5 ms·

Ultimately the root cause of SFs problems (and Bay Area in general) is lack of housing. It’s a city that should be as dense (or more) than NYC considering the a

by pm90 5y ago

Ultimately the root cause of SFs problems (and Bay Area in general) is lack of housing. It’s a city that should be as dense (or more) than NYC considering the amount of economic activity it generates, but the existing landed Gentry has opposed any and all measures to remedy the situation since the status quo increases their wealth. If SF built enough housing, it would mostly solve the homelessness crisis, but also generate even more tax revenue for investing in better social services, transit etc. As a resident, it feels like a lost opportunity: the pandemic has made remote work common and fewer people will want to move to the SF in the future.

jmspring 5y ago
Building housing isn't going to "solve homelessness". The majority of "visible homeless" that you see on the streets, etc. have mental health and addiction issues. Also, most housing, especially those catering to those "on the streets" have rules. More than a few living on the street don't want to have rules and structure. So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. Mental health issues need wrap around services and the ability to restrict their actions - which years of legislation and rulings (many will blame the ACLU) doesn't allow for such in nearly all cases. Addicts, for them, they need to WANT to get better. Even then it is still a long road. Hitting bottom may not even happen for some.
- khuey 5y ago
  > So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets? Hint: zero.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
      Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices. Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        > If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
        Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
        Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
  - augustuspolius 5y ago
    What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - thephyber 5y ago
      I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies). You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  They could all afford an SRO ten years back. Then something happened…
- jseliger 5y ago
  Mental health and addiction problems are substantially ameliorated by inexpensive housing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 and it is easier to maintain housing that is inexpensive than housing that is expensive. The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.
  - jakear 5y ago
    The obvious explanation would be that expensive cities are more desirable to live in and thus see both higher property values and more homeless. Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      I was homeless for years, not by choice. My relationships with homeless people did and still do go a lot farther than "spoken to a number of them" and I don't think this is accurate at all. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this was never my attitude and I doubt anyone I know now would endorse it. I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot. It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
      - jakear 5y ago
        Were you living in year-round gorgeous weather areas alike I mentioned? (Coastal Southern California) > It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered." What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.
nradov 5y ago
- thephyber 5y ago
  This is the mentality that causes the problem. You can’t wish away the fact that SFBA has lots of high paying jobs and attracts lots of people from around the country and around the world. The people are already here. All your mentality is doing is dragging any potential remedy out so it takes longer and costs more. You are applying a Heckler’s Veto. We might as well increase QoL for everyone who actually lives here (and those who are likely to move here in the immediate future), not some idealistic memory of how some of the metro area used to be 30 years ago.
  - nradov 5y ago
    A better option would be to set government policies that encourage growth of high paying jobs in other areas instead of cramming everyone into one geographically constrained area.
    - thephyber 5y ago
      Kansas already has an incredibly low tax rate and is ostensibly very “pro-business”. Those conditions already exist. Those conditions are insufficient to cause the effect you think they should.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Yes based on the history of Silicon Valley other factors are also important. Some of those include: proximity to multiple high-quality research universities, laws that generally prohibit employee non-compete agreements, and generous funding through military-industrial complex contracts.
metacontent 5y ago
I don't want to attack you, but its hard not to attack a comment like this. Building more housing won't solve the homelessness problem, building a lot more housing might lower prices a little bit which might mean that some middle class families might be able to buy a home, but that is about it. Nobody is living on the streets in SF because houses cost too much money. If money was the only issue then they could easily move to a different town where housing is cheaper, there are many places to live that are cheaper than SF. In my opinion whenever someone says the main problem is the price of housing they are saying it because that is their own personal problem. They want to buy a house, and they think the prices are too high. Why do they not mention unemployment? Or addiction? Or lots of other issues? Because those aren't their own personal problems, so they focus on the one thing that matters to them personally, and that's the price of housing.
- jseliger 5y ago
  Building more housing won't solve the homelessness problem "Solve" is a big word, but substantially ameliorate? Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206
- vb6sp6 5y ago
  I think the effects of housing pricing increases have been studied: https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/mar/housing.php https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/mar/...
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  > "personal problem. They want to buy a house" This is extremely short-sighted. Expensive real estate is a blood-sucking vampire squid on the real economy, on every economically productive citizen You are paying for that overpriced housing every time you buy a coffee, you pay $1 for the coffee beans and you $4 for the coffee shop rent. You pay rent of every person who's services they need, from a delivery man to a plumber. The idea that rising house prices are okay because you own a house is just as daft as the idea that rising food prices are okay because you have a full fridge. The optimal strategy is to drive down relative cost of food, housing and energy, and other nessesities of life to zero, that's what we call 'economic growth'. Thats why we no longer live like peasants.

