7 ms·
I am sorry to hear that the richest country on earth cannot afford tiny private flats for anyone and everyone unhoused.
by mordae 2y ago
I am sorry to hear that the richest country on earth cannot afford tiny private flats for anyone and everyone unhoused.
- Aunche 2y agoI mean yes. When engineers making six figures can't afford a flat in the bay area thanks to nimbyism, then you can't expect the government to either.
- truckerbill 2y agoThat's kinda the whole point, but noone is framing that situation as the problem. They would rather think that homeless people are innately inferior and thus deserve to suffer, rather than victims of circumstance in one way or another.
- doomroot 2y ago> but noone is framing that situation as the problem. I think yimbys are framing that situation as THE problem.
- truckerbill 2y agoI meant here, though I think there is also tendency in general As a side note I think the state of current discourse has shown that anything other than concrete language presents too much opportunity to talk past each other. So I don't think talking about yimbys is specific enough (and its too tempting to strawman). Same for magas and libs, they are broad labels for a broad spectrum of people
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSo, what do we talk about then? Humans are pretty bad at multitasking so when speaking generally to a public you want to focus on one issue at a time.
- truckerbill 2y agoI'm saying be more specific not less
- kjkjadksj 2y agoNo one is framing it that way because it misses the nuance of these homeless peoples individual issues and how we might actually treat them. When people complain about homeless people in their neighborhood, they aren’t talking about the invisible homeless who are only homeless due to economic circumstance and might be couch surfing or living in their car. They are talking almost exclusively about the most visible population of homeless people, those who have severe mental health or drug addictions and need in patient services for potentially all their life.
- presentation 2y agoThe solution increasingly looks like completely replacing SF governance - not just be the people and laws but the structure too.
- Yeul 2y agoSure you can many countries have a social housing program... Cities across the world run into the same problems SF does you know it is not particularly unique or unusual. Although I am a bit perturbed that there is still such a huge problem with drugs when the economy is booming and unemployment so low. It points to deeper problems within the fabric of American society.
- Aunche 2y agoA prerequisite to building social housing is to allow building housing at all. Social housing projects also have to pay for artificially inflated land prices and wait years to obtain permits. SF has spent billions of dollars on building new social housing in the past decade, but that doesn't make a difference when they cost millions of dollars a unit to construct.
- lotsoweiners 2y ago> Although I am a bit perturbed that there is still such a huge problem with drugs when the economy is booming and unemployment so low. It points to deeper problems within the fabric of American society. I think you’re coming at this from the wrong angle. A lot of people just really like drugs (and alcohol) and it has nothing to do with society getting them down. Surely there are plenty of people abusing substances as a coping mechanism but I think there are likely a lot more who just want to have a good time.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago>the economy is booming and unemployment so low. Well that's your first problem. We're hiding the underemplyment crisis with "but unemployment is so low!". Quality of life for underemplyment is a lot closer to homelessness than middle class. The deeper problem that America is more and more trying to focus on the elite over the working class.
- b112 2y agoThat seems a weird assertion. I just went to apartments.com. Palo Alto (not the cheapest place), shows loads of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments under and at 3k/month. That's under $40k/year. This tax calculator shows the generic case of $120k (low 'six figures'), as being more than $80k takehome: https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000 https://www.talent.com/tax-calculator/California-120000 That means less than 1/2 of a 'low end' engineering salary is taken for housing, and that's without a room-mate. Something most people have at the start of their career, and before being married (which is another way to have a room mate). Do you actually live in the region? Why do you think almost $4k/month of cash in hand, left over after rent paid and taxes paid, isn't much? Why do you think no one can find a place to live, when apartments.com show places aplenty? Are you referring to a specific area, instead of a more central place such as Palo Alto?
- michaelt 2y agoWell, in the US the median pre-tax household income is $80k and the median renter spends <35% of their income on rent. Imagine singlehandedly earning 150% of what the average family earns, in one of the richest countries in the world and living in a one-bedroom apartment - and such a low standard of living isn't even cheap. The landlords must be laughing all the way to the bank!
- Aunche 2y agoI wasn't clear. By "afford a flat" I meant outright purchase property, which the government would need to do to actually solve homelessness.
- flerchin 2y agoWhere do you think the grocery store workers are going to live when highly skilled professionals have to roommate to make rent?
- b112 2y agoI was responding to an assertion that engineers making 6 figures could not afford apartments. I validated that they certainly can, on their own, and in an expensive area (Palo Alto) too. I then said that the dynamic is even better with a room mate. From this you infer I spoke of all affordability? Why? Understand, making wild unsubstantiatable and exaggerative assertions about affordability can invalidate a discussion. Stating fact instead of hyperbole is more appropriate. Hence my response.
- dventimi 2y ago"engineers making six figures" is the cause of San Francisco's problems, not "nimbyism."
- throwaway173738 2y agoLawmakers not having the moral courage to stand up to NIMBYs are part of the problem, along with people not voting for them. Cutting people off at the knees to make the grass taller is not a solution.
- dventimi 2y agoI can't agree with this. At various times over the last 30 years, there has been roughly two classes of people in SF: "tech workers", and "everyone else." The "everyone else" comprises teachers, restaurant workers, retail workers, delivery drivers, and others, who cater to the whims of "tech workers." "Everyone else" works in industries subject to competition, market forces, and the ruthless demand for profitability (try keeping a restaurant open for 3 losing quarters). "Tech workers" work in an industry often shielded from these exigencies, cossetted in a pillowy cocoon of VC money. "Everyone else" serves the local community. "Tech workers", if they serve anybody, tend to be disconnected from the local economy and serve national or global markets. Relatedly, "tech workers" are paid high salaries that rise quickly. "Everyone else" is paid much more modest salaries that tend to stagnate. To add insult to injury, not only did this set of circumstances arrive in SF, it also arrived quickly, in waves, representing a series of shocks. Then came the last and possibly the most serious shock: remote work. Altogether, this is a recipe for: spiraling costs, social fragmentation, homelessness, and political turbulence. Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. Make it two thimbles, ten thimbles, a hundred thimbles, it's still going to leave a mess.
- zozbot234 2y ago> Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference. So? The problem is not "too much money", it's too little housing. Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes; housing scarcity is really bad for them. Homelessness happens when people can't afford to pay for a home.
- Qwertious 2y agoWhat causes NIMBYism, though? ("lot of things, but...") My pet theory is that cars are a substantial cause - people don't want more housing because it will result in more traffic and more people using the nearby 'free' parking. Cities that are less car-centric will therefore have less NIMBYism.
- lynx97 2y ago[dead]
- UltraSane 2y agoThe issue is that a lot of homeless actively destroy any housing they are put into.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- skirge 2y agothere are 7 billion people who want to live in free tiny private flat in San Francisco and US in general. More lanes - more traffic - more traffic jams.
- freejazz 2y agoI wouldn't live in SF is someone paid me... and not because of the homeless
- johnnyanmac 2y agoNah, count me out of that 7 billion. Heck, Id2be surprised if we got even a plurality of Americans who said they'd want to live in San Francisco.