3 ms·

There are enough vacant homes in the US to give every homeless person 25 homes. That is not the root cause of the problem.

loeg 2y ago
This is a vacuous argument. The vacant homes are largely either temporary (moving out before prepping to sell) or in the wrong places (no jobs). The homeless need more homes where they live and work (or seek work).
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  Have you seen the housing market in the past few years? Skyrocketing interest rates and construction levels not seen since before 2007, all which (to any economist who passed ECON 101 would say would lower housing costs) and homes are still 40% more expensive than they were in 2020.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > construction levels not seen since before 2007 Now plot post-War housing stock against population. We have more houses than ancient Egypt ergo supply and demand is fake isn’t an argument.
  - loeg 2y ago
    And yet, construction still hasn't matched demand. Supply increased and demand increased more.
jeffbee 2y ago
There are not. The census definition of "vacant" clung to by people pushing this viewpoint includes uninhabitable construction sites that happen to have the doors and windows installed, homes that have already been rented or sold but the new occupant hasn't moved in yet, homes of deceased people still in estate probate, homes being repaired between tenants, and many others. Only about 9% of census-vacant homes are what a normal person thinks of as a "vacant home".
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  Great, if only 9% of vacant homes are what a normal person would think of as a vacant home, we can still give every homeless person 2 homes each! The issue has never been housing inventory in an effort to making housing more affordable. If the past 4 years have shown us anything it's that even with skyrocketing interest rates and new construction matching pre-2007 levels, homes are still 40% more expensive than they were in 2020.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    Construction hasn't returned to pre-2007 levels. That right there seems to be the nut of your misunderstanding. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pDWf https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pDWf
paxys 2y ago
A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.
- jp191919 2y ago
  >Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons. With the majority of homeless, the reason would be easier access to illicit substances.
  - notaustinpowers 2y ago
    Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs, find a new stereotype.
    - patrick451 2y ago
      26% is a massive number and more than sufficient for the stereotype to fit. If 26% of x demographic had murdered somebody, a stereotype that x are murderers would be well deserved.
      - loeg 2y ago
        Comparatively, the background population uses drugs at approximately 13%: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-illicit.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-illicit.htm (ignoring alcohol, which is huge: ~53%). Most drug users aren't homeless.
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  And saying "just build more houses" isn't going to solve it either.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
EPWN3D 2y ago
And who's going to rent their property to every homeless person? You? I'm unclear on what the volume of available housing has to do with this. That housing is owned by people who are free to rent it or not rent it as they see fit. Are you saying that the federal government should just confiscate it so it can be given to homeless people free of charge? Or that those owners should be forced to sign leases with homeless people? Who gets to decide which homeless people get which vacant houses? And a large chunk of the homeless population are drug addicts with serious mental health problems. All the free housing in the world isn't going to help them. So what does an owner forced to rent his property to a homeless person do if that person trashes the place, doesn't pay rent, causes problems in the neighborhood, etc.? Evict them? That just means that some other homeowner is compelled to be a landlord for this person (in your system).
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  My comment on this is that the statement "just build more homes" is not an effective solution to this problem. We have enough homes. The issue is that as homes are viewed as an investment, rather than as a necessity to live a decent life, they must maintain scarcity. If there is not a scarcity, then it will be created. Interest rates have tripled, which should have dropped house prices. Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020. I'm not saying to confiscate homes. I'm not saying to force people to rent out their homes to homeless people. >A large chunk of homeless people are drug addicts with serious mental health problems. Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs. A vast amount of homeless people are veterans who have complex mental health problems from their service in the military, elderly people who are trying to survive off of insufficient SSI payments, or LGBTQ youth who were kicked out of their homes. This isn't a problem that can be solved with some witty one-sentence solution. This is a problem that takes layers of support systems ranging from health services, to public transportation, to subsidized housing, to job placement programs.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020 You were corrected on this above and chose to repeat it. Concluding price from supply only is nonsense. In your interval, the population and real incomes rose. They rose faster than new housing formation, particularly in the cities which have a homeless problem.
crooked-v 2y ago
An empty home in a town with no jobs and no services doesn't help anybody. If you look at the places that people actually want to live in the US, there are housing shortages in every major US metro area (https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives/us-housing-shortage https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...).
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  Copying from my other comment. My comment points out the failure of the "just build more homes" idea as a solution for homelessness. "My comment on this is that the statement "just build more homes" is not an effective solution to this problem. We have enough homes. The issue is that as homes are viewed as an investment, rather than as a necessity to live a decent life, they must maintain scarcity. If there is not a scarcity, then it will be created. Interest rates have tripled, which should have dropped house prices. Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020. I'm not saying to confiscate homes. I'm not saying to force people to rent out their homes to homeless people. >A large chunk of homeless people are drug addicts with serious mental health problems. Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs. A vast amount of homeless people are veterans who have complex mental health problems from their service in the military, elderly people who are trying to survive off of insufficient SSI payments, or LGBTQ youth who were kicked out of their homes. This isn't a problem that can be solved with some witty one-sentence solution. This is a problem that takes layers of support systems ranging from health services, to public transportation, to subsidized housing, to job placement programs."
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    > We have enough homes. We don't have enough homes in the right places. That's the point of the report in the article I linked, which lays out the number of homes in the major metro areas that people actually want to live and shows that literally all of them have a shortage.