by pm90 5y ago

jmspring 5y ago

Building housing isn't going to "solve homelessness". The majority of "visible homeless" that you see on the streets, etc. have mental health and addiction issues. Also, most housing, especially those catering to those "on the streets" have rules. More than a few living on the street don't want to have rules and structure. So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. Mental health issues need wrap around services and the ability to restrict their actions - which years of legislation and rulings (many will blame the ACLU) doesn't allow for such in nearly all cases. Addicts, for them, they need to WANT to get better. Even then it is still a long road. Hitting bottom may not even happen for some.

khuey 5y ago
> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets? Hint: zero.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
    Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices. Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      > If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
        Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
- augustuspolius 5y ago
  What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thephyber 5y ago
    I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies). You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.
hindsightbias 5y ago
They could all afford an SRO ten years back. Then something happened…
jseliger 5y ago
Mental health and addiction problems are substantially ameliorated by inexpensive housing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 and it is easier to maintain housing that is inexpensive than housing that is expensive. The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.
- jakear 5y ago
  The obvious explanation would be that expensive cities are more desirable to live in and thus see both higher property values and more homeless. Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    I was homeless for years, not by choice. My relationships with homeless people did and still do go a lot farther than "spoken to a number of them" and I don't think this is accurate at all. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this was never my attitude and I doubt anyone I know now would endorse it. I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot. It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
    - jakear 5y ago
      Were you living in year-round gorgeous weather areas alike I mentioned? (Coastal Southern California) > It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered." What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.

nradov 5y ago

thephyber 5y ago
This is the mentality that causes the problem. You can’t wish away the fact that SFBA has lots of high paying jobs and attracts lots of people from around the country and around the world. The people are already here. All your mentality is doing is dragging any potential remedy out so it takes longer and costs more. You are applying a Heckler’s Veto. We might as well increase QoL for everyone who actually lives here (and those who are likely to move here in the immediate future), not some idealistic memory of how some of the metro area used to be 30 years ago.
- nradov 5y ago
  A better option would be to set government policies that encourage growth of high paying jobs in other areas instead of cramming everyone into one geographically constrained area.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    Kansas already has an incredibly low tax rate and is ostensibly very “pro-business”. Those conditions already exist. Those conditions are insufficient to cause the effect you think they should.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Yes based on the history of Silicon Valley other factors are also important. Some of those include: proximity to multiple high-quality research universities, laws that generally prohibit employee non-compete agreements, and generous funding through military-industrial complex contracts.

metacontent 5y ago

I don't want to attack you, but its hard not to attack a comment like this. Building more housing won't solve the homelessness problem, building a lot more housing might lower prices a little bit which might mean that some middle class families might be able to buy a home, but that is about it. Nobody is living on the streets in SF because houses cost too much money. If money was the only issue then they could easily move to a different town where housing is cheaper, there are many places to live that are cheaper than SF. In my opinion whenever someone says the main problem is the price of housing they are saying it because that is their own personal problem. They want to buy a house, and they think the prices are too high. Why do they not mention unemployment? Or addiction? Or lots of other issues? Because those aren't their own personal problems, so they focus on the one thing that matters to them personally, and that's the price of housing.

jseliger 5y ago
Building more housing won't solve the homelessness problem "Solve" is a big word, but substantially ameliorate? Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206
vb6sp6 5y ago
I think the effects of housing pricing increases have been studied: https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/mar/housing.php https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/mar/...
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> "personal problem. They want to buy a house" This is extremely short-sighted. Expensive real estate is a blood-sucking vampire squid on the real economy, on every economically productive citizen You are paying for that overpriced housing every time you buy a coffee, you pay $1 for the coffee beans and you $4 for the coffee shop rent. You pay rent of every person who's services they need, from a delivery man to a plumber. The idea that rising house prices are okay because you own a house is just as daft as the idea that rising food prices are okay because you have a full fridge. The optimal strategy is to drive down relative cost of food, housing and energy, and other nessesities of life to zero, that's what we call 'economic growth'. Thats why we no longer live like peasants.