6 ms·

You think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land as

by jm4 8y ago

You think people are homeless because there is not enough housing available in the city? How many homes do you think you could build on the same plot of land as a basketball arena? Several hundred? Maybe a thousand condos? That’s like spitting in the ocean. And then what? Give them away to the homeless? It’s not like they’re going to pay for them just because you made a few more available. Housing is expensive in big cities because there are jobs, amenities and entertainment for a diverse group of people. That entertainment includes sports.

alasdair_ 8y ago
Current estimate of homeless people in SF is a bit over 7000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci...) 1000 condos would be a massive boon.
- lukas099 8y ago
  Regardless, whether it's out of 10,000 or 1 million, that's 1 thousand people having homes that wouldn't have.
the_cat_kittles 8y ago
housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea. I think it’s more likely that mental illness and addiction are bigger factors, along with an absence of good interventions and an abuse of the prison system. Statistics showing a majority of American homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both certainly support that view over yours, and reveals the deep complexity of solving the problem. You can’t just shove someone from the streets into a house and call it a day, they need far more support than that.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
    Maybe it's a coincidence, but California has twice as many homeless people per capita as the rest of the US. It also has house prices roughly twice as high.
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      It also has sunny weather that tends to be milder in the winter than most other places, which if you’re sleeping rough must help. Beyond that I’d hesitate to draw too many conclusions based on correlation.
  - specialist 8y ago
    The working poor are the fastest growing segment of homelessness in my jurisdiction. That doesn't mean they're all living on the street. RVs, cars, shelters, etc. The causality of homelessness and addiction is more like a negative feedback loop. eg No insurance, get sick or injured, self medicate with alcohol or oxy, loose job, loose housing. The link between mental illness and homelessness is pretty straight forward.
  - JamisonM 8y ago
    Shoving people who need other supports into housing won't help homelessness for the people that need those other supports, but creating more affordability for people who need less serious interventions or are simply priced out of the market with help homelessness for them - whether those people make up the "majority" of the homeless or not. Solving the entire problem is more complex than more housing supply, that doesn't mean that more housing supply isn't an important part of the solution.
  - lsiebert 8y ago
    What statistics are those? Can you cite your sources? Because I've never seen anything that suggests that a majority of homeless people have addiction/mental illness problems. A higher percentage of such issues then the housed population, sure, but not a majority. AFAIK, you can find a direct correspondence between increased rental prices and increased homelessness, and that's the main contributor. https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordabil... I mean unless you go back to the 1970's before the U.S. Government literally decimated it's housing budget (https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/the-rise-of-homelessness-in-the-1980s https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/the-rise-of-homel...)
titanomachy 8y ago
There are people who are on the margin of being able to afford a rental. Increase in supply could slightly lower prices and allow those people to afford to rent a home. You're right of course that the poorest people would still be unable to afford homes. Building more homes would reduce homelessness but not eliminate it.
- jm4 8y ago
  Someone on the margin of affording a rental in SF isn’t homeless. They live someplace else that costs less. Why should taxpayers foot the bill to build more homes with the goal of making SF marginally more affordable when there are plenty of other good places to live? How is that better than some dumb stadium idea? And how long does it keep housing costs down? Those new homes will be gobbled up immediately and then the available inventory on the resale market will be back to about the same level as before.
  - the_cat_kittles 8y ago
    seems like vienna is a pretty good example of how you are wrong: https://crosscut.com/2017/06/homelessness-housing-crisis-seattle-vienna-solution https://crosscut.com/2017/06/homelessness-housing-crisis-sea...
  - notSupplied 8y ago
    Because the the best jobs are in SF, so scratching SF off of your list if you're in particular industries is too large of a sacrifice. The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that creates the problem. Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be considered a constituent of SF and their voice is as valid as that of a resident.
    - titanomachy 8y ago
      Yeah the city certainly benefits from their presence even if they don't pay property tax. NIMBYs are happy to profit off this as their property values soar, but they don't want to pay any of the cost.
Vervious 8y ago
It's like increasing the culture output in Civ
sgt101 8y ago
Also housing is expensive because there are not enough appropriate houses. Even in SF with the legendary homeless problems there 1000 people off the streets would make a gigantic impact. But what about building a giant homeless shelter instead of a stadium? Or.. how about having homeless dorms in the stadium? May be just trying would help?

