3 ms·

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of m

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

tlogan 2y ago
> Why would they not scale? Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks. For example, the approach which is working for Modesto will probably not work for San Francisco.
- epistasis 2y ago
  That has less to do with the size of the US but everything to do with the lack of size in the US. We make it impossible to do things by making each city small independent, and having a lack of unity. Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Removing local cities' power to be different for the sake of complexity would solve the issue quickly. If the Bay Area had a regional government rather than tiny fiefdoms devoted to allowing wealthy people to extract the maximum economic value from shared business interests, while willing away their own tax dollars in tiny enclaves that are protected by minimum lot sizes and apartment bans, not only would we have far less homelessness to begin with, but we could solve the leftover homelessness much better, refuse crime and poverty, and have a far better functioning society.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    Why do you think a regional government would be any more altruistic and charitable than a city government? I've seen a regional governmental (a metropolitan council like you suggest) that covers multiple cities in a metro area that have done nothing but squander money to justify their own existence. It got so bad that they ended up getting their powers curtailed by the state. Everything else you mention is just wishful thinking that could be applied to any government regardless of size or scope.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    > Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Name an efficient government of a country with hundreds of millions of people.
- hshshshshsh 2y ago
  Disagree. Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks it's actually easier to build housing.
  - devvvvvvv 2y ago
    Yes, just like how due to the diversity of Whole Foods workers it's easier for them to unionize.
bdowling 2y ago
Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2024/April-2024/04_10_2024_Council_Approves_1_Million_Per_Unit_Homeless_Housing_Project.html https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...
- epistasis 2y ago
  The reason it's expensive is or because the US is bigger. It's because the people in cities want to keep people out so they make it very expensive. Which in turn fuels homelessness. The desire to exclude, the refusal to permit enough housing, and the rejection of density are the fundamental cause. The scale of the US has nothing to do with it. It's merely a cultural choice by a prior generation that younger generations have not yet been able to overrule. But they will.
  - bdowling 2y ago
    The answer is to just build a lot more housing. Increasing the housing stock by 10% everywhere would be a good start. If there is so much housing available that buyers don’t get into bidding wars and landlords have to struggle to find tenants, then prices will come down. Why doesn’t this happen? Because developers will have to do more work for less money.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - epistasis 2y ago
      More housing is absolutely the answer. But your cause is wrong. The impediment to housing in California is capture of land use policy by homeowners and landlords. We should expand the category of home builders beyond developers, but developers make zero money when they are not building. So developers are not holding back housing in California. The few remaining developers in California tend to be more land bankers than developers. But if we made the process for decelopnrt straightforward, then small builders and contractors could build all sorts of projects. At the moment the process is so complex and difficult that getting approval to build on a site is a hugely valuable financial product that increases the value of a parcel of land significantly (though necessarily less than the cost of getting that approval). The reason we do not have enough housing all comes down to that NIMBY neighbor who doesn't want to allow apartments anywhere nearby and who has also been given lots of wrenches to throw into the process of approval. We don't have that sort of approval process for single family homes, it's a night and day difference. Anybody is allowed to build a massive mansion without any community input, but for anything more affordable, neighbors can veto it, and do.

tlogan 2y ago

> Why would they not scale? Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks. For example, the approach which is working for Modesto will probably not work for San Francisco.

epistasis 2y ago
That has less to do with the size of the US but everything to do with the lack of size in the US. We make it impossible to do things by making each city small independent, and having a lack of unity. Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Removing local cities' power to be different for the sake of complexity would solve the issue quickly. If the Bay Area had a regional government rather than tiny fiefdoms devoted to allowing wealthy people to extract the maximum economic value from shared business interests, while willing away their own tax dollars in tiny enclaves that are protected by minimum lot sizes and apartment bans, not only would we have far less homelessness to begin with, but we could solve the leftover homelessness much better, refuse crime and poverty, and have a far better functioning society.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  Why do you think a regional government would be any more altruistic and charitable than a city government? I've seen a regional governmental (a metropolitan council like you suggest) that covers multiple cities in a metro area that have done nothing but squander money to justify their own existence. It got so bad that they ended up getting their powers curtailed by the state. Everything else you mention is just wishful thinking that could be applied to any government regardless of size or scope.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  > Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Name an efficient government of a country with hundreds of millions of people.
hshshshshsh 2y ago
Disagree. Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks it's actually easier to build housing.
- devvvvvvv 2y ago
  Yes, just like how due to the diversity of Whole Foods workers it's easier for them to unionize.

bdowling 2y ago

Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2024/April-2024/04_10_2024_Council_Approves_1_Million_Per_Unit_Homeless_Housing_Project.html https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...

epistasis 2y ago
The reason it's expensive is or because the US is bigger. It's because the people in cities want to keep people out so they make it very expensive. Which in turn fuels homelessness. The desire to exclude, the refusal to permit enough housing, and the rejection of density are the fundamental cause. The scale of the US has nothing to do with it. It's merely a cultural choice by a prior generation that younger generations have not yet been able to overrule. But they will.
- bdowling 2y ago
  The answer is to just build a lot more housing. Increasing the housing stock by 10% everywhere would be a good start. If there is so much housing available that buyers don’t get into bidding wars and landlords have to struggle to find tenants, then prices will come down. Why doesn’t this happen? Because developers will have to do more work for less money.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - epistasis 2y ago
    More housing is absolutely the answer. But your cause is wrong. The impediment to housing in California is capture of land use policy by homeowners and landlords. We should expand the category of home builders beyond developers, but developers make zero money when they are not building. So developers are not holding back housing in California. The few remaining developers in California tend to be more land bankers than developers. But if we made the process for decelopnrt straightforward, then small builders and contractors could build all sorts of projects. At the moment the process is so complex and difficult that getting approval to build on a site is a hugely valuable financial product that increases the value of a parcel of land significantly (though necessarily less than the cost of getting that approval). The reason we do not have enough housing all comes down to that NIMBY neighbor who doesn't want to allow apartments anywhere nearby and who has also been given lots of wrenches to throw into the process of approval. We don't have that sort of approval process for single family homes, it's a night and day difference. Anybody is allowed to build a massive mansion without any community input, but for anything more affordable, neighbors can veto it, and do.