4 ms·

While it may not be uncommon, I would say it shouldn’t be subsidized (at least until there homeless population is 0). The government should not be subsidizing

While it may not be uncommon, I would say it shouldn’t be subsidized (at least until there homeless population is 0). The government should not be subsidizing anyone going for a second slice of cake, when there are lots of people who haven’t had a first slice.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> it shouldn’t be subsidized (at least until there homeless population is 0) Mortgage subsidies don't meaningfully affect homelessness. Someone putting down a deposit with a developer for a fifth property to rent actually expands housing supply. That tweaks only rent-versus-own ratios. What does skew home supply is vacancy. Whether due to offshore holders treating New York apartment as poker chips, seasonal vacationers, delusional landlords asking above market, or NIMBYs blocking development, vacancy decreases housing supply and thus increases housing costs for renters and owners alike.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  I think that's fair, and I was probably a little narrowly focused on summer/winter housing (which, I would assume would contribute to vacancy, unless used as short term rentals).
- quxbar 4y ago
  that's like saying the cause of death is lack of oxygen to the brain - technically true, but hardly insightful.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > like saying the cause of death is lack of oxygen to the brain No, it’s like saying someone will die from lack of corn. When they can substitute with grain. Shelter is shelter, rented or owned.
xwdv 4y ago
Homeless people’s problem isn’t that they can’t afford a home, it’s that they are too addicted to drugs and unhireable to ever really afford one. This has nothing to with mortgage subsidies and it’s disingenuous to use that as an argument against them.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Last time I checked 10% of homeless in SF have a job that pays roughly 50k USD per year. Thanks for the stereotypes.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    10% is hardly a strong enough amount to break a stereotype.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Evidence of drug addiction being the main cause of homelessness in san fran?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> it shouldn’t be subsidized (at least until there homeless population is 0) Mortgage subsidies don't meaningfully affect homelessness. Someone putting down a deposit with a developer for a fifth property to rent actually expands housing supply. That tweaks only rent-versus-own ratios. What does skew home supply is vacancy. Whether due to offshore holders treating New York apartment as poker chips, seasonal vacationers, delusional landlords asking above market, or NIMBYs blocking development, vacancy decreases housing supply and thus increases housing costs for renters and owners alike.

ncallaway 4y ago
I think that's fair, and I was probably a little narrowly focused on summer/winter housing (which, I would assume would contribute to vacancy, unless used as short term rentals).
quxbar 4y ago
that's like saying the cause of death is lack of oxygen to the brain - technically true, but hardly insightful.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > like saying the cause of death is lack of oxygen to the brain No, it’s like saying someone will die from lack of corn. When they can substitute with grain. Shelter is shelter, rented or owned.

xwdv 4y ago

Homeless people’s problem isn’t that they can’t afford a home, it’s that they are too addicted to drugs and unhireable to ever really afford one. This has nothing to with mortgage subsidies and it’s disingenuous to use that as an argument against them.

imtringued 4y ago
Last time I checked 10% of homeless in SF have a job that pays roughly 50k USD per year. Thanks for the stereotypes.
- xwdv 4y ago
  10% is hardly a strong enough amount to break a stereotype.
themitigating 4y ago
Evidence of drug addiction being the main cause of homelessness in san fran?