5 ms·

>before someone mentions "mental illness" and "drugs" and other contributors to homelessness And to build off this, recent counts[1] have found that 26% of Los

by slg 5y ago

>before someone mentions "mental illness" and "drugs" and other contributors to homelessness And to build off this, recent counts[1] have found that 26% of Los Angeles's homeless population has mental health issues and 32% has "difficulties with drug or alcohol use". Even if there is zero overlap in those two groups and those issues all originated before the person became homeless (both of those are clearly not true) that would still leave 42% of people who are homeless and don't have either of those issues. It isn't complicated. A majority of the homeless population is homeless because they simply can't afford a home. [1] - https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=4561-2020-homeless-count-key-messages https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=4561-2020-homeless-count-...

zug_zug 5y ago
Okay, but help me understand... San Francisco and LA are incredibly expensive places to live. So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? It definitely strikes me that there are a million places to live in this country that are dirt cheap, and there's a 0% chance SF becomes one of them. Maybe there's some data I'm missing about homeless people who can afford $2500 in rent but are on the street because they can't afford $3000, otherwise it just seems the two issues really aren't as connected as people tend to claim. Part of me wonders if the "angry about rent prices for the homeless" people on HN happen to be angry about rent prices that THEY have to pay...
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  > So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? Don't want to speak for OP, but I definitely do. Government would not have to build anying, only get out of the way of people who want to build on their own land. The Bay Area could easily be a world class metro area with 20 million people, all sleeping indoors.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Do you know of any cities of 20 million+ people with no homeless? Or even one million?
    - epistasis 5y ago
      This is an excellent observation, and very very true. But I would pair it with a potential solution that hasn't been truly tried: universal basic income paid for by taxing away the profits of rentiers, a full land value tax, that makes the exchange value of land zero: http://progressandpoverty.org/ http://progressandpoverty.org/ This is unfortunate a very politically fragile solution. The first thing that property rentiers do is eliminate their taxes, such as with Prop 13 in California. But, with enough economic education, maybe it will work... The closest enactment of this that I know of is in a conservative government, Singapore. Nearly all land is public, and only leased. Only structures can be owned on public land. It's not perfect, and the waiting lists for housing for citizens are still too long, and non-citizens are thrown into a private market, but the outcomes are still amazing compared to a similar place such as Hong Kong.
      - imtringued 5y ago
        >This is unfortunate a very politically fragile solution. The first thing that property rentiers do is eliminate their taxes, such as with Prop 13 in California. But, with enough economic education, maybe it will work... The fundamental problem is that home owners and landlords both pay the tax. If everyone rents then tenants will obviously vote for higher property taxes to squeeze landlords. If everyone owns their house they obviously want to pay zero taxes on the land. When you have a mix of both then home owners will vote for the interests of landlords who get to squeeze money out of tenants without paying taxes. I've seen this pattern literally applied to almost every tax situation. Huge oil corporations should stop polluting? It's obviously a case of CO2 taxes but then the small man doesn't want to pay his tiny portion of the tax. They will always pick out the exception on either end. I.e. a poor polluter paying excessive CO2 taxes because he uses some absurdly inefficient way of heating vs a model rich person that managed to get to 0 emissions because he put hundreds of thousands into reducing his CO2 footprint. The vast majority of people do not fit either stereotype.
  - maybelsyrup 5y ago
    > Don't want to speak for OP, but I definitely do. Yes, ditto, moi aussi.
- slg 5y ago
  >So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? That would be great and I think it would be good for the cities overall, but that isn't really the problem that is causing homelessness. Housing is not a single market. People on the street generally aren't choosing between a 800 sqft 1 bedroom and a tent. However when we build housing we often focus on the top of the market with luxury condos that come with dishwashers, central air, washer/dryers, and parking spaces. Building those doesn't help homeless people. We need new construction across the entire spectrum of housing including single room occupancy that often serves as a last option before someone is forced onto the street. Living in a 100 sqft home with a communal bathroom isn't great, but it sure beats living on the street. And I comfortable knowing that increasing the supply of that SRO housing isn't going to make my rent any cheaper.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - epistasis 5y ago
    The reason that we "focus" on the expensive high end housing is the same that prices are high: in scarcity, those with the most money get served first. That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. My town recently made them legal again, but the anti-growth crowd has paradoxically started opposing them in full force because they are "unaffordable" despite being far more affordable than other options. Also, SRO construction could make your rent cheaper. Pressure on supply comes from both directions, and as 2-bedroom apartments that house 8 people start to have fewer people due to SROs, is helps everyone. Or due to any affordable housing, honestly. I'm of the opinion that all supply is good, from deeply subsidized deed-restricted below market rate units, to luxury that is used only as a second or third house. (Those luxury units pay big impact fees and lots of property taxes, and prevent the luxury unit tenant from taking a more affordable unit).
    - slg 5y ago
      >That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. I am more familiar with the LA market than SF, but they are legal in LA and a few are in the process of being built[1]. The developer for those is a non-profit though which leads back into your first point. We build at the top of the market because that is the most profitable. I believe there needs to be government incentives or regulation to spur construction across the full spectrum of housing [1] -http://www.srohousing.org/index.html http://www.srohousing.org/index.html
- structural 5y ago
  And yet, people keep coming to San Francisco, LA, and other cities because there is work there. You can't look at housing costs divorced from other costs of living, either: for example, moving to places that are "dirt cheap" in housing will likely come with a reduction in income as well as a rise in other costs. Replacing mass transit with an car-required lifestyle is expensive (and if you can't afford rent, it's somewhat likely you won't be able to afford a car, insurance, etc.). Additionally, an important factor in most of these cases is that they have some amount of debt, perhaps significant. So even if they could be marginally better off if they reduce income by some and reduce costs by enough where they can afford rent in a cheaper place, their existing debt doesn't shrink and becomes effectively unpayable over any period of time. In short, yes, the real proposal is to build so much new housing that rent drops by over a thousand a month. There's very few places in the country where that wouldn't be a great idea, not just in California... even those "dirt cheap places to live in this country" aren't dirt cheap anymore, things have changed quite a bit in the past few years.

