3 ms·

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 (relativ

by 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

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.