5 ms·

>The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit. It sounds lik

by slg 5y ago

>The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit. It sounds like that "up to" in the title is doing a lot of work if 86% are below $700k. I would also like to throw in the added context that the median home price is roughly $915k[1]. Also be mindful whether we are discussing LA county or LA city. The article is about an LA city program. Housing in LA county will be cheaper and the median there is just under $800k[2]. So all of these projects are under the median cost of housing and the overwhelming majority are at least 25% below median. This doesn't seem like much of a controversy once you know that context. Housing in LA is simply expensive. [1] - https://www.redfin.com/city/11203/CA/Los-Angeles/housing-market https://www.redfin.com/city/11203/CA/Los-Angeles/housing-mar... [2] - https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-04/what-l-a-countys-median-home-price-795-000-buys-in-six-areas https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-04/what-l-a-c...

legitster 5y ago
I think this is a great point, but may still disagree with it. To put it another way, we are taking people out of homelessness, and putting them in houses that are more expensive than 30-40% of units on the market. So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. The cost to house homeless shouldn't be slightly below median. Realistically, it should be in the 1th percentile.
- slg 5y ago
  Remember these are new units and those median prices are for all units regardless of age and condition. It is really impractical to build new units in the 1st percentile. Those are almost always going to be old units that are poorly maintained. You also can't just give this money to homeless people and let them buy or rent their own places because the fundamental problem is a lack of supply. Simply giving them money would increase the cost of homes for everyone else and in turn feed into a cycle of creating more homeless people. The city needs to build new homes to increase the supply.
  - legitster 5y ago
    This is that classic "you can't grow old forests" problem. If someone needed a car to get to work, you would never think of providing them with a brand new one. But we are kind of in that situation with housing. I think the city could have saved a bunch of money here sourcing existing housing, then putting the savings into funding general new construction. But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units.
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      >But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units. Even assuming this is true, there are plenty of reasons this might be a good deal. One is greater control over construction, alignment of incentives (i.e., the developer incentive is to put up the worst pieces of junk they can get away with), long-term ownership if this is to be a long-term program, etc.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. There are programs like that, including large ones like federal Section 8. It's not simple at all: Landlords will often refuse to rent to Section 8 participants. Also, people who are unhoused often need other services in order to get back on their feet.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    I thought section 8 housing could only be rented to section 8 participants?
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Unless I'm confusing my programs, Section 8 is a voucher that is used to rent market units.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        Correct. I have section 8 tenants in one of mine. They pay around fifteen percent of their rent, and the government pays the rest. There are advantages and disadvantages, but we're three years in and they're good tenants. Ten times better than the colleges students I always had in there before.
        MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        That's the dirty secret that some don't want to acknowledge: there are plenty of people for whom life has just been unkind to and they aren't slobs just because of their income level. This is doubly true for most poor immigrant families... of all the homes I've been in which were owned by Spanish speaking families, I've rarely ever seen one that wasn't spotless, much less organized. I helped a few neighbors move out of their homes and after we got done moving the furniture, they literally just had to sweep the dust that had accumulated underneath the furniture and they were done with cleaning on move-out.
    - 5y ago
rhizome 5y ago
The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. We'll see if the paper writes a story on how the cost of housing a homeless person has been cut in half after the units turn over to new tenants after the old ones move into their self-sufficient lives.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  A large part of the cost is ongoing things like 24/7 security, sharps disposal, maintenance, etc. The costs per placement will hopefully go down over time but I don't think they will scale linearly
- 1024core 5y ago
  > Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail." In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program. In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
I think comparing to the median SFH price is a bit apples to oranges. Keep in mind that (as far as I know?) the city isn't building actual houses. Most of these developments are more like college dorms or fancy campgrounds (e.g. a parking lot with a bunch of one room 8x8 shelters and a communal bathroom- granted those "tiny homes" are probably not the ones costing over $700k).
- slg 5y ago
  The sentence before that quote I pulled was "Most [emphasis mine] of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments." That seems to imply that the 14% above $700k are probably 2 or more bedrooms and are designed for families. The article has no details on the costs per unit for the other 86% that likely include those dorm room style units.
- thebradbain 5y ago
  You’re right that SFHs definitely skew the median average up, but as someone who lives in Los Angeles — you would be hard pressed to find a brand new apartment unit in the city for less than $800k. Anecdotally, almost all new-build condos I’ve seen (and I saw a lot, when I was home shopping across many different neighborhoods) are just as expensive, if not more expensive, than old/partially-renovated SFHs (which is what I ended up getting). This is pretty universal real estate rule across all LA neighborhoods, per my realtor: new sfh > new condo >= old sfh > old condo (old meaning it’s in need of at least some non-cosmetic renovation or structural retrofit) Part of the issue is the zoning code as it is really only makes it possible for developers to build larger/luxury developments. You don’t see many 4plexes getting built because all of the red tape makes it less profitable than building a new SFH on a multi-unit lot (which I’ve unfortunately seen happen when a charming but old 4plex got demolished in place of a new build McMansion). Hopefully sb9 and sb10 change that. I’m short, I think that at least among new build condos, Los Angeles social housing is still at or below median price per unit. It’s a shame it’s that expensive, but that’s the hole CA dug itself into by not allowing more housing to be built organically.
johnmarcus 5y ago
Journalism is left to the comments these days. God forbid a professional journalist actually present factual information in a clear and concise way for people to digest and make decisions for themselves.

