of similar means the right to cluster up and live where they choose. This is why it's so hard to take the "science" of economics and politics seriously. It's just arguing in circles. As for me- I'm with OP. I want to live in Beverly Hills, but tough shit I can't afford it so I live in Oakland close to my job. That said, we should keep opportunity open so that if someone wants to try to do something to generate enough value to be able to afford to live there, they should.
WalterBright 10y ago
Does this mean that I'm entitled to have someone else give me a house for free anywhere I want to live? If not, where are the limits on this largesse?
dave_sullivan 10y ago
You're essentially arguing for a "name your price" eBay. Scarcity in real estate is very much a real thing. How do you determine who gets what, if not by "highest bidder"? I'm free to live anywhere I want provided I can find the coin; to me, that's the definition of fair. In fact, the more you mess with that basic concept, the more you ensure someone willing and able to pay will be (unfairly) locked out of the market.
hueving 10y ago
Under your scheme I demand a penthouse room on a 100+ story high rise with a view of central park. The idea that everyone has a right to live anywhere they want is untenable and frankly idiotic. It's the same as saying everyone can have as much gold as they demand.

wallace_f 10y ago

Economists and policy makers don't work in a competitive environment the way that software developers do. The arena is also extremely political, unscientific, and uncompetitive--no matter how much effort the field of econ has put forth in arguing that they are scientific, primarily through quantifying the study of economics, if you can't experiment, test, observe and reproduce you're not doing science. And no one ever was untrustworthy or incorrect using math and statistics, right? Nobody gets to make a hypothesis and conduct an experiment on 32 Seattles. Without the scientific method, I've come to learn not to expect much from the human race, what there is to see here is mostly just politics. Add to that a lack of competition (very high barriers to entry, little incentive structures to get involved seriously) in the market space for creating affordable housing... What we're left with is programs that are highly political and even often run counter to what most economists themselves would argue for: market-based solutions, lump-sum transfer payments(or at least in the form of housing vouchers), or no intervention at all.

putlake 10y ago

This is a good question. There are many reasons for a city to be responsible to its homeless citizens. e.g. 1. Many homeless people actually have a job in the city. 2. Many homeless people need access to services that are only available in cities. e.g. drug rehab. Having the methadone clinic close to where you live (even if you live in a tent under the freeway) significantly increases the odds that you will go there. If you live in a rural area and have to travel 40 miles every day to get your methadone, you'll not have a good chance of recovery.

jmspring 10y ago
Yes, large cities can provide services at scale, but two things again factor in: 1. The original commentor above has a good point, who pays? A lot of times, a regional issue ends up costing a single municipality the bulk of the costs (Seattle w/ the east side communities; Santa Cruz as the county seat) 2. Services for locals first. I hope she has left, but here in SC, we had one young lady from Santa Barbara that was arrested over 15 times (i think 30 to date all told) for assorted drug and theft issues. She was still getting services from local homeless services. She arrived here, hopped on the Santa Cruz heroin/meth downward spiral and made a nuisance of herself. Honestly, I'm surprised she's survived this long, but as a community that she was new to, what obligation do we actually have to offer her a seat at the services table versus the grizzled vet or other local who's been here for years? Re: (2), municipalities should have an obligation to say "no". Unfortunately, I don't know about other areas, but locally, there is a cottage industry (hundreds of individuals employed, upwards of mid 8-figure overall budgets) around "homelessness". I am jaded, but locally when I hear "we want to cure homelessness", I know it's bullshit because the number of jobs that would be lost would be in the hundreds if not thousands. I also know, locally, those "in charge" preach "best practices" without any real evidence beyond arguing and name calling when you ask about results.
- ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
  Where do those people who serve you fancy food in restaurants and coffee shops on Pacific Avenue supposed to live?

apendleton 10y ago

There are several answers to this question. On a moral level: major cities are the economic engines of the US, and are unrivaled in the opportunities they can offer their residents, in terms of education, employment, upward mobility, etc. I don't think you have to think everyone should have a right to live wherever they want to be uncomfortable with the idea that only people that already come from money should have access to those opportunities, just like a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea that only rich people should be able to go to college. It smells of entrenched aristocracy of the kind that at least in theory Americans aren't wild about. On a more practical level: even many (most?) gentrifiers with money like to live in vibrant and diverse cities. They want there to be people to work in their coffee shops and clean their officers, and they want access to the pho joints and bodegas that come with immigrant populations. That requires making accommodations for people less well of than them to be able to live in their cities.

