3 ms·

Mental health is one reason why people are homeless but it's not the only one. The reasons you're bringing up are strawmen at best. The people who are homeless

Mental health is one reason why people are homeless but it's not the only one. The reasons you're bringing up are strawmen at best. The people who are homeless or on the brink of homelessness are not complaining about artisanal food stuffs. In Oakland, a family of 4 has been living in a single family home for 15 years. This year, after new owners purchased the property, the rent went up 100% in one year. Needless to say, they are facing a housing crisis where they will be homeless. If you want to understand the severity of the situation, I suggest just literally googling "homelessness housing crisis bay area" and read all the both qualitative and quantitive reporting done on the issue. Here's a brief stat overview to refute your claim that it's a "mental issue" primarily: http://www.socialsolutions.com/blog/2016-homelessness-statistics/ http://www.socialsolutions.com/blog/2016-homelessness-statis...

rsync 9y ago
"If you want to understand the severity of the situation, I suggest just literally googling "homelessness housing crisis bay area" and read all the both qualitative and quantitive reporting done on the issue." As a resident of the bay area I assure you that I read about this topic every single day - and consume a wide range of reporting and editorial.[1] "... the rent went up 100% in one year. Needless to say, they are facing a housing crisis where they will be homeless." That's not obvious at all. Certainly that's a very difficult situation and I suppose it is technically true that they will indeed be homeless as they physically move their bodies to their new home ... but there is nothing at all new or noteworthy about people making rational economic decisions about what they can and cannot afford - and voting with their feet for new locales. The only thing that's new (and this is something I encounter more and more frequently, especially in the bay area) is the idea that not only is housing a basic human right but housing in an arbitrary location without any consideration of ones actual economic status is a basic human right. This is, I am afraid, absurd. I am open-minded about the notion of housing as a human right. I completely reject the notion of housing wherever one most prefers[2] as a basic human right (or any kind of right whatsoever). [1] 48 Hills, for example. [2] Where you grew up, where you raised your kids, where the cool restaurants are, where the artists are at ... etc.
- foldr 9y ago
  It's not "housing where one most prefers" in this instance, it's "housing where you're already lived for years, and where your children go to school".
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    Honestly, counting on being able to rent a single family home for an extended period of time is insane. That they were able to live there for over a decade makes them an outlier. Most single family homes are owned by individuals. Individuals and/or their heirs often need liquidity, so rental houses are way more likely to change hands than apartment buildings.
    - foldr 9y ago
      Who said they were counting on it? The point is that this is a problem that could be ameliorated by simple regulations. In NYC, for example, it would not be possible to increase someone's rent by 100%.
- SandersAK 9y ago
  The notion of "a fundamental right to housing" isn't about "where cool restaurants are." It's a starting point and a framework for how you solve the problem. There are complications that we definitely have to figure out (including where etc) but the conversation always comes back to the strawman of "well it's just not fair to buyers, and those people need to make better economic decisions." If a person is paying $1000 a month, and sees a 2% increase every year and can afford it, but then can't afford a 100% increase in one year, are you saying they made bad economic decisions? OR that they should have anticipated the housing market to shift so drastically? Of course not, because, as you said, it is absurd to not consider ones actual economic status. Wrt to the newly homeless who have been evicted - i think it is convenient to chalk this up to market economics, but the truth is that zoning, housing, and rental laws have created an environment where you are seeing mass displacement of people. You may say "well that's the market" but you might feel different if it was you and yours. It also trivializes the value those people bring to their communities, and the lag effect in economic production their displacement will invariably produce. Longer commutes = less productivity (http://www.cityam.com/265145/heres-just-much-impact-long-commutes-have-health-and http://www.cityam.com/265145/heres-just-much-impact-long-com...). I don't disagree that you need to consider economic status, but in that vein, it's worth considering that housing laws help us define the values we want in a community and sometimes those are not always economic. At the end of the day, there is pretty conclusive evidence that building more affordable housing is good for cities.

rsync 9y ago

"If you want to understand the severity of the situation, I suggest just literally googling "homelessness housing crisis bay area" and read all the both qualitative and quantitive reporting done on the issue." As a resident of the bay area I assure you that I read about this topic every single day - and consume a wide range of reporting and editorial.[1] "... the rent went up 100% in one year. Needless to say, they are facing a housing crisis where they will be homeless." That's not obvious at all. Certainly that's a very difficult situation and I suppose it is technically true that they will indeed be homeless as they physically move their bodies to their new home ... but there is nothing at all new or noteworthy about people making rational economic decisions about what they can and cannot afford - and voting with their feet for new locales. The only thing that's new (and this is something I encounter more and more frequently, especially in the bay area) is the idea that not only is housing a basic human right but housing in an arbitrary location without any consideration of ones actual economic status is a basic human right. This is, I am afraid, absurd. I am open-minded about the notion of housing as a human right. I completely reject the notion of housing wherever one most prefers[2] as a basic human right (or any kind of right whatsoever). [1] 48 Hills, for example. [2] Where you grew up, where you raised your kids, where the cool restaurants are, where the artists are at ... etc.

foldr 9y ago
It's not "housing where one most prefers" in this instance, it's "housing where you're already lived for years, and where your children go to school".
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  Honestly, counting on being able to rent a single family home for an extended period of time is insane. That they were able to live there for over a decade makes them an outlier. Most single family homes are owned by individuals. Individuals and/or their heirs often need liquidity, so rental houses are way more likely to change hands than apartment buildings.
  - foldr 9y ago
    Who said they were counting on it? The point is that this is a problem that could be ameliorated by simple regulations. In NYC, for example, it would not be possible to increase someone's rent by 100%.
SandersAK 9y ago
The notion of "a fundamental right to housing" isn't about "where cool restaurants are." It's a starting point and a framework for how you solve the problem. There are complications that we definitely have to figure out (including where etc) but the conversation always comes back to the strawman of "well it's just not fair to buyers, and those people need to make better economic decisions." If a person is paying $1000 a month, and sees a 2% increase every year and can afford it, but then can't afford a 100% increase in one year, are you saying they made bad economic decisions? OR that they should have anticipated the housing market to shift so drastically? Of course not, because, as you said, it is absurd to not consider ones actual economic status. Wrt to the newly homeless who have been evicted - i think it is convenient to chalk this up to market economics, but the truth is that zoning, housing, and rental laws have created an environment where you are seeing mass displacement of people. You may say "well that's the market" but you might feel different if it was you and yours. It also trivializes the value those people bring to their communities, and the lag effect in economic production their displacement will invariably produce. Longer commutes = less productivity (http://www.cityam.com/265145/heres-just-much-impact-long-commutes-have-health-and http://www.cityam.com/265145/heres-just-much-impact-long-com...). I don't disagree that you need to consider economic status, but in that vein, it's worth considering that housing laws help us define the values we want in a community and sometimes those are not always economic. At the end of the day, there is pretty conclusive evidence that building more affordable housing is good for cities.