6 ms·

Many of these homes probably aren’t “empty” in the sense that someone’s just holding on to them long term. This article is citing the vacancy rate, which includ

by flaque 7y ago

Many of these homes probably aren’t “empty” in the sense that someone’s just holding on to them long term. This article is citing the vacancy rate, which includes rentals where someone left and the landlord is trying to find a new tenant. Any city will have some % of empty rentals, if it didn’t, no one would ever move around. According to the US Census, [1] San Francisco’s vacancy rate is 5.4%, New York’s is 4.5%, and Seattle is 4.8%. But many cities have 10%+ or higher. It’s pretty disingenuous to say these homes are truly empty or that they’re a sign that “we don’t have a housing crisis” as the Moms 4 Housing group suggested in the article. It’s just a misunderstood statistic being weaponized against building more housing. If you want to help homeless folks, build more housing and put them in it. If you want your rent to go down, build more housing. If you want your cost of living to go down, build more housing. [1] https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann18ind.html https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann18ind.html

earlINmeyerkeg 7y ago
Isn't like 90% of the homeless population people with a significant mental illness that they cannot provide for themselves? That's because the normal competent people don't remain homeless long and just need short term temporary assistant. Whereas the large portion of homeless actually are not competent enough to support themselves.
- huevosabio 7y ago
  It's about 26% Source (pg 22, Mental Illness + Alcohol / Drug Use): http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-2019-San-Francisco.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-201...
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    It sounds like by "it" you mean the percentage of homeless with a significant mental illness..."that they cannot provide for themselves" (whatever the sentence was meant to mean). But the only 26% on that page is this: "Over one-quarter (26%) of respondents identified job loss as the primary cause of their homelessness. "
- jlmorton 7y ago
  No [1]. Only 8% of the currently homeless population became homeless because of mental illness. People with mental illnesses are by far the most visible of the homeless, because they are crazy. But they make up a minority of the population. 18% became homeless because of drug, or alcohol abuse. 42% report drug, or alcohol usage, even if that might not be the cause of their homelessness. 39% report psychiatric issues, even if that might not be the cause of their homelessness. [1] http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-2019-San-Francisco.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-201...
  - robbyking 7y ago
    Thank you for your post. I think there is often a skewed perception of people experiencing homelessness because more often than not they only see the people who have the greatest issues with mental health and addiction.
- forwhomst 7y ago
  No, not even close. The nationwide rate of mental illness among homeless people is about one in four, or quadruple the rate of all people. But in the Bay Area where housing pressure is more severe the rate of mental illness among the homeless is actually lower, because there are just more “normal people” among them.
notJim 7y ago
> build more housing and put them in it This is exactly what they want. Their contention is that SB50 doesn't place enough emphasis on affordability, so developers will mostly build market-rate housing. If you build enough market rate housing, the prices do eventually come down, but that takes a while to happen. During that time, a lot of people can lose their homes, especially since lower-income areas can be the most profitable ones to build new housing in. So the people who need it most never end up seeing the benefits of lower prices from market-rate housing, because they get kicked out of the city before those benefits kick in.
- flaque 7y ago
  Agreed that SB50 will not fix the immediate homelessness problem; though I disagree with their belief you can't pass SB50 until it also has affordable housing units. You can have multiple bills, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot just because we have only a solution to one part of the problem.
  - notJim 7y ago
    In principle I agree with you, but in practice what often happens is that it takes a herculean effort to pass any bill at all, and politicians are more inclined to declare victory than to pass a follow-up bill. Even if they pass a follow-up bill, it may take until the next legislative session, which could mean a huge delay. This creates incentives to get the bill modified before passage.
    - selrumingo 7y ago
      Absolutely. They will pass the bill and stop there. Very important to hold the line on this.
      - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
        I disagree. The more you put into a single bill, the more natural enemies of that legislation you create. Pass what you can piece by piece. Hold the line, sure, by not letting up on the pressure after the first . . . and second . . . and third . . . bill is passed, etc.. Politicians only give up and rest on their laurels when the public loses interest.
frandroid 7y ago
> Any city will have some % of empty rentals, if it didn’t, no one would ever move around. You do understand that people advertise apartments available for rent before the previous tenant has moved out... In Québec, the majority of leases end on July 1st and you have a number of people moving on that day which is quite greater than the vacancy rate. You can sign a lease for a new apartment months ahead of time.
- flaque 7y ago
  > You do understand that people advertise apartments available for rent before the previous tenant has moved out... True, but sometimes people just leave without giving warning, or the next person can't move in immediately. Sometimes, in a limited supply market, the landlord will wait for someone willing to pay a specific price since they know there's no other options. In San Francisco, that's the case for roughly 5% of the units at any given time.
  - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
    As a renter who has been casually looking for a bigger place in San Francisco for about a year (I am really picky and have a really nice place), it is my experience that decent units stay listed for at most 2 weeks and unoccupied for about 1 month.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  What you describe is not the way the US rental markets I have been in worked. Even the past three properties I bought had been vacant for at least a couple months before I even looked at them, let alone closed the deal. Our current house met the Census definition of vacant for six months after we closed on it so I could do work on it before getting all our stuff in.
- pasttense01 7y ago
  If the previous tenant had been there a while the landlord is often going to fix it up some--repainting walls, new carpet, new appliances. This takes some time.
OrgNet 7y ago
> But many cities have 10%+ or higher. Do those cities have twice as much homeless people? (or probably half as much)
m-p-3 7y ago
Maybe adding an extra municipal taxes (or increased yearly tax rate) for homes that are owned but left empty would be a way to curb those who buy homes solely as an investment? Maybe I'm forgetting an unintended negative consequences, please do share of that is the case.

