3 ms·

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

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...
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Homelessness is an inherently hard problem to solve. Programs to "help the homeless" tend to make the problem worse. If you need to be homeless to qualify for help, there are perverse incentives at work. We need a new housing model. Since World War II, average house size has increased, average household size (number of people in the home) has decreased. We fundamentally need a different form of housing than what is getting fostered by policies and financing mechanisms largely created as part of the process of solving the last housing crisis by inventing the modern suburb and blanketing the country with it. We now have a cartoonish 1950s single family home on steroids as our default expectation, thus the red queen effect. We have torn down a million single room occupancy units and expect as a default that single young adults in the city rent a bedroom in a 5 bedroom family home shared with unrelated single people in a living situation not designed for that. Then we make horror movies about room mates, like Single White Female, and pretend this is inevitable and not a consequence of policy decisions that actively discourage builders from building homes that work for singletons, students, seniors and single parents.

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...

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Homelessness is an inherently hard problem to solve. Programs to "help the homeless" tend to make the problem worse. If you need to be homeless to qualify for help, there are perverse incentives at work. We need a new housing model. Since World War II, average house size has increased, average household size (number of people in the home) has decreased. We fundamentally need a different form of housing than what is getting fostered by policies and financing mechanisms largely created as part of the process of solving the last housing crisis by inventing the modern suburb and blanketing the country with it. We now have a cartoonish 1950s single family home on steroids as our default expectation, thus the red queen effect. We have torn down a million single room occupancy units and expect as a default that single young adults in the city rent a bedroom in a 5 bedroom family home shared with unrelated single people in a living situation not designed for that. Then we make horror movies about room mates, like Single White Female, and pretend this is inevitable and not a consequence of policy decisions that actively discourage builders from building homes that work for singletons, students, seniors and single parents.