by slg 5y ago

zug_zug 5y ago

Okay, but help me understand... San Francisco and LA are incredibly expensive places to live. So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? It definitely strikes me that there are a million places to live in this country that are dirt cheap, and there's a 0% chance SF becomes one of them. Maybe there's some data I'm missing about homeless people who can afford $2500 in rent but are on the street because they can't afford $3000, otherwise it just seems the two issues really aren't as connected as people tend to claim. Part of me wonders if the "angry about rent prices for the homeless" people on HN happen to be angry about rent prices that THEY have to pay...

BurningFrog 5y ago
> So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? Don't want to speak for OP, but I definitely do. Government would not have to build anying, only get out of the way of people who want to build on their own land. The Bay Area could easily be a world class metro area with 20 million people, all sleeping indoors.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Do you know of any cities of 20 million+ people with no homeless? Or even one million?
  - epistasis 5y ago
    This is an excellent observation, and very very true. But I would pair it with a potential solution that hasn't been truly tried: universal basic income paid for by taxing away the profits of rentiers, a full land value tax, that makes the exchange value of land zero: http://progressandpoverty.org/ http://progressandpoverty.org/ This is unfortunate a very politically fragile solution. The first thing that property rentiers do is eliminate their taxes, such as with Prop 13 in California. But, with enough economic education, maybe it will work... The closest enactment of this that I know of is in a conservative government, Singapore. Nearly all land is public, and only leased. Only structures can be owned on public land. It's not perfect, and the waiting lists for housing for citizens are still too long, and non-citizens are thrown into a private market, but the outcomes are still amazing compared to a similar place such as Hong Kong.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      >This is unfortunate a very politically fragile solution. The first thing that property rentiers do is eliminate their taxes, such as with Prop 13 in California. But, with enough economic education, maybe it will work... The fundamental problem is that home owners and landlords both pay the tax. If everyone rents then tenants will obviously vote for higher property taxes to squeeze landlords. If everyone owns their house they obviously want to pay zero taxes on the land. When you have a mix of both then home owners will vote for the interests of landlords who get to squeeze money out of tenants without paying taxes. I've seen this pattern literally applied to almost every tax situation. Huge oil corporations should stop polluting? It's obviously a case of CO2 taxes but then the small man doesn't want to pay his tiny portion of the tax. They will always pick out the exception on either end. I.e. a poor polluter paying excessive CO2 taxes because he uses some absurdly inefficient way of heating vs a model rich person that managed to get to 0 emissions because he put hundreds of thousands into reducing his CO2 footprint. The vast majority of people do not fit either stereotype.
- maybelsyrup 5y ago
  > Don't want to speak for OP, but I definitely do. Yes, ditto, moi aussi.
slg 5y ago
>So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? That would be great and I think it would be good for the cities overall, but that isn't really the problem that is causing homelessness. Housing is not a single market. People on the street generally aren't choosing between a 800 sqft 1 bedroom and a tent. However when we build housing we often focus on the top of the market with luxury condos that come with dishwashers, central air, washer/dryers, and parking spaces. Building those doesn't help homeless people. We need new construction across the entire spectrum of housing including single room occupancy that often serves as a last option before someone is forced onto the street. Living in a 100 sqft home with a communal bathroom isn't great, but it sure beats living on the street. And I comfortable knowing that increasing the supply of that SRO housing isn't going to make my rent any cheaper.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 5y ago
  The reason that we "focus" on the expensive high end housing is the same that prices are high: in scarcity, those with the most money get served first. That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. My town recently made them legal again, but the anti-growth crowd has paradoxically started opposing them in full force because they are "unaffordable" despite being far more affordable than other options. Also, SRO construction could make your rent cheaper. Pressure on supply comes from both directions, and as 2-bedroom apartments that house 8 people start to have fewer people due to SROs, is helps everyone. Or due to any affordable housing, honestly. I'm of the opinion that all supply is good, from deeply subsidized deed-restricted below market rate units, to luxury that is used only as a second or third house. (Those luxury units pay big impact fees and lots of property taxes, and prevent the luxury unit tenant from taking a more affordable unit).
  - slg 5y ago
    >That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. I am more familiar with the LA market than SF, but they are legal in LA and a few are in the process of being built[1]. The developer for those is a non-profit though which leads back into your first point. We build at the top of the market because that is the most profitable. I believe there needs to be government incentives or regulation to spur construction across the full spectrum of housing [1] -http://www.srohousing.org/index.html http://www.srohousing.org/index.html
structural 5y ago
And yet, people keep coming to San Francisco, LA, and other cities because there is work there. You can't look at housing costs divorced from other costs of living, either: for example, moving to places that are "dirt cheap" in housing will likely come with a reduction in income as well as a rise in other costs. Replacing mass transit with an car-required lifestyle is expensive (and if you can't afford rent, it's somewhat likely you won't be able to afford a car, insurance, etc.). Additionally, an important factor in most of these cases is that they have some amount of debt, perhaps significant. So even if they could be marginally better off if they reduce income by some and reduce costs by enough where they can afford rent in a cheaper place, their existing debt doesn't shrink and becomes effectively unpayable over any period of time. In short, yes, the real proposal is to build so much new housing that rent drops by over a thousand a month. There's very few places in the country where that wouldn't be a great idea, not just in California... even those "dirt cheap places to live in this country" aren't dirt cheap anymore, things have changed quite a bit in the past few years.