4 ms·

Beverly Hills in crisis as judge mandates new affordable housing

19 points by hhs 3y ago

rekabis 3y ago
Sounds like the dictionary definition of _first world problems._ OMG, _the horror!!_
- pvaldes 3y ago
  "other's problems are worse" never solved a single thing in the history
DoreenMichele 3y ago
California has about 12 percent of the US population, about 25 percent or so of the homeless population of the United States and about 50 percent of the unsheltered homeless in this country. I don't think their affordable housing crisis is really a local problem that can be solved solely with local efforts.
- a1234567 3y ago
  And we can fix that. 90% of that 50% of the unsheltered in the country is hopelessly, rampantly, addicted to hard drugs that are still illegal, even in CA and committing multiple other misdemeanors per day. While I don't think it's a good idea to force people into mental health or drug treatment against their will (e.g. involuntary commitment) just because they are mentally ill or addicted. But I do think that if they are busy committing strings of dozens of misdemeanors, stealing, openly using meth and fentanyl, etc. that this is the perfect opportunity to actually enforce the laws on the books. Then it is the state that can decide to show leniency by sentencing and enforcing treatment. Poof! now you would have only 5% of the nation's unsheltered homeless instead of 50%. The rest would a minimum be sheltered. They could then be treated for mental illness and weaned off drugs. It would probably save the lives of many. Taking a ridiculously permissive stance on squatting, stealing, drugs, trespassing, property crimes, etc. is not humane. On the contrary, it is 100% causing the situation.
  - ryan_lane 3y ago
    Your number is a made up lie and you know it. Link some sources for this, or stop spreading this nonsense. Some number of the unsheltered homeless are drug addicts, and some of those became drug addicts after they were homeless, because being homeless is soul crushing. You need to be asking the true cause of a lot of this homelessness, and also the cause of the cases where folks became homeless because of drug use. A very large percentage of all homeless are veterans (20-30%) and california has the highest number of homeless veterans (so the percentage is likely higher there). Most folks become homeless due to costs, not drugs. The most visible, aggressive homeless are likely drug addicts, and those are the ones you notice, but they aren't properly representative of the problem, and your characteristic of the problem makes the problem worse, not better.
  - rnburn 3y ago
    Where are you getting that 90% number from? That doesn't match with any source I'm familiar with. For example, the 2023 statewide homeless study from UCSF (https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CA...) reported these numbers: "We describe current regular use of cocaine, amphetamines, and non-prescribed opioids as use three times a week or more. By this definition, one third (35%) of participants reported currently using cocaine, amphetamines, or non-prescription opioids regularly (Figure 31). Thirty-one percent of participants report current regular use of methamphetamines; 3% cocaine, and 11% non-prescribed opioids. In the prior six months, 13% of all participants report using injection drugs."
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    There is a nationwide shortage of affordable housing. Studies strongly support the idea that this is the primary root cause of homelessness. It's a tired and inaccurate meme that "homeless people are all junkies and crazies who aren't trying hard enough to solve their personal issues." I'm talking about housing issues and what needs to be done to redress a nationwide shortage of affordable housing. Lots of millionaire rock stars are also junkies and it doesn't land them on the street. They go in and out of treatment but still have sometimes multiple mansions. I see zero reason to believe that drugs and alcohol are some primary cause of homelessness. Homelessness is a complex issue and people want a simple answer. The simple answer is that we lack affordable housing nationwide. Another fairly simply concept that applies broadly is that you end up homeless when your problems exceed your support resources. The difference between a homeless person and a housed person can be one more problem or one less resource, whether a good friend, a steady source of income, a family doctor or some other form of support that helps you make your life.
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Agreed. But devils advocate, we also have a lot of the money. Look at a state like Mississippi. Yes, they likely have less unhoused population per capita, but they're also much lower in GDP per capita. To get at the real metric, we should be comparing GDP per unhoused person of each state.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    The US has underbuilt housing for decades and there are a lot of forces that have pushed up house size while average household size has decreased. There isn't a single US state with enough affordable housing. It's like the Red Queen Effect where you have to run faster just to stay in place and some people can't keep up, fall off the treadmill and can't manage to get back on. Studies show increased cost of housing is the single biggest predictor of rising rates of homelessness and homeless people somewhat often travel to places with better climates to camp. The temperate weather and low rainfall in California helps attract people from out of state and then housing costs there are so high its nigh impossible to get back into housing once there.
    - saltcured 3y ago
