3 ms·

I think this is pretty much the most important point: we already have the houses, so we could save so much in CO2 emissions and materials if we don't build 4.3M

I think this is pretty much the most important point: we already have the houses, so we could save so much in CO2 emissions and materials if we don't build 4.3M more homes and instead just pay to put people in existing homes (via eminent domain or subsidized rents or whatever.) edit to add: A couple of people have mentioned that the vacant homes are not in desirable locations. As an anecdote, I live in Park Merced in San Francisco and there are dozens and dozens of empty units here ready to move in. There are also dozens of families living in RVs around Lake Merced a few blocks away. I'm saying that the obvious thing to do is for SF to exercise eminent domain, pay the company that owns Park Merced for the property, then let the people in the RVs live in the homes. That might seem a bit expensive, but SF's annual budget for dealing with homelessness is one quarter of a billion dollars. We could convert Park Merced into a place of healing and renewal where folks who need help can come and live in a home and have access to e.g. addiction treatment or whatever.

junofan 4y ago
People probably want a new home in a desirable location more than a one-house reduction in global CO2 emissions, so what you’re saying requires some amount of coercion. Who’s getting their house taken by the state to give to somebody else, and who’s paying to subsidize the rent?
- carapace 4y ago
  > Who’s getting their [vacant] house taken by the state to give to somebody else, The simple answer is, volunteers first and if that's not enough we can do a lottery. That's just off the top of my head. > and who’s paying to subsidize the rent? US Government. We'll take it out of the defense budget. In the interests of National Security and all that. I really don't think it's that crazy of an idea. The details would be messy but we could house everyone overnight if we really wanted to.
dahdum 4y ago
What happens when the next group of RV dwellers show up? You just gave away homes in one of the most expensive and desirable locations in the country. Isn’t it reasonable to expect your homeless population to backfill with other RV dwellers looking for the same? It sounds so wasteful to buy such expensive real estate, lose property tax revenue, and assume perpetual maintenance costs just to house a fraction of the homeless you could elsewhere.
- carapace 4y ago
  > What happens when the next group of RV dwellers show up? Build more housing and give it to them. > Isn’t it reasonable to expect your homeless population to backfill with other RV dwellers looking for the same? Yes, but there's only about 500,000 homeless people in America. It would not quite double the city population. (Last I checked we were around 800,000.) Park Merced alone could hold thousands more families if we converted the garden apartments and townhomes to towers, although that wouldn't be the only option. The entire Sunset District is almost all single-family homes. SF is a young city, there is lots of room. > It sounds so wasteful to buy such expensive real estate, lose property tax revenue, and assume perpetual maintenance costs just to house a fraction of the homeless you could elsewhere. Perhaps, but compare that to the opportunity cost to society of keeping all those families living in RVs. That's the real waste, eh? Give them homes, let their kids grow up in stable homes, check back in three generations, eh?

junofan 4y ago

People probably want a new home in a desirable location more than a one-house reduction in global CO2 emissions, so what you’re saying requires some amount of coercion. Who’s getting their house taken by the state to give to somebody else, and who’s paying to subsidize the rent?

carapace 4y ago
> Who’s getting their [vacant] house taken by the state to give to somebody else, The simple answer is, volunteers first and if that's not enough we can do a lottery. That's just off the top of my head. > and who’s paying to subsidize the rent? US Government. We'll take it out of the defense budget. In the interests of National Security and all that. I really don't think it's that crazy of an idea. The details would be messy but we could house everyone overnight if we really wanted to.

dahdum 4y ago

What happens when the next group of RV dwellers show up? You just gave away homes in one of the most expensive and desirable locations in the country. Isn’t it reasonable to expect your homeless population to backfill with other RV dwellers looking for the same? It sounds so wasteful to buy such expensive real estate, lose property tax revenue, and assume perpetual maintenance costs just to house a fraction of the homeless you could elsewhere.

carapace 4y ago
> What happens when the next group of RV dwellers show up? Build more housing and give it to them. > Isn’t it reasonable to expect your homeless population to backfill with other RV dwellers looking for the same? Yes, but there's only about 500,000 homeless people in America. It would not quite double the city population. (Last I checked we were around 800,000.) Park Merced alone could hold thousands more families if we converted the garden apartments and townhomes to towers, although that wouldn't be the only option. The entire Sunset District is almost all single-family homes. SF is a young city, there is lots of room. > It sounds so wasteful to buy such expensive real estate, lose property tax revenue, and assume perpetual maintenance costs just to house a fraction of the homeless you could elsewhere. Perhaps, but compare that to the opportunity cost to society of keeping all those families living in RVs. That's the real waste, eh? Give them homes, let their kids grow up in stable homes, check back in three generations, eh?