by jm4 8y ago

alasdair_ 8y ago

Current estimate of homeless people in SF is a bit over 7000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_San_Franci...) 1000 condos would be a massive boon.

lukas099 8y ago
Regardless, whether it's out of 10,000 or 1 million, that's 1 thousand people having homes that wouldn't have.

the_cat_kittles 8y ago

housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
housing prices are definitely influenced by supply. and homelessness is definitely driven by housing prices. so, yea. I think it’s more likely that mental illness and addiction are bigger factors, along with an absence of good interventions and an abuse of the prison system. Statistics showing a majority of American homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both certainly support that view over yours, and reveals the deep complexity of solving the problem. You can’t just shove someone from the streets into a house and call it a day, they need far more support than that.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
  Maybe it's a coincidence, but California has twice as many homeless people per capita as the rest of the US. It also has house prices roughly twice as high.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    It also has sunny weather that tends to be milder in the winter than most other places, which if you’re sleeping rough must help. Beyond that I’d hesitate to draw too many conclusions based on correlation.
- specialist 8y ago
  The working poor are the fastest growing segment of homelessness in my jurisdiction. That doesn't mean they're all living on the street. RVs, cars, shelters, etc. The causality of homelessness and addiction is more like a negative feedback loop. eg No insurance, get sick or injured, self medicate with alcohol or oxy, loose job, loose housing. The link between mental illness and homelessness is pretty straight forward.
- JamisonM 8y ago
  Shoving people who need other supports into housing won't help homelessness for the people that need those other supports, but creating more affordability for people who need less serious interventions or are simply priced out of the market with help homelessness for them - whether those people make up the "majority" of the homeless or not. Solving the entire problem is more complex than more housing supply, that doesn't mean that more housing supply isn't an important part of the solution.
- lsiebert 8y ago
  What statistics are those? Can you cite your sources? Because I've never seen anything that suggests that a majority of homeless people have addiction/mental illness problems. A higher percentage of such issues then the housed population, sure, but not a majority. AFAIK, you can find a direct correspondence between increased rental prices and increased homelessness, and that's the main contributor. https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordabil... I mean unless you go back to the 1970's before the U.S. Government literally decimated it's housing budget (https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/the-rise-of-homelessness-in-the-1980s https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/the-rise-of-homel...)

titanomachy 8y ago

There are people who are on the margin of being able to afford a rental. Increase in supply could slightly lower prices and allow those people to afford to rent a home. You're right of course that the poorest people would still be unable to afford homes. Building more homes would reduce homelessness but not eliminate it.

jm4 8y ago
Someone on the margin of affording a rental in SF isn’t homeless. They live someplace else that costs less. Why should taxpayers foot the bill to build more homes with the goal of making SF marginally more affordable when there are plenty of other good places to live? How is that better than some dumb stadium idea? And how long does it keep housing costs down? Those new homes will be gobbled up immediately and then the available inventory on the resale market will be back to about the same level as before.
- the_cat_kittles 8y ago
  seems like vienna is a pretty good example of how you are wrong: https://crosscut.com/2017/06/homelessness-housing-crisis-seattle-vienna-solution https://crosscut.com/2017/06/homelessness-housing-crisis-sea...
- notSupplied 8y ago
  Because the the best jobs are in SF, so scratching SF off of your list if you're in particular industries is too large of a sacrifice. The problem with NIMBYism isn't saying no to building more homes per se, it is saying no to more homes while saying yes to more jobs and more commerce that creates the problem. Someone who works in SF, but lives 40 minutes away due to cost, should be considered a constituent of SF and their voice is as valid as that of a resident.
  - titanomachy 8y ago
    Yeah the city certainly benefits from their presence even if they don't pay property tax. NIMBYs are happy to profit off this as their property values soar, but they don't want to pay any of the cost.

Vervious 8y ago

It's like increasing the culture output in Civ

sgt101 8y ago

Also housing is expensive because there are not enough appropriate houses. Even in SF with the legendary homeless problems there 1000 people off the streets would make a gigantic impact. But what about building a giant homeless shelter instead of a stadium? Or.. how about having homeless dorms in the stadium? May be just trying would help?