3 ms·

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

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

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