4 ms·

It just isn't feasible. * No one wants to live next to low barrier housing (for drug addicts, that don't require drug treatment or other social programs), not

It just isn't feasible. * No one wants to live next to low barrier housing (for drug addicts, that don't require drug treatment or other social programs), not just the most generous people who like you think these people should be helped, but even other homeless people! They will try their luck outside because you just put them in with a drug addict crazier than they are. * If your city starts handing out free housing to all of its homeless, it will just attract more people in need of that housing, to the point that you started out with 50K on the street, housed 50K, and now you have 100K on the street! This is a problem with local solutions at least: the better you treat the problem, the worse the problem will get. Local resources quickly get exhausted with no visible progress made (and worse: things are worse than when you started!), even if you are technically making the country a better place. SROs and rooming houses of the past...still had standards, they would kick out people who were causing problems. The only reason it seemed better is that enough people were afraid of losing the little housing they had to keep their problems/addictions in check enough to keep it. It was just crappy enough that no one wanted to be there who could do better, having a bunch of SROs didn't necessarily make your city a destination.

Yizahi 1y ago
No one wants to like in the bad districts, yes. But people will happily buy apartments in such places if they are significantly cheaper than the median (I mean not like twice or thrice cheaper, but even 10-25% cheaper). Case in point - people often do check that narks don't shoot drugs in their potential new building, but still all apartments would be sold out eventually. People don't like living under airport glide path, but still all apartments and houses under it are sold like hot cakes. I had viewed a new low rise complex last year near city highway (unshielded), railway, metal recycling shop and a construction site, and only a big mall nearby as a benefit. It's almost fully sold out now. In my previous city some company had built a three building low economy complex right near the railway in the middle of the former warehouse district, with bysmal parking and connection options too, it's also sold out. tl;dr low housing price (in a region with jobs of course) beats ANY negative factor. At least until it's not literally slums, and possibly not even then.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  Housing thats just 10-25% cheaper isn’t going to attract the chronic homeless, they can’t make housing work in LCOLs which is why they are hanging out in HCOLs un the first place. Also, you might be doing better for the middle class, but even in the working poor isn’t going to be helped much by that. Anyways, none if what you said has anything to do with the visible homeless who have many other issues to work through before they can even think about paying even a little rent.

Yizahi 1y ago

No one wants to like in the bad districts, yes. But people will happily buy apartments in such places if they are significantly cheaper than the median (I mean not like twice or thrice cheaper, but even 10-25% cheaper). Case in point - people often do check that narks don't shoot drugs in their potential new building, but still all apartments would be sold out eventually. People don't like living under airport glide path, but still all apartments and houses under it are sold like hot cakes. I had viewed a new low rise complex last year near city highway (unshielded), railway, metal recycling shop and a construction site, and only a big mall nearby as a benefit. It's almost fully sold out now. In my previous city some company had built a three building low economy complex right near the railway in the middle of the former warehouse district, with bysmal parking and connection options too, it's also sold out. tl;