4 ms·

10% is a shockingly high number. In a city where 1.25% of people slept in a homeless shelter last year (not counting the tens of thousands on the street), havin

by HWR_14 4y ago

10% is a shockingly high number. In a city where 1.25% of people slept in a homeless shelter last year (not counting the tens of thousands on the street), having 8 times that as a percentage of rental stock to tourists seems insane.

rdtwo 4y ago
I mean how many of those could actually be housed in a real building without risk of huge amounts of property damage? I bet most people would rather keep a unit empty than to risk dealing with that 1%
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > I mean how many of those could actually be housed in a real building without risk of huge amounts of property damage? Probably a large amount. 30% of that 1% are children. Most people who end up in shelters are there as result of economic setback. After all, if people cause damage in the shelter they are also kicked out.
ipaddr 4y ago
The lack of rental properties is not preventing the 1.25% from being housed. The cost /lack of money / mental health issues / drugs / etc are the primary reasons. Giving back 1% stock would not see the rate fall to .25%
- e-clinton 4y ago
  It’s not always as dramatic as you think. Lots of homeless folks in NYC are regular working people who simply can’t afford rent. I have a close friend whose spent 2 years in a shelter with his wife and daughter before digging himself out.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Adding those properties back into the rental market is not going to lower the rent for those in borderline situations and shelters. Properties that get rented are in average to excellent condition/areas which will increase the supply for luxury property. Your friend needs the government to build low income housing geared to a percentage of income or price controlled.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  People on drugs or with severe mental health issues are probably unable to be in the population admitted to a shelter and is in the street. Certainly, since the average shelter stay is over a year and 4 months, any concerns about them being bad tenants would assume they behave significantly differently in an apartment than in a shelter that will kick them out. Yes it's a cost/lack of money question. If only economics told us what we'd expect to see happen if the supply of a resource priced out of peoples budget (long term housing) was increased.
gruez 4y ago
10% is just a random number I came up with and isn’t supposed to be taken as some sort of estimate.

by HWR_14 4y ago

rdtwo 4y ago

I mean how many of those could actually be housed in a real building without risk of huge amounts of property damage? I bet most people would rather keep a unit empty than to risk dealing with that 1%

HWR_14 4y ago
> I mean how many of those could actually be housed in a real building without risk of huge amounts of property damage? Probably a large amount. 30% of that 1% are children. Most people who end up in shelters are there as result of economic setback. After all, if people cause damage in the shelter they are also kicked out.

ipaddr 4y ago

The lack of rental properties is not preventing the 1.25% from being housed. The cost /lack of money / mental health issues / drugs / etc are the primary reasons. Giving back 1% stock would not see the rate fall to .25%

e-clinton 4y ago
It’s not always as dramatic as you think. Lots of homeless folks in NYC are regular working people who simply can’t afford rent. I have a close friend whose spent 2 years in a shelter with his wife and daughter before digging himself out.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Adding those properties back into the rental market is not going to lower the rent for those in borderline situations and shelters. Properties that get rented are in average to excellent condition/areas which will increase the supply for luxury property. Your friend needs the government to build low income housing geared to a percentage of income or price controlled.
HWR_14 4y ago
People on drugs or with severe mental health issues are probably unable to be in the population admitted to a shelter and is in the street. Certainly, since the average shelter stay is over a year and 4 months, any concerns about them being bad tenants would assume they behave significantly differently in an apartment than in a shelter that will kick them out. Yes it's a cost/lack of money question. If only economics told us what we'd expect to see happen if the supply of a resource priced out of peoples budget (long term housing) was increased.

gruez 4y ago

10% is just a random number I came up with and isn’t supposed to be taken as some sort of estimate.