jmspring 10y ago
I don't live in a major city, I live, ostensibly in a suburb of San Jose/Silicon Valley (have for 25 years, and a bay area native). Living close to Silicon Valley (being in tech) as well as being a part of a community that is tied tightly to agriculture, looking at how people work and what they require/demand from society is interesting. Santa Cruz, based off of really questionable "point in time counts", has a homeless population of around 3500. If Santa Cruz was to scale to the size of San Francisco, we'd have nearly 50k homeless. Basically 5% which is absolutely nuts. We are a mixed community, tech, service, labor, farm, etc. Even with a "day labor" center, I daily see individuals from central and south america looking for work. Do I see the "indigent" white kids freeloading downtown trying to work? No. There should be a need to require (or at least work towards a path of) doing something gainful for the community in exchange for services, housing, and rehab. Homelessness is a real issue. Unfortunately, the majority of those in the "industry" can't/won't/refuse to distinguish different categories and that is a problem. The 20-something meth-head from Santa Barbara, I reached out to her "friends" on Facebook to get her the hell out of the local spiral, no response. Our community owes her nothing. A friend of mine who lived across the street, works in the arts, couldn't find a single room rental in his budget is currently couch surfing and thinking about an RV/Van, he's been here 20 years; I'm trying to help him out. He has enough contacts/etc, to not enter the system based off of a housing need, he's an exception. The system should provide for locals and those with a track record of ties. Yet, in liberal areas, like the military industrial complex, there is a homeless industrial complex...Non-profits and others that "mean well", but require those state, federal, and private dollars to "do good" and justify bloated salaries. If "homelessness" was cured in Santa Cruz tomorrow, I estimate that 1000 people would be out of a job, at the least. I understand the need for non-profits and those willing to do the hard job, but many times "compassion" is bandied about as a means to milk $$ and do nothing.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

Who is going to serve that latte at Whole Foods Los Altos? Where are they going to live?

gxs 10y ago
I don't necessarily agree with this, but FYI the thinking goes something like this: If people truly don't want to come in and work in the city/expensive area, the market should take care of it. Eventually wages will have to rise to where it's worth it for someone to take that job, either because the higher wage makes the commute worth it or the higher wage enables them to live in the area.
- sjg007 10y ago
  It'll be a coffee bot first.

habosa 10y ago

What happens when you have no affordable housing in cities is an impossible situation for low-wage workers. All the jobs are in the city, all the homes are outside the city, and the cost of traveling back and forth is very high relative to the pay. Also you need socioeconomic diversity to have all of the things that make up a high-quality urban or suburban life. You need doctors, lawyers, and bankers but also bartenders and cashiers. If you only have one or the other, it won't be a very enjoyable place to live. Building affordable housing can achieve this type of diversity, whereas a free market approach will likely do the opposite.

rdtsc 10y ago
What can happen is the for the counties / cities to provide subsidized housing for those making below a certain age and working in that country / city. I have seen this happen and lived next to a community like that. It was a peaceful and nice place, well maintained without the associated stereotypes for a such a community. It was mostly taxi drivers, service workers, construction, recent immigrants and so on.
shuw 10y ago
If there's a scarcity of bartenders or cashiers, then their wages will go up until that scarcity is filled.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- habosa 10y ago
  In a theoretical economy, maybe. In reality you'll have a small increase in wages, but likely business owners being chronically short staffed, going out of business, or choosing not to start a business. Even if wages to go up perfectly like in an econ textbook, that will increase the cost of goods and services which may not matter much for the wealthy residents but will make the city much less attractive for visitors/tourists and cut into the elevated wages. Remember, workers are consumers. There's also the issue that raising wages will not fix the problem if landlords capture the wage increase by raising the price of housing. It's all about buying power, the absolute numbers mean nothing. The free market can't solve all of our problems, and even if it could housing in particular is too important to wait on supply and demand forces to fix everything. Moving has very high material/time/emotional costs and humans need uninterrupted housing to maintain a decent life.

gumby 10y ago

> But, one question I fail to see answered well is, why should a city that isn't affordable be required to find and provide housing for individuals in said city? I can't afford to live in Carmel, Los Altos, etc, but I live where I can afford. Well to be selfish about it: Palo Alto was a much more interesting place to live before the SRO hotels were converted to boutique hotels and before the city council sold out the prior commitment to Section 8 housing and diversity. Until the early '00s we had a lower median income than MP, MV & LA much less PV and LAH. Also I like that my housekeeper lives in town only a mile or so from me; that one of her kids is a scout like my son, that her kids go to the palo alto schools. I wish the cops's kids did too -- there would be less stress between the cops and citizens.