by slg 5y ago

legitster 5y ago

I think this is a great point, but may still disagree with it. To put it another way, we are taking people out of homelessness, and putting them in houses that are more expensive than 30-40% of units on the market. So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. The cost to house homeless shouldn't be slightly below median. Realistically, it should be in the 1th percentile.

slg 5y ago
Remember these are new units and those median prices are for all units regardless of age and condition. It is really impractical to build new units in the 1st percentile. Those are almost always going to be old units that are poorly maintained. You also can't just give this money to homeless people and let them buy or rent their own places because the fundamental problem is a lack of supply. Simply giving them money would increase the cost of homes for everyone else and in turn feed into a cycle of creating more homeless people. The city needs to build new homes to increase the supply.
- legitster 5y ago
  This is that classic "you can't grow old forests" problem. If someone needed a car to get to work, you would never think of providing them with a brand new one. But we are kind of in that situation with housing. I think the city could have saved a bunch of money here sourcing existing housing, then putting the savings into funding general new construction. But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    >But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units. Even assuming this is true, there are plenty of reasons this might be a good deal. One is greater control over construction, alignment of incentives (i.e., the developer incentive is to put up the worst pieces of junk they can get away with), long-term ownership if this is to be a long-term program, etc.
wolverine876 5y ago
> So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. There are programs like that, including large ones like federal Section 8. It's not simple at all: Landlords will often refuse to rent to Section 8 participants. Also, people who are unhoused often need other services in order to get back on their feet.
- thebean11 5y ago
  I thought section 8 housing could only be rented to section 8 participants?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Unless I'm confusing my programs, Section 8 is a voucher that is used to rent market units.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Correct. I have section 8 tenants in one of mine. They pay around fifteen percent of their rent, and the government pays the rest. There are advantages and disadvantages, but we're three years in and they're good tenants. Ten times better than the colleges students I always had in there before.
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        That's the dirty secret that some don't want to acknowledge: there are plenty of people for whom life has just been unkind to and they aren't slobs just because of their income level. This is doubly true for most poor immigrant families... of all the homes I've been in which were owned by Spanish speaking families, I've rarely ever seen one that wasn't spotless, much less organized. I helped a few neighbors move out of their homes and after we got done moving the furniture, they literally just had to sweep the dust that had accumulated underneath the furniture and they were done with cleaning on move-out.
  - 5y ago

rhizome 5y ago

The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. We'll see if the paper writes a story on how the cost of housing a homeless person has been cut in half after the units turn over to new tenants after the old ones move into their self-sufficient lives.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
A large part of the cost is ongoing things like 24/7 security, sharps disposal, maintenance, etc. The costs per placement will hopefully go down over time but I don't think they will scale linearly
1024core 5y ago
> Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.
- rhizome 5y ago
  No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail." In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program. In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

I think comparing to the median SFH price is a bit apples to oranges. Keep in mind that (as far as I know?) the city isn't building actual houses. Most of these developments are more like college dorms or fancy campgrounds (e.g. a parking lot with a bunch of one room 8x8 shelters and a communal bathroom- granted those "tiny homes" are probably not the ones costing over $700k).

slg 5y ago
The sentence before that quote I pulled was "Most [emphasis mine] of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments." That seems to imply that the 14% above $700k are probably 2 or more bedrooms and are designed for families. The article has no details on the costs per unit for the other 86% that likely include those dorm room style units.
thebradbain 5y ago
You’re right that SFHs definitely skew the median average up, but as someone who lives in Los Angeles — you would be hard pressed to find a brand new apartment unit in the city for less than $800k. Anecdotally, almost all new-build condos I’ve seen (and I saw a lot, when I was home shopping across many different neighborhoods) are just as expensive, if not more expensive, than old/partially-renovated SFHs (which is what I ended up getting). This is pretty universal real estate rule across all LA neighborhoods, per my realtor: new sfh > new condo >= old sfh > old condo (old meaning it’s in need of at least some non-cosmetic renovation or structural retrofit) Part of the issue is the zoning code as it is really only makes it possible for developers to build larger/luxury developments. You don’t see many 4plexes getting built because all of the red tape makes it less profitable than building a new SFH on a multi-unit lot (which I’ve unfortunately seen happen when a charming but old 4plex got demolished in place of a new build McMansion). Hopefully sb9 and sb10 change that. I’m short, I think that at least among new build condos, Los Angeles social housing is still at or below median price per unit. It’s a shame it’s that expensive, but that’s the hole CA dug itself into by not allowing more housing to be built organically.

johnmarcus 5y ago

Journalism is left to the comments these days. God forbid a professional journalist actually present factual information in a clear and concise way for people to digest and make decisions for themselves.