      I have similar perspective. But, I struggle to imagine a holistic answer that doesn't seem self-contradictory. Here's the core problem statement: As long as it is true that some places are more desirable than others, there is an increasing population, and we resolve access conflicts via capitalism, there are going to be financially displaced people. Given that, where do we draw the line on whether it is a local problem to solve with "infill" (i.e. keep increasing density and lowering cost to satisfy all who want it) versus "displacement" (i.e. declaring the area is fully developed and occupied, so those without sufficient budget must try somewhere else)? I am not advocating a particular view here. But, I do think the same question arises at different scopes/size/granularity, and I find it fascinating how people draw lines and answer completely differently for different scopes. It's heavily politicized too. So here's the thought experiment: Does an individual rich person have to add housing to their mansion or estate for those who cannot offer enough to buy out the whole property? Or can the owner reasonably expect those people to look elsewhere? What about a rich enclave/gated community/subdivision? Or a small and rich city like Beverly Hills? Or Los Angeles County? Or various attractive regional or state parks? Or Yosemite National Park? Or coastal towns which are highly sought after and also more survivable without shelter? Or the whole State of California? Or the entire USA? Of course we could ask similar questions about other US regions, but I tried to stick to California given the thread...
- rnburn 3y ago
  California has close to the worst per capita housing supply of any state in the US. From https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...: "The state’s population has steadily grown, but it hasn’t been building new places for people to live at anything close to the same rate. It now ranks 49th in housing units per capita." There's a lot that can be done locally to improve homelessness.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    The article you are quoting is from 2018. An article from 2019 says: For this map, we analyzed the states with the most available housing based on population. We divided the number of housing units available in 2019 by the state’s population in order to determine the states with the most available housing per capita. By this metric, we can see that the states where it’s easiest to find housing include Utah (2.83 units per capita), California (2.75), Hawaii (2.57), and Texas (2.57). Overall, in the United States, there are approximately 2.35 housing units available per capita. https://www.deedclaim.com/states-with-most-housing-growth/ https://www.deedclaim.com/states-with-most-housing-growth/ A favorite quote of mine: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. It's often attributed to Mark Twain, who popularized it. He attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist... I'm sure your comment is made in good faith, but it doesn't actually rebut my statement that this is not a problem that is likely to be solved by solely local efforts. Adding more lanes to a freeway tends to not solve the problem of congestion. If you want fewer cars on the road, you need to make it feasible for more people to get where they want or need to go some other way: walking, cycling, public transit. Our current financing mechanisms, housing policies and general expectations for what constitutes good housing are rooted in policies developed post World War II to help solve the housing crisis of that era and it gave birth to the modern suburb. We now have policies and practices that make it hard to build and finance anything other than single-family detached homes and various trends have pushed up average size of new homes while the average number of people living in such homes has shrunk. Does California need more affordable housing? Absolutely. So does every other state in the US. And other states are generally more affordable than California, so if other states will also address their housing issues, you will see fewer homeless people moving to California to camp in a tent and then finding it tough to get back into housing.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  Seeing as the article is not about solving homelessness across the country, but in a specific place, I'm a bit confused by your comment. Do you think the measures undertaken in the article are useful or pointless?
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I think California is the dumping ground for America's homeless and people don't see that. They think it's a California problem. I think we need national solutions to this issue. I think California cannot solve it alone. A problem of this size doesn't get solved at the point of impact. You have to step back, get a bigger picture view and see where it's coming from. It's like a flood. Drawing a line in the sand at your door won't stop it.
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      I think a more equitable distribution of wealth than the status quo would be great, but I'm still not sure what you think of the judge's decision. Seems to me it's a good ruling, trying to push the locals to build more affordable housing. No, it won't solve homelessness, but it seems like the judge is helping, a little bit. [edit] or is his ruling just theater?
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        And I didn't comment on what the judge is doing. Because for me, that's kind of irrelevant, for reasons I've already covered.
        EchoChamberMan 3y ago
        Thank you for clarifying.
        DoreenMichele 3y ago
        Re your edit: It's probably not just theater. It's probably a good faith effort to fix a problem that's poorly understood using the tools available in a situation where it's very challenging to try get a real solution implemented. But in practice that makes it not much better than theater. If it simply doesn't work, it makes little difference if they genuinely meant well or were consciously going through the motions to "look good" without having to deliver real results.
mynameisnoone 3y ago
While locally-managed, tailored efforts are better than central planning, social security functions need federal support to spread the costs evenly. Rather than pouring billions into militarized repression or untested pipedreams, housing shortages needs to be solved with housing and sensible policies. I take it this sort of activist lawmaking from the bench likely exceeding their authority intends to compel reactive lawmaking of viable alternatives. This sounds unproductive and political in nature rather than policywonk-worthy. Disclaimer: I was unhoused and invisible in California for 9 years. No one cared since actions speak louder than words. The only way the situation will ever change is through focused, patient, nonviolent, disruptive collective action to insist on it. It's unlikely to ever change because 80% of Americans are either motivated by selfishness, callousness, selfishness, ignorance, or expedient neglect.
JohnClark1337 3y ago
[dead]

