4 ms·

Homelessness is a housing problem: https://seliger.com/2022/06/29/homelessness-is-a-housing-problem-when-cities-build-housing-homelessness-goes-down/ https://se

Homelessness is a housing problem: https://seliger.com/2022/06/29/homelessness-is-a-housing-problem-when-cities-build-housing-homelessness-goes-down/ https://seliger.com/2022/06/29/homelessness-is-a-housing-pro...: there’s a naive, common view that homelessness is primarily about “mental illness” and “drugs” and other potential contributors to homelessness; while those factors exist, the lower the cost of housing, the easier it is for someone on the margin of being housed or being homeless to stay housed. The lower the cost, the easier it is for family, SSDI, Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV, formerly called Section 8), and other income supports to keep a person housed. Intuitively, this makes sense: it’s easier to cover $750 in rent than $2,000 in rent, even for someone with mental illness and drug problems. As the cost of housing goes up, the number of people who fall from the margins of being “housed” to being “homeless” goes concomitantly up. While mental illness and drug abuse are factors, they’re secondary to housing costs, and they’re really red herrings relative to overall housing costs and ongoing housing shortages across America. The homelessness problem is intractable without zoning reform and the removal of barriers to new housing construction, whether those barriers are height maximums, parking space minimums, or “neighborhood input” or “community input.” Those last two are functionally barriers to building anything, anywhere. We’ve worked on Los Angeles Prop HHH proposals, and, despite that Proposition raising $1.2 billion for housing, not much has materially changed. Why? California makes building anything, anywhere, astonishingly difficult. Until we can increase the supply of housing, we’re going to see homelessness problems.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Seattle has a lot more construction than LA and SF, and it’s zoning is a lot more flexible (no parking minimums), yet we have an outsized share of the unhoused problem (on a per capita basis, larger than LA or SF). I’m not saying housing policy isn’t a blocker, but it can’t be the only one, we can’t seem to build our way privately out of the problem at least here. More drug addiction services are needed before we can really treat this problem. Even putting them up in hotels is incredibly expensive because the damage that has to be repaired.
- mrbgty 3y ago
  Does that mean there's a lot of empty houses in Seattle?
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    No. All the new housing is consumed quickly by new arrivals who aren’t unhoused. Build it and they will come, induced demand applies as much to housing as it does to freeways.
    - mrbgty 3y ago
      That demand can't go to infinity, though, right? I would think the new arrivals would be stimulating factor to build more houses, on the economy, produce new tax dollars for roads, etc.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        No, it can’t go to infinity, and in fact, we are only limited by the USA population plus anyone who can immigrate. Are you suggesting that Seattle build its way out of the nation’s homeless problem on its own? Does everyone have the right to live in certain popular cities? This is an important moral question I guess, because our housing crisis isn’t evenly distributed.
        mrbgty 3y ago
        No, I don't think I'm suggesting that Seattle build a house for everyone in the US + immigrate; only maybe that there is some curve where building more doesn't result in increased demand. I don't see why some would have more of a right than others to live in a place on a baseline level and at the same time I don't think it would be right to force people out of their homes just to make it fair to everyone to have a chance to live there. If a place is desirable, the people who were already there are more likely going to be the ones who have been contributing towards making it a desirable place to live than ones who were not already there.
gazelle21 3y ago
The big elephant in the room, is those who have homes aren't ever going to let go of their homes for anything else than 100+% profit, it's in their best interest to not allow any other competition. Neighborhoods that argue over inches of fences and HOA colors, routinely come together to block apartments and other housing. This holiday season, family members will be openly bragging about how their home is worth 1.7 million, which they purchased for 300k. The room full of apartment/roommate living student debt loaded will get very quiet.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  I don’t see why neighborhoods should have to allow more homes to be built. America is huge and mostly empty, there’s tons of land to build on before we start trying to ruin existing communities. When I hear this it just sounds like trying to set the precedent of screwing people out of their land. Your mention of profit sounds like trying to do so without fair compensation, which currently is at least required for eminent domain.
- baseline-shift 3y ago
  Yes, there's lots of houses in suburbs with empty bedrooms. If there was an incentive for boomers to rent rooms in their houses like in the 1920s. But that is risky for the boomers. How about to reduce risk, but reward lucky ownwes, a lot of houses too big for aging boomers, could have incentive payments to sell to HUD to convert into rooming houses, with lockable bedrooms rented separately, and the shared kitchens and bathrooms cleaned by HUD, and quick evictions for any troublesome renters. So more like renting at a YMCA or backpackers' hostel, ideal for the working poor.
pandaman 3y ago
This theory is always posted in these threads but there is no answer how come the places with the most expensive real estate have no homeless. Aspen, Hamptons, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Martha's Vineyard etc. etc. do not have homeless encampments, which should have been huge according to this theory. The trick it uses is introducing a continuity with the "easier" term. There is no such thing in reality. If you have no income you won't be renting either $1000 nor $10000 apartment despite the former being "easier" to afford. And if you have income you will move to the housing you can afford and won't be hanging under an overpass just to piss off the landlords.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Seattle has a lot more construction than LA and SF, and it’s zoning is a lot more flexible (no parking minimums), yet we have an outsized share of the unhoused problem (on a per capita basis, larger than LA or SF). I’m not saying housing policy isn’t a blocker, but it can’t be the only one, we can’t seem to build our way privately out of the problem at least here. More drug addiction services are needed before we can really treat this problem. Even putting them up in hotels is incredibly expensive because the damage that has to be repaired.

