5 ms·

They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in

They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.

chernevik 5y ago
That's still a mighty expensive unit.
kansface 5y ago
40000 * 837000 = 33.48 billion dollars. This solution, as implemented, can not possibly solve the problem, ever. The upkeep on the housing alone would be a billion dollars a year!
- GrantYE 5y ago
  Its because they don't actually want to house the unhoused. They want to make it seem like this impossible challenge to provide affordable housing that doesn't cost the average person in LA $1M+
  - Kalium 5y ago
    San Francisco had a similar problem in recent years, where trying to build housing for the unhoused was running a cost of about a million a pop. It's perhaps possible that this isn't a deliberate display of incompetence, but a set of systemic problems that make housing in California very expensive to build.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Also, it's worth noting that building a house isn't a hole that you throw money into, it's an asset that appreciates.
      - scantron4 5y ago
        Not if it gets trashed by the residents.
        vkou 5y ago
        In a world where housing prices grow in an unbounded, absolutely detached from reality manner, it is.
        b112 5y ago
        It's actually the land which goes up in value. Houses go down in value, like a new car. Sometimes this is masked, by regular maintenance, retrofits, and repairs. But if left to pot, a house is eventually worthless, then even a cost, for the new owner has to tear it down and rebuild. Land appreciates. A house costs.
        Retric 5y ago
        Depends on the house, but houses can get more valuable much faster than the minimal maintenance costs associated with them. That’s less common in earthquake zones, but scarcity can easily drive up prices because “they don’t make them like they used to” or something interesting happened in the location etc.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        That is definitely not a universal truth. Anyone who has rented out a house knows just how expensive a bad tenant is. I have had a few friends who were in that position because they had to move but couldnt sell their houses (2008-2014 era roughly). They would have been better off taking the loss on leaving it empty after taking out loans to undo the damage done.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      They can choose anywhere to build, the government controls zoning, and they're making apartments. Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems? Though the article doesn't actually say anything about average costs or cost per type of unit, and since this is a professional news outlet they don't link their sources...
      - Kalium 5y ago
        > Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems? You would think so! Unfortunately, this is not the case. In SF, some of the systemic issues are planning processes voted into the city charter decades ago, so the city doesn't get to bypass them. Some of the larger issues, such as land price and CEQA, are state-wide issues that cities can't avoid.
      - b112 5y ago
        The people control zoning, and thus, where things are built.
  - kyleblarson 5y ago
    It is the homeless industrial complex. A massive grift.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  837000 is the maximum, not the average, so your math is just made up BS.
Retric 5y ago
On one hand: The program “is producing more units than promised, at a lower cost than expected,” Garcetti wrote. But I have trouble thinking that’s an efficient use of funds.
throwoutway 5y ago
It sounds to the reader just like it is in reality: overspending on real estate. That’s a ridiculous sum of money for one unit of housing any way you look at it. I’m glad they’re housing the homeless, but are you telling me that there’s no way to build this cheaper?
asdff 5y ago
LA also does spend money just booking rooms at for profit hotels for homeless people vs constructing shelters at cost too, so not everything they are doing is totally productive and efficient.

chernevik 5y ago

That's still a mighty expensive unit.

kansface 5y ago

40000 * 837000 = 33.48 billion dollars. This solution, as implemented, can not possibly solve the problem, ever. The upkeep on the housing alone would be a billion dollars a year!

GrantYE 5y ago
Its because they don't actually want to house the unhoused. They want to make it seem like this impossible challenge to provide affordable housing that doesn't cost the average person in LA $1M+
- Kalium 5y ago
  San Francisco had a similar problem in recent years, where trying to build housing for the unhoused was running a cost of about a million a pop. It's perhaps possible that this isn't a deliberate display of incompetence, but a set of systemic problems that make housing in California very expensive to build.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Also, it's worth noting that building a house isn't a hole that you throw money into, it's an asset that appreciates.
    - scantron4 5y ago
      Not if it gets trashed by the residents.
      - vkou 5y ago
        In a world where housing prices grow in an unbounded, absolutely detached from reality manner, it is.
        b112 5y ago
        It's actually the land which goes up in value. Houses go down in value, like a new car. Sometimes this is masked, by regular maintenance, retrofits, and repairs. But if left to pot, a house is eventually worthless, then even a cost, for the new owner has to tear it down and rebuild. Land appreciates. A house costs.
        Retric 5y ago
        Depends on the house, but houses can get more valuable much faster than the minimal maintenance costs associated with them. That’s less common in earthquake zones, but scarcity can easily drive up prices because “they don’t make them like they used to” or something interesting happened in the location etc.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      That is definitely not a universal truth. Anyone who has rented out a house knows just how expensive a bad tenant is. I have had a few friends who were in that position because they had to move but couldnt sell their houses (2008-2014 era roughly). They would have been better off taking the loss on leaving it empty after taking out loans to undo the damage done.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    They can choose anywhere to build, the government controls zoning, and they're making apartments. Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems? Though the article doesn't actually say anything about average costs or cost per type of unit, and since this is a professional news outlet they don't link their sources...
    - Kalium 5y ago
      > Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems? You would think so! Unfortunately, this is not the case. In SF, some of the systemic issues are planning processes voted into the city charter decades ago, so the city doesn't get to bypass them. Some of the larger issues, such as land price and CEQA, are state-wide issues that cities can't avoid.
    - b112 5y ago
      The people control zoning, and thus, where things are built.
- kyleblarson 5y ago
  It is the homeless industrial complex. A massive grift.
shkkmo 5y ago
837000 is the maximum, not the average, so your math is just made up BS.

Retric 5y ago

On one hand: The program “is producing more units than promised, at a lower cost than expected,” Garcetti wrote. But I have trouble thinking that’s an efficient use of funds.

throwoutway 5y ago

It sounds to the reader just like it is in reality: overspending on real estate. That’s a ridiculous sum of money for one unit of housing any way you look at it. I’m glad they’re housing the homeless, but are you telling me that there’s no way to build this cheaper?

asdff 5y ago

LA also does spend money just booking rooms at for profit hotels for homeless people vs constructing shelters at cost too, so not everything they are doing is totally productive and efficient.