19 points by hhs 3y ago

rekabis 3y ago

Sounds like the dictionary definition of _first world problems._ OMG, _the horror!!_

pvaldes 3y ago
"other's problems are worse" never solved a single thing in the history

DoreenMichele 3y ago

California has about 12 percent of the US population, about 25 percent or so of the homeless population of the United States and about 50 percent of the unsheltered homeless in this country. I don't think their affordable housing crisis is really a local problem that can be solved solely with local efforts.

a1234567 3y ago
And we can fix that. 90% of that 50% of the unsheltered in the country is hopelessly, rampantly, addicted to hard drugs that are still illegal, even in CA and committing multiple other misdemeanors per day. While I don't think it's a good idea to force people into mental health or drug treatment against their will (e.g. involuntary commitment) just because they are mentally ill or addicted. But I do think that if they are busy committing strings of dozens of misdemeanors, stealing, openly using meth and fentanyl, etc. that this is the perfect opportunity to actually enforce the laws on the books. Then it is the state that can decide to show leniency by sentencing and enforcing treatment. Poof! now you would have only 5% of the nation's unsheltered homeless instead of 50%. The rest would a minimum be sheltered. They could then be treated for mental illness and weaned off drugs. It would probably save the lives of many. Taking a ridiculously permissive stance on squatting, stealing, drugs, trespassing, property crimes, etc. is not humane. On the contrary, it is 100% causing the situation.
- ryan_lane 3y ago
  Your number is a made up lie and you know it. Link some sources for this, or stop spreading this nonsense. Some number of the unsheltered homeless are drug addicts, and some of those became drug addicts after they were homeless, because being homeless is soul crushing. You need to be asking the true cause of a lot of this homelessness, and also the cause of the cases where folks became homeless because of drug use. A very large percentage of all homeless are veterans (20-30%) and california has the highest number of homeless veterans (so the percentage is likely higher there). Most folks become homeless due to costs, not drugs. The most visible, aggressive homeless are likely drug addicts, and those are the ones you notice, but they aren't properly representative of the problem, and your characteristic of the problem makes the problem worse, not better.
- rnburn 3y ago
  Where are you getting that 90% number from? That doesn't match with any source I'm familiar with. For example, the 2023 statewide homeless study from UCSF (https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CA...) reported these numbers: "We describe current regular use of cocaine, amphetamines, and non-prescribed opioids as use three times a week or more. By this definition, one third (35%) of participants reported currently using cocaine, amphetamines, or non-prescription opioids regularly (Figure 31). Thirty-one percent of participants report current regular use of methamphetamines; 3% cocaine, and 11% non-prescribed opioids. In the prior six months, 13% of all participants report using injection drugs."
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  There is a nationwide shortage of affordable housing. Studies strongly support the idea that this is the primary root cause of homelessness. It's a tired and inaccurate meme that "homeless people are all junkies and crazies who aren't trying hard enough to solve their personal issues." I'm talking about housing issues and what needs to be done to redress a nationwide shortage of affordable housing. Lots of millionaire rock stars are also junkies and it doesn't land them on the street. They go in and out of treatment but still have sometimes multiple mansions. I see zero reason to believe that drugs and alcohol are some primary cause of homelessness. Homelessness is a complex issue and people want a simple answer. The simple answer is that we lack affordable housing nationwide. Another fairly simply concept that applies broadly is that you end up homeless when your problems exceed your support resources. The difference between a homeless person and a housed person can be one more problem or one less resource, whether a good friend, a steady source of income, a family doctor or some other form of support that helps you make your life.
iancmceachern 3y ago
Agreed. But devils advocate, we also have a lot of the money. Look at a state like Mississippi. Yes, they likely have less unhoused population per capita, but they're also much lower in GDP per capita. To get at the real metric, we should be comparing GDP per unhoused person of each state.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  The US has underbuilt housing for decades and there are a lot of forces that have pushed up house size while average household size has decreased. There isn't a single US state with enough affordable housing. It's like the Red Queen Effect where you have to run faster just to stay in place and some people can't keep up, fall off the treadmill and can't manage to get back on. Studies show increased cost of housing is the single biggest predictor of rising rates of homelessness and homeless people somewhat often travel to places with better climates to camp. The temperate weather and low rainfall in California helps attract people from out of state and then housing costs there are so high its nigh impossible to get back into housing once there.
  - saltcured 3y ago
