5 ms·

> I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever. Everyone is doing that. It's helping the SF landlords, it's not helping the homeless.

> I could picture living there for a few years at most, but not forever. Everyone is doing that. It's helping the SF landlords, it's not helping the homeless. If more people treated SF as a long-term city to put down roots, it would probably be in better shape. How you treat a place changes drastically when you actually own property there. Instead most people make their money and leave, contributing nothing.

hx87 10y ago
How would people putting down roots help the homeless? Boston is a more rooted city, and homelessness is almost as common. The constant moving only helps landlords because the city disallows anyone from building any new housing anywhere.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  There is more of an incentive for a rooted community to solve the homelessness problem. I've lived in both Boston and SF and the pervasive homelessness in SF is much much worse.
Kurtz79 10y ago
It might be one of the causes, but it's sort of naive to consider it as the main one. SF is not the only big city with a major influx of people coming there for work, I have seen quite a few European and American major cities, but "armies" of homeless out in the open like in SF I really haven't seen anywhere else. It's probably a mix of causes, not least the very mild climate, if I were homeless I would rather spend a winter on the streets of SF rather than in Boston or NYC, or a summer in Houston...
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Never in my comment did I write or imply that it was the main one. World of difference between "probably would be in better shape" and "definitely would be perfect."
stale2002 10y ago
No. The rooted people are the ones causing the problem of homelessness, not solving it. Solving the homeless problem is dead simple easy. The solution is to build more houses. Every apartment that gets built, is 1 less person being gentrified onto the streets. The rooted people are the ones preventing developers from building more, because they don't want competition, and they want their housing prices to stay high. Renters, are the ones getting screwed by this, because they have to pay the high rents that wouldn't exist without the artificially created barriers to entry.
- arebop 10y ago
  Are people really being gentrified onto the streets? You really think high-functioning people are becoming homeless for want of $3000/month income to pay rent? I doubt this very much; if I became unable to pay rent in the most expensive city on the continent, I'd move to a city that costs 20% as much before I moved onto the sidewalk. Gentrification and land use policies are real problems in SF, but homelessness I think is mostly due to addictions and mental illness, not really the lack of adequate housing.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  You're not talking about rooted people in the same way I am... I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent. I'm talking about people who actually live in the homes they own and have to deal with homelessness in their neighborhood. You're talking about landlords who own lots of property in SF but go home to their mansions in Sausalito or Palo Alto. My point exactly agrees with you. SF needs less landlords and more homeowners.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    The home owners are the ones stopping new houses from being built. Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.
    - 10y ago

hx87 10y ago

How would people putting down roots help the homeless? Boston is a more rooted city, and homelessness is almost as common. The constant moving only helps landlords because the city disallows anyone from building any new housing anywhere.

saynsedit 10y ago
There is more of an incentive for a rooted community to solve the homelessness problem. I've lived in both Boston and SF and the pervasive homelessness in SF is much much worse.

Kurtz79 10y ago

It might be one of the causes, but it's sort of naive to consider it as the main one. SF is not the only big city with a major influx of people coming there for work, I have seen quite a few European and American major cities, but "armies" of homeless out in the open like in SF I really haven't seen anywhere else. It's probably a mix of causes, not least the very mild climate, if I were homeless I would rather spend a winter on the streets of SF rather than in Boston or NYC, or a summer in Houston...

saynsedit 10y ago
Never in my comment did I write or imply that it was the main one. World of difference between "probably would be in better shape" and "definitely would be perfect."

stale2002 10y ago

No. The rooted people are the ones causing the problem of homelessness, not solving it. Solving the homeless problem is dead simple easy. The solution is to build more houses. Every apartment that gets built, is 1 less person being gentrified onto the streets. The rooted people are the ones preventing developers from building more, because they don't want competition, and they want their housing prices to stay high. Renters, are the ones getting screwed by this, because they have to pay the high rents that wouldn't exist without the artificially created barriers to entry.

arebop 10y ago
Are people really being gentrified onto the streets? You really think high-functioning people are becoming homeless for want of $3000/month income to pay rent? I doubt this very much; if I became unable to pay rent in the most expensive city on the continent, I'd move to a city that costs 20% as much before I moved onto the sidewalk. Gentrification and land use policies are real problems in SF, but homelessness I think is mostly due to addictions and mental illness, not really the lack of adequate housing.
saynsedit 10y ago
You're not talking about rooted people in the same way I am... I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent. I'm talking about people who actually live in the homes they own and have to deal with homelessness in their neighborhood. You're talking about landlords who own lots of property in SF but go home to their mansions in Sausalito or Palo Alto. My point exactly agrees with you. SF needs less landlords and more homeowners.
- stale2002 10y ago
  The home owners are the ones stopping new houses from being built. Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.
  - 10y ago