8 ms·

$837,000 is just the cost of the unit. If you are housing actual homeless, you MUST offer supportive services on-site or have some other types of supervision o

$837,000 is just the cost of the unit. If you are housing actual homeless, you MUST offer supportive services on-site or have some other types of supervision or these units are going to be trashed. You MUST budget for a lot of ongoing costs. I'd say $800K+ per unit + maybe $100K+/year for supportive services / maintenance etc? One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else?

AniseAbyss 5y ago
Yep you can't just put a psychotic person in an apartment and walk away. Homeless people have issues that made them end up on the street.
pooper 5y ago
> One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else? Where is that money going now? Who gets this money now and why would they give it up?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Before it went into people's pockets, so they could care for their families and improve their life conditions.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Exactly. Government stole it from tax payers to then act as a poorly run pseudo-charity, which is actually just a way for them to skim cream like mobsters while pretending to "do good." The foolish lap this up and immediately get defensive at anyone who proposes that, maybe, just maybe, politicians are lying to them and using their good nature against them. Maybe. So, we get a consistently declining standard of living for everyone, decaying urban centers, and increasing numbers of homeless people, or, the truth: real lives that need real help being used as political chess pieces by a cadre of narcissists who are master manipulators.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > Government stole it from tax payers Actually, we agreed that it was a good idea and organized our government to carry it out, and we broadly support it. > The foolish Commenters and citizens who disagree with you are "foolish"? People can't possibly disagree with you for legitimate reasons? Is your opinion the standard by which we measure legitimacy? Lucky I met you! > decaying urban centers Urban centers have been doing well overall, absent the pandemic, though certainly, as with everywhere, there are problems.
      - rglover 5y ago
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency. Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens. There is no way that small rooms in dense housing buildings should cost more than single family homes. There is either grift involved or homeless housing is WAY over regulated/zoned.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency. Which programs do you mean? There are many watchdog agencies in and outside government, including the press, and including right here right now. > Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens A broad statement, but what is it based on? There are honest and dishonest people in government, just like the people on my block.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    Are their life conditions improved by having homeless people all over the place? There's a price to pay for living in an organized civil society, because people have learned the hard way that having an organized, civil society is better for their families and life conditions.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      That is a balancing equation, not an absolute.
    - conductr 5y ago
      It's an economic solution. And quite simply, money goes further and could be used for more services elsewhere. It just feels icky to relocate folks that are already down. NIMBY at it's worse. But, done right, could absolutely be a better situation for all.
  - banannaise 5y ago
    Realistically, that money was going to police, to harass this person for sleeping on the street. This is, obviously, also expensive.
wolverine876 5y ago
It's not the cost of the unit, per the article: 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  OK, so units may cost $837K. Is that all inclusive of all necessary services (maintenance, supportive services, utilities etc for the life of the unit)? Or are those going to be extra. I ask because the housing department housing in SF is mind boggling expensive just to operate even after they did the build piece especially if you do all in costs vs revenue (ie, tax base is low -> govt owned often exempt and service needs are high from maintenance, policing, health response etc).
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > OK, so units may cost $837K. That's not what it says: It say only 14% cost 700K+ (i.e., 86% cost less than 700K), and one project might cost 837K. In other words, the 837K are a small number of outliers (unless it's a really big project, of course) and based on a projection. > Is that all inclusive of all necessary services Yes, I agree that should also be considered, and I think those services are essential. However, it's important to keep down construction costs too.
nonameiguess 5y ago
On the other hand, unless whoever ends up in the unit never has a family, stays in the unit the rest of their life, and the unit only lasts a single person's lifetime, it isn't going to house only one person.
dangus 5y ago
I think the high cost has a lot to do with the fact that we've moved well beyond the preventative phase of care. We are paying extra to correct years of bad zoning and healthcare policies. This is the price of bad city planning and expensive non-universal healthcare. I wonder if UBI would be more cost efficient, especially for people who are not yet homeless but in danger of becoming homeless. Still, I think getting people housing is the right general approach.

AniseAbyss 5y ago

Yep you can't just put a psychotic person in an apartment and walk away. Homeless people have issues that made them end up on the street.

pooper 5y ago

> One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else? Where is that money going now? Who gets this money now and why would they give it up?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Before it went into people's pockets, so they could care for their families and improve their life conditions.
- rglover 5y ago
  Exactly. Government stole it from tax payers to then act as a poorly run pseudo-charity, which is actually just a way for them to skim cream like mobsters while pretending to "do good." The foolish lap this up and immediately get defensive at anyone who proposes that, maybe, just maybe, politicians are lying to them and using their good nature against them. Maybe. So, we get a consistently declining standard of living for everyone, decaying urban centers, and increasing numbers of homeless people, or, the truth: real lives that need real help being used as political chess pieces by a cadre of narcissists who are master manipulators.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Government stole it from tax payers Actually, we agreed that it was a good idea and organized our government to carry it out, and we broadly support it. > The foolish Commenters and citizens who disagree with you are "foolish"? People can't possibly disagree with you for legitimate reasons? Is your opinion the standard by which we measure legitimacy? Lucky I met you! > decaying urban centers Urban centers have been doing well overall, absent the pandemic, though certainly, as with everywhere, there are problems.
    - rglover 5y ago
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency. Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens. There is no way that small rooms in dense housing buildings should cost more than single family homes. There is either grift involved or homeless housing is WAY over regulated/zoned.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency. Which programs do you mean? There are many watchdog agencies in and outside government, including the press, and including right here right now. > Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens A broad statement, but what is it based on? There are honest and dishonest people in government, just like the people on my block.
- vannevar 5y ago
  Are their life conditions improved by having homeless people all over the place? There's a price to pay for living in an organized civil society, because people have learned the hard way that having an organized, civil society is better for their families and life conditions.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    That is a balancing equation, not an absolute.
  - conductr 5y ago
    It's an economic solution. And quite simply, money goes further and could be used for more services elsewhere. It just feels icky to relocate folks that are already down. NIMBY at it's worse. But, done right, could absolutely be a better situation for all.
- banannaise 5y ago
  Realistically, that money was going to police, to harass this person for sleeping on the street. This is, obviously, also expensive.

wolverine876 5y ago

It's not the cost of the unit, per the article: 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.

tempnow987 5y ago
OK, so units may cost $837K. Is that all inclusive of all necessary services (maintenance, supportive services, utilities etc for the life of the unit)? Or are those going to be extra. I ask because the housing department housing in SF is mind boggling expensive just to operate even after they did the build piece especially if you do all in costs vs revenue (ie, tax base is low -> govt owned often exempt and service needs are high from maintenance, policing, health response etc).
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > OK, so units may cost $837K. That's not what it says: It say only 14% cost 700K+ (i.e., 86% cost less than 700K), and one project might cost 837K. In other words, the 837K are a small number of outliers (unless it's a really big project, of course) and based on a projection. > Is that all inclusive of all necessary services Yes, I agree that should also be considered, and I think those services are essential. However, it's important to keep down construction costs too.

nonameiguess 5y ago

On the other hand, unless whoever ends up in the unit never has a family, stays in the unit the rest of their life, and the unit only lasts a single person's lifetime, it isn't going to house only one person.

dangus 5y ago

I think the high cost has a lot to do with the fact that we've moved well beyond the preventative phase of care. We are paying extra to correct years of bad zoning and healthcare policies. This is the price of bad city planning and expensive non-universal healthcare. I wonder if UBI would be more cost efficient, especially for people who are not yet homeless but in danger of becoming homeless. Still, I think getting people housing is the right general approach.