    I have similar perspective. But, I struggle to imagine a holistic answer that doesn't seem self-contradictory. Here's the core problem statement: As long as it is true that some places are more desirable than others, there is an increasing population, and we resolve access conflicts via capitalism, there are going to be financially displaced people. Given that, where do we draw the line on whether it is a local problem to solve with "infill" (i.e. keep increasing density and lowering cost to satisfy all who want it) versus "displacement" (i.e. declaring the area is fully developed and occupied, so those without sufficient budget must try somewhere else)? I am not advocating a particular view here. But, I do think the same question arises at different scopes/size/granularity, and I find it fascinating how people draw lines and answer completely differently for different scopes. It's heavily politicized too. So here's the thought experiment: Does an individual rich person have to add housing to their mansion or estate for those who cannot offer enough to buy out the whole property? Or can the owner reasonably expect those people to look elsewhere? What about a rich enclave/gated community/subdivision? Or a small and rich city like Beverly Hills? Or Los Angeles County? Or various attractive regional or state parks? Or Yosemite National Park? Or coastal towns which are highly sought after and also more survivable without shelter? Or the whole State of California? Or the entire USA? Of course we could ask similar questions about other US regions, but I tried to stick to California given the thread...
rnburn 3y ago
California has close to the worst per capita housing supply of any state in the US. From https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...: "The state’s population has steadily grown, but it hasn’t been building new places for people to live at anything close to the same rate. It now ranks 49th in housing units per capita." There's a lot that can be done locally to improve homelessness.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  The article you are quoting is from 2018. An article from 2019 says: For this map, we analyzed the states with the most available housing based on population. We divided the number of housing units available in 2019 by the state’s population in order to determine the states with the most available housing per capita. By this metric, we can see that the states where it’s easiest to find housing include Utah (2.83 units per capita), California (2.75), Hawaii (2.57), and Texas (2.57). Overall, in the United States, there are approximately 2.35 housing units available per capita. https://www.deedclaim.com/states-with-most-housing-growth/ https://www.deedclaim.com/states-with-most-housing-growth/ A favorite quote of mine: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. It's often attributed to Mark Twain, who popularized it. He attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist... I'm sure your comment is made in good faith, but it doesn't actually rebut my statement that this is not a problem that is likely to be solved by solely local efforts. Adding more lanes to a freeway tends to not solve the problem of congestion. If you want fewer cars on the road, you need to make it feasible for more people to get where they want or need to go some other way: walking, cycling, public transit. Our current financing mechanisms, housing policies and general expectations for what constitutes good housing are rooted in policies developed post World War II to help solve the housing crisis of that era and it gave birth to the modern suburb. We now have policies and practices that make it hard to build and finance anything other than single-family detached homes and various trends have pushed up average size of new homes while the average number of people living in such homes has shrunk. Does California need more affordable housing? Absolutely. So does every other state in the US. And other states are generally more affordable than California, so if other states will also address their housing issues, you will see fewer homeless people moving to California to camp in a tent and then finding it tough to get back into housing.
EchoChamberMan 3y ago
Seeing as the article is not about solving homelessness across the country, but in a specific place, I'm a bit confused by your comment. Do you think the measures undertaken in the article are useful or pointless?
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  I think California is the dumping ground for America's homeless and people don't see that. They think it's a California problem. I think we need national solutions to this issue. I think California cannot solve it alone. A problem of this size doesn't get solved at the point of impact. You have to step back, get a bigger picture view and see where it's coming from. It's like a flood. Drawing a line in the sand at your door won't stop it.
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    I think a more equitable distribution of wealth than the status quo would be great, but I'm still not sure what you think of the judge's decision. Seems to me it's a good ruling, trying to push the locals to build more affordable housing. No, it won't solve homelessness, but it seems like the judge is helping, a little bit. [edit] or is his ruling just theater?
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      And I didn't comment on what the judge is doing. Because for me, that's kind of irrelevant, for reasons I've already covered.
      - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
        Thank you for clarifying.
        DoreenMichele 3y ago
        Re your edit: It's probably not just theater. It's probably a good faith effort to fix a problem that's poorly understood using the tools available in a situation where it's very challenging to try get a real solution implemented. But in practice that makes it not much better than theater. If it simply doesn't work, it makes little difference if they genuinely meant well or were consciously going through the motions to "look good" without having to deliver real results.

mynameisnoone 3y ago

While locally-managed, tailored efforts are better than central planning, social security functions need federal support to spread the costs evenly. Rather than pouring billions into militarized repression or untested pipedreams, housing shortages needs to be solved with housing and sensible policies. I take it this sort of activist lawmaking from the bench likely exceeding their authority intends to compel reactive lawmaking of viable alternatives. This sounds unproductive and political in nature rather than policywonk-worthy. Disclaimer: I was unhoused and invisible in California for 9 years. No one cared since actions speak louder than words. The only way the situation will ever change is through focused, patient, nonviolent, disruptive collective action to insist on it. It's unlikely to ever change because 80% of Americans are either motivated by selfishness, callousness, selfishness, ignorance, or expedient neglect.

JohnClark1337 3y ago

[dead]