loeg 2y ago

This is a vacuous argument. The vacant homes are largely either temporary (moving out before prepping to sell) or in the wrong places (no jobs). The homeless need more homes where they live and work (or seek work).

notaustinpowers 2y ago
Have you seen the housing market in the past few years? Skyrocketing interest rates and construction levels not seen since before 2007, all which (to any economist who passed ECON 101 would say would lower housing costs) and homes are still 40% more expensive than they were in 2020.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > construction levels not seen since before 2007 Now plot post-War housing stock against population. We have more houses than ancient Egypt ergo supply and demand is fake isn’t an argument.
- loeg 2y ago
  And yet, construction still hasn't matched demand. Supply increased and demand increased more.

jeffbee 2y ago

There are not. The census definition of "vacant" clung to by people pushing this viewpoint includes uninhabitable construction sites that happen to have the doors and windows installed, homes that have already been rented or sold but the new occupant hasn't moved in yet, homes of deceased people still in estate probate, homes being repaired between tenants, and many others. Only about 9% of census-vacant homes are what a normal person thinks of as a "vacant home".

notaustinpowers 2y ago
Great, if only 9% of vacant homes are what a normal person would think of as a vacant home, we can still give every homeless person 2 homes each! The issue has never been housing inventory in an effort to making housing more affordable. If the past 4 years have shown us anything it's that even with skyrocketing interest rates and new construction matching pre-2007 levels, homes are still 40% more expensive than they were in 2020.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Construction hasn't returned to pre-2007 levels. That right there seems to be the nut of your misunderstanding. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pDWf https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1pDWf

paxys 2y ago

A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.

jp191919 2y ago
>Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons. With the majority of homeless, the reason would be easier access to illicit substances.
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs, find a new stereotype.
  - patrick451 2y ago
    26% is a massive number and more than sufficient for the stereotype to fit. If 26% of x demographic had murdered somebody, a stereotype that x are murderers would be well deserved.
    - loeg 2y ago
      Comparatively, the background population uses drugs at approximately 13%: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-illicit.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-illicit.htm (ignoring alcohol, which is huge: ~53%). Most drug users aren't homeless.
notaustinpowers 2y ago
And saying "just build more houses" isn't going to solve it either.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

EPWN3D 2y ago

And who's going to rent their property to every homeless person? You? I'm unclear on what the volume of available housing has to do with this. That housing is owned by people who are free to rent it or not rent it as they see fit. Are you saying that the federal government should just confiscate it so it can be given to homeless people free of charge? Or that those owners should be forced to sign leases with homeless people? Who gets to decide which homeless people get which vacant houses? And a large chunk of the homeless population are drug addicts with serious mental health problems. All the free housing in the world isn't going to help them. So what does an owner forced to rent his property to a homeless person do if that person trashes the place, doesn't pay rent, causes problems in the neighborhood, etc.? Evict them? That just means that some other homeowner is compelled to be a landlord for this person (in your system).

notaustinpowers 2y ago
My comment on this is that the statement "just build more homes" is not an effective solution to this problem. We have enough homes. The issue is that as homes are viewed as an investment, rather than as a necessity to live a decent life, they must maintain scarcity. If there is not a scarcity, then it will be created. Interest rates have tripled, which should have dropped house prices. Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020. I'm not saying to confiscate homes. I'm not saying to force people to rent out their homes to homeless people. >A large chunk of homeless people are drug addicts with serious mental health problems. Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs. A vast amount of homeless people are veterans who have complex mental health problems from their service in the military, elderly people who are trying to survive off of insufficient SSI payments, or LGBTQ youth who were kicked out of their homes. This isn't a problem that can be solved with some witty one-sentence solution. This is a problem that takes layers of support systems ranging from health services, to public transportation, to subsidized housing, to job placement programs.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020 You were corrected on this above and chose to repeat it. Concluding price from supply only is nonsense. In your interval, the population and real incomes rose. They rose faster than new housing formation, particularly in the cities which have a homeless problem.

crooked-v 2y ago

An empty home in a town with no jobs and no services doesn't help anybody. If you look at the places that people actually want to live in the US, there are housing shortages in every major US metro area (https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives/us-housing-shortage https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...).

notaustinpowers 2y ago
Copying from my other comment. My comment points out the failure of the "just build more homes" idea as a solution for homelessness. "My comment on this is that the statement "just build more homes" is not an effective solution to this problem. We have enough homes. The issue is that as homes are viewed as an investment, rather than as a necessity to live a decent life, they must maintain scarcity. If there is not a scarcity, then it will be created. Interest rates have tripled, which should have dropped house prices. Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020. I'm not saying to confiscate homes. I'm not saying to force people to rent out their homes to homeless people. >A large chunk of homeless people are drug addicts with serious mental health problems. Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs. A vast amount of homeless people are veterans who have complex mental health problems from their service in the military, elderly people who are trying to survive off of insufficient SSI payments, or LGBTQ youth who were kicked out of their homes. This isn't a problem that can be solved with some witty one-sentence solution. This is a problem that takes layers of support systems ranging from health services, to public transportation, to subsidized housing, to job placement programs."
- crooked-v 2y ago
  > We have enough homes. We don't have enough homes in the right places. That's the point of the report in the article I linked, which lays out the number of homes in the major metro areas that people actually want to live and shows that literally all of them have a shortage.