5 ms·

How do you reconcile "national shortage of housing" being the cause with California being the most expensive state with the most homeless? Shouldn't a national

by sershe 5y ago

How do you reconcile "national shortage of housing" being the cause with California being the most expensive state with the most homeless? Shouldn't a national problem cause people to migrate AWAY from the expensive housing? Housing in the US (median, not SF) is one of the cheapest relative to income among the developed countries, AFAIK. Also, I can tell you from my own example that it's a chicken and egg problem. If you asked me 10 years ago, I would have told you I'd like to have Singapore-style vehicle taxes, introduced gradually, so that developmental patterns would change, basically forcing people into transit and walkable neighborhoods. However, based mainly on living in Seattle, I am now 100% pro-driving, anti-transit and dream of moving to suburbs, specifically because I want to be far away from blight (and I grew up in Moscow in the 90ies economic collapse, so my standards for lack of urban blight are pretty low). Now, I am only willing to accept Singapore-style (or Moscow-style) urban environment with Singapore-style/Moscow-style ruthless enforcement of law and order.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Homeless people often go where the weather is tolerable. Many homeless people prefer to camp outside rather than stay in the shelter system. California is the overall best state to camp outside long-term and year-round. It then becomes a recipe for remaining homeless because the housing is so expensive. It's easy to camp out, not easy to afford rent. If you can't afford housing anywhere in the US, going someplace you can camp reasonably comfortably makes sense. Remaining someplace with worse weather doesn't automatically cure whatever other issues are contributing to your intractable poverty.
- tony0x02 5y ago
  > Many homeless people prefer to camp outside rather than stay in the shelter system Why?
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Most shelters have serious problems, like mold. They aren't actually safe because you can be harassed, assaulted or have your stuff stolen by other homeless people. A high percentage of homeless people have health issues. This means putting a bunch of them together exposes already sick people to cross contamination with other diseases, making their health worse. They have curfews and other rules making it one step removed from a prison. If you have any funds of any kind, some will charge you for being there, making you essentially their prisoner with no means to escape.
- sershe 5y ago
  Housing is cheap in much of the country though, and really cheap in some areas. Also, there are warm states that are not CA that don't have the problem (relatively speaking), and there are far colder states like NY or WA that do (ditto for locations within states). Why don't NY homeless move to e.g. Detroit? Far cheaper housing, comparable climate. The only people who wouldn't benefit from this under nationwide housing shortage theory are indeed those who cannot afford any housing at all because they eh, don't have their shit together on any level. But then, walkable housing nationwide is not going to fix that.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    It tends to be cheap where there's no grocery stores, no jobs, etc. If you have to drive a long way for everything you need, it's not a cheap lifestyle, even if your rent is relatively low. Nationwide walkable housing would, in fact, fix it for some people, in part by bringing down the cost of housing and transit to a level they could reach.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Do you think that walkable housing is viable nationwide? Seems to me it would only be viable in urban areas, vast swathes of north America are very very remote, the people that live there by and large choose to. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build more grocery stores?
      - DoreenMichele 5y ago
        It's viable in a lot more areas than it exists in currently. I'm not suggesting no one should ever live in a remote area. If that's what people want, cool. When I say nationwide, I mean we need more housing that makes sense in all 50 states, not just California. I don't mean this should be the only kind of infrastructure we allow.
    - sershe 5y ago
      No jobs? The salary differential in entry level jobs is much smaller than in high paying jobs between Detroit in NY, and rent differential is vast. If you take many of the homeless who cannot take any realistic job, the difference in salaries is 0. Even including driving (which you don't need to do much more in declining/stably cheap, but still dense, older cities) it's still cheaper. Walkable housing would fix it for a very small slice of the people, as far as I can tell.

by sershe 5y ago

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Homeless people often go where the weather is tolerable. Many homeless people prefer to camp outside rather than stay in the shelter system. California is the overall best state to camp outside long-term and year-round. It then becomes a recipe for remaining homeless because the housing is so expensive. It's easy to camp out, not easy to afford rent. If you can't afford housing anywhere in the US, going someplace you can camp reasonably comfortably makes sense. Remaining someplace with worse weather doesn't automatically cure whatever other issues are contributing to your intractable poverty.

tony0x02 5y ago
> Many homeless people prefer to camp outside rather than stay in the shelter system Why?
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Most shelters have serious problems, like mold. They aren't actually safe because you can be harassed, assaulted or have your stuff stolen by other homeless people. A high percentage of homeless people have health issues. This means putting a bunch of them together exposes already sick people to cross contamination with other diseases, making their health worse. They have curfews and other rules making it one step removed from a prison. If you have any funds of any kind, some will charge you for being there, making you essentially their prisoner with no means to escape.
sershe 5y ago
Housing is cheap in much of the country though, and really cheap in some areas. Also, there are warm states that are not CA that don't have the problem (relatively speaking), and there are far colder states like NY or WA that do (ditto for locations within states). Why don't NY homeless move to e.g. Detroit? Far cheaper housing, comparable climate. The only people who wouldn't benefit from this under nationwide housing shortage theory are indeed those who cannot afford any housing at all because they eh, don't have their shit together on any level. But then, walkable housing nationwide is not going to fix that.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  It tends to be cheap where there's no grocery stores, no jobs, etc. If you have to drive a long way for everything you need, it's not a cheap lifestyle, even if your rent is relatively low. Nationwide walkable housing would, in fact, fix it for some people, in part by bringing down the cost of housing and transit to a level they could reach.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Do you think that walkable housing is viable nationwide? Seems to me it would only be viable in urban areas, vast swathes of north America are very very remote, the people that live there by and large choose to. Wouldn't it make more sense to just build more grocery stores?
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      It's viable in a lot more areas than it exists in currently. I'm not suggesting no one should ever live in a remote area. If that's what people want, cool. When I say nationwide, I mean we need more housing that makes sense in all 50 states, not just California. I don't mean this should be the only kind of infrastructure we allow.
  - sershe 5y ago
    No jobs? The salary differential in entry level jobs is much smaller than in high paying jobs between Detroit in NY, and rent differential is vast. If you take many of the homeless who cannot take any realistic job, the difference in salaries is 0. Even including driving (which you don't need to do much more in declining/stably cheap, but still dense, older cities) it's still cheaper. Walkable housing would fix it for a very small slice of the people, as far as I can tell.