3 ms·

>LA spending up to $837,000 to house a single homeless person I really don't understand how people are upset about stuff like this. It follows directly from co

>LA spending up to $837,000 to house a single homeless person I really don't understand how people are upset about stuff like this. It follows directly from commitments which nearly every voter/homeowner in the community would find obvious and uncontroversial. * The state should address homelessness by buying homes for people who need them, within the high-cost metros where they are homeless. * The state is only marginally different from other builders/buyers of housing. It may have preferential rules, but it can't totally bypass the rules, confiscate land, force construction workers to work for free, or anything like that. * $837k is a very normal amount of money for a house in the region, and we should reject out of hand any changes which would substantially collapse property values. You want the market rates to be high, and you want the state to pay close to market rates when it houses people, and you want the state to house people who have no ability to pay... ergo the state is going to spend quite a bit of money on each person it houses. How could it be otherwise?

olivermarks 4y ago
The state doesn't have 'quite a bit of money' to 'buy homes for people who need them, within the high-cost metros where they are homeless'. San Francisco is spending $60k per year on each transient living in a tent on top of the various food stamps, general assistance and food deliveries etc. Many of these people are not from California. As I wrote previously this is a national problem not a local one - Hawaii is struggling with transients who have flown in and thanks to previous social networking know where to immediately register as 'unhoused'. This is a huge intractable problem that needs cost efficient nationwide triaged solutions not complimentary housing in the most expense parts of the country for anyone who wants it.
- closeparen 4y ago
  There are just not that many dispositions the government can have towards someone’s housing situation. You get left alone (status quo), complimentary unlocked housing (moderate cost), or complimentary locked housing (very high cost). Locked housing is off the table anyway because of the whole due process thing. Laws against public camping are unenforceable if you’re not offering complimentary housing. But if they were enforceable, you’d still be offering complimentary housing, just a more expensive form of it.

olivermarks 4y ago

The state doesn't have 'quite a bit of money' to 'buy homes for people who need them, within the high-cost metros where they are homeless'. San Francisco is spending $60k per year on each transient living in a tent on top of the various food stamps, general assistance and food deliveries etc. Many of these people are not from California. As I wrote previously this is a national problem not a local one - Hawaii is struggling with transients who have flown in and thanks to previous social networking know where to immediately register as 'unhoused'. This is a huge intractable problem that needs cost efficient nationwide triaged solutions not complimentary housing in the most expense parts of the country for anyone who wants it.

closeparen 4y ago
There are just not that many dispositions the government can have towards someone’s housing situation. You get left alone (status quo), complimentary unlocked housing (moderate cost), or complimentary locked housing (very high cost). Locked housing is off the table anyway because of the whole due process thing. Laws against public camping are unenforceable if you’re not offering complimentary housing. But if they were enforceable, you’d still be offering complimentary housing, just a more expensive form of it.