3 ms·

Other than calling "nonsense", you haven't really made the case against for something that has precedent. Care to take another whack at it?

encoderer 4y ago
$550,000 a unit. Come on. You can’t be serious that this is a solution. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-california-coronavirus-pandemic-835c2091c63c199d397346a497e7ae49 https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...
- lapetitejort 4y ago
  > CEO John Maceri said the state has set up local governments for success, but it will take a combined effort of politicians and service providers to sustain the program. He estimates conversion costs will be far less than $550,000 per unit, the going rate for building from the ground up. I assume this is where you got your number? Why skip the "far less" part?
  - encoderer 4y ago
    Just fast googling. Here’s another source at $300k - still insane. https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-san-francisco-awarded-grants-to-covert-hotels-into-housing-for-homeless-residents.amp https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-san-francisco-awarded-gran...
- sterlind 4y ago
  The only to solve homelessness in a city, definitionally, are getting the homeless to move out, or getting them housing. Given the insane real estate prices in the area, $550K seems accurate to buy them housing. Unless you plan to round them up and ship them to camps, or find a way to get them jobs that pay well enough to lease a $550K unit, you're sort of out of options.
  - encoderer 4y ago
    Homeless shelters? Seems to be a heck of a lot cheaper and more scalable than putting people up in 300-500k condos?
    - ryan_lane 4y ago
      Shelters are a temporary means of keeping people alive. They are not long-term housing and don't solve the problem. Also, they aren't cheap and they aren't scalable. We need and want shelters to exist, but only as a means of temporary housing.
      - encoderer 4y ago
        Yes they should have cheaper housing for everybody. Not expensive housing for homeless.
        davidw 4y ago
        And that is one of the primary things that YIMBY Action is working on.

encoderer 4y ago

$550,000 a unit. Come on. You can’t be serious that this is a solution. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-california-coronavirus-pandemic-835c2091c63c199d397346a497e7ae49 https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...

lapetitejort 4y ago
> CEO John Maceri said the state has set up local governments for success, but it will take a combined effort of politicians and service providers to sustain the program. He estimates conversion costs will be far less than $550,000 per unit, the going rate for building from the ground up. I assume this is where you got your number? Why skip the "far less" part?
- encoderer 4y ago
  Just fast googling. Here’s another source at $300k - still insane. https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-san-francisco-awarded-grants-to-covert-hotels-into-housing-for-homeless-residents.amp https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-san-francisco-awarded-gran...
sterlind 4y ago
The only to solve homelessness in a city, definitionally, are getting the homeless to move out, or getting them housing. Given the insane real estate prices in the area, $550K seems accurate to buy them housing. Unless you plan to round them up and ship them to camps, or find a way to get them jobs that pay well enough to lease a $550K unit, you're sort of out of options.
- encoderer 4y ago
  Homeless shelters? Seems to be a heck of a lot cheaper and more scalable than putting people up in 300-500k condos?
  - ryan_lane 4y ago
    Shelters are a temporary means of keeping people alive. They are not long-term housing and don't solve the problem. Also, they aren't cheap and they aren't scalable. We need and want shelters to exist, but only as a means of temporary housing.
    - encoderer 4y ago
      Yes they should have cheaper housing for everybody. Not expensive housing for homeless.
      - davidw 4y ago
        And that is one of the primary things that YIMBY Action is working on.