mrbgty 3y ago
Does that mean there's a lot of empty houses in Seattle?
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  No. All the new housing is consumed quickly by new arrivals who aren’t unhoused. Build it and they will come, induced demand applies as much to housing as it does to freeways.
  - mrbgty 3y ago
    That demand can't go to infinity, though, right? I would think the new arrivals would be stimulating factor to build more houses, on the economy, produce new tax dollars for roads, etc.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      No, it can’t go to infinity, and in fact, we are only limited by the USA population plus anyone who can immigrate. Are you suggesting that Seattle build its way out of the nation’s homeless problem on its own? Does everyone have the right to live in certain popular cities? This is an important moral question I guess, because our housing crisis isn’t evenly distributed.
      - mrbgty 3y ago
        No, I don't think I'm suggesting that Seattle build a house for everyone in the US + immigrate; only maybe that there is some curve where building more doesn't result in increased demand. I don't see why some would have more of a right than others to live in a place on a baseline level and at the same time I don't think it would be right to force people out of their homes just to make it fair to everyone to have a chance to live there. If a place is desirable, the people who were already there are more likely going to be the ones who have been contributing towards making it a desirable place to live than ones who were not already there.

gazelle21 3y ago

The big elephant in the room, is those who have homes aren't ever going to let go of their homes for anything else than 100+% profit, it's in their best interest to not allow any other competition. Neighborhoods that argue over inches of fences and HOA colors, routinely come together to block apartments and other housing. This holiday season, family members will be openly bragging about how their home is worth 1.7 million, which they purchased for 300k. The room full of apartment/roommate living student debt loaded will get very quiet.

edgyquant 3y ago
I don’t see why neighborhoods should have to allow more homes to be built. America is huge and mostly empty, there’s tons of land to build on before we start trying to ruin existing communities. When I hear this it just sounds like trying to set the precedent of screwing people out of their land. Your mention of profit sounds like trying to do so without fair compensation, which currently is at least required for eminent domain.
baseline-shift 3y ago
Yes, there's lots of houses in suburbs with empty bedrooms. If there was an incentive for boomers to rent rooms in their houses like in the 1920s. But that is risky for the boomers. How about to reduce risk, but reward lucky ownwes, a lot of houses too big for aging boomers, could have incentive payments to sell to HUD to convert into rooming houses, with lockable bedrooms rented separately, and the shared kitchens and bathrooms cleaned by HUD, and quick evictions for any troublesome renters. So more like renting at a YMCA or backpackers' hostel, ideal for the working poor.

pandaman 3y ago

This theory is always posted in these threads but there is no answer how come the places with the most expensive real estate have no homeless. Aspen, Hamptons, Malibu, Beverly Hills, Martha's Vineyard etc. etc. do not have homeless encampments, which should have been huge according to this theory. The trick it uses is introducing a continuity with the "easier" term. There is no such thing in reality. If you have no income you won't be renting either $1000 nor $10000 apartment despite the former being "easier" to afford. And if you have income you will move to the housing you can afford and won't be hanging under an overpass just to piss off the landlords.