by flaque 7y ago

earlINmeyerkeg 7y ago

Isn't like 90% of the homeless population people with a significant mental illness that they cannot provide for themselves? That's because the normal competent people don't remain homeless long and just need short term temporary assistant. Whereas the large portion of homeless actually are not competent enough to support themselves.

huevosabio 7y ago
It's about 26% Source (pg 22, Mental Illness + Alcohol / Drug Use): http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-2019-San-Francisco.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-201...
- yesenadam 7y ago
  It sounds like by "it" you mean the percentage of homeless with a significant mental illness..."that they cannot provide for themselves" (whatever the sentence was meant to mean). But the only 26% on that page is this: "Over one-quarter (26%) of respondents identified job loss as the primary cause of their homelessness. "
jlmorton 7y ago
No [1]. Only 8% of the currently homeless population became homeless because of mental illness. People with mental illnesses are by far the most visible of the homeless, because they are crazy. But they make up a minority of the population. 18% became homeless because of drug, or alcohol abuse. 42% report drug, or alcohol usage, even if that might not be the cause of their homelessness. 39% report psychiatric issues, even if that might not be the cause of their homelessness. [1] http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-2019-San-Francisco.pdf http://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-PIT-Report-201...
- robbyking 7y ago
  Thank you for your post. I think there is often a skewed perception of people experiencing homelessness because more often than not they only see the people who have the greatest issues with mental health and addiction.
forwhomst 7y ago
No, not even close. The nationwide rate of mental illness among homeless people is about one in four, or quadruple the rate of all people. But in the Bay Area where housing pressure is more severe the rate of mental illness among the homeless is actually lower, because there are just more “normal people” among them.

notJim 7y ago

> build more housing and put them in it This is exactly what they want. Their contention is that SB50 doesn't place enough emphasis on affordability, so developers will mostly build market-rate housing. If you build enough market rate housing, the prices do eventually come down, but that takes a while to happen. During that time, a lot of people can lose their homes, especially since lower-income areas can be the most profitable ones to build new housing in. So the people who need it most never end up seeing the benefits of lower prices from market-rate housing, because they get kicked out of the city before those benefits kick in.

flaque 7y ago
Agreed that SB50 will not fix the immediate homelessness problem; though I disagree with their belief you can't pass SB50 until it also has affordable housing units. You can have multiple bills, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot just because we have only a solution to one part of the problem.
- notJim 7y ago
  In principle I agree with you, but in practice what often happens is that it takes a herculean effort to pass any bill at all, and politicians are more inclined to declare victory than to pass a follow-up bill. Even if they pass a follow-up bill, it may take until the next legislative session, which could mean a huge delay. This creates incentives to get the bill modified before passage.
  - selrumingo 7y ago
    Absolutely. They will pass the bill and stop there. Very important to hold the line on this.
    - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
      I disagree. The more you put into a single bill, the more natural enemies of that legislation you create. Pass what you can piece by piece. Hold the line, sure, by not letting up on the pressure after the first . . . and second . . . and third . . . bill is passed, etc.. Politicians only give up and rest on their laurels when the public loses interest.

frandroid 7y ago

> Any city will have some % of empty rentals, if it didn’t, no one would ever move around. You do understand that people advertise apartments available for rent before the previous tenant has moved out... In Québec, the majority of leases end on July 1st and you have a number of people moving on that day which is quite greater than the vacancy rate. You can sign a lease for a new apartment months ahead of time.

flaque 7y ago
> You do understand that people advertise apartments available for rent before the previous tenant has moved out... True, but sometimes people just leave without giving warning, or the next person can't move in immediately. Sometimes, in a limited supply market, the landlord will wait for someone willing to pay a specific price since they know there's no other options. In San Francisco, that's the case for roughly 5% of the units at any given time.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  As a renter who has been casually looking for a bigger place in San Francisco for about a year (I am really picky and have a really nice place), it is my experience that decent units stay listed for at most 2 weeks and unoccupied for about 1 month.
vonmoltke 7y ago
What you describe is not the way the US rental markets I have been in worked. Even the past three properties I bought had been vacant for at least a couple months before I even looked at them, let alone closed the deal. Our current house met the Census definition of vacant for six months after we closed on it so I could do work on it before getting all our stuff in.
pasttense01 7y ago
If the previous tenant had been there a while the landlord is often going to fix it up some--repainting walls, new carpet, new appliances. This takes some time.

OrgNet 7y ago

> But many cities have 10%+ or higher. Do those cities have twice as much homeless people? (or probably half as much)

m-p-3 7y ago

Maybe adding an extra municipal taxes (or increased yearly tax rate) for homes that are owned but left empty would be a way to curb those who buy homes solely as an investment? Maybe I'm forgetting an unintended negative consequences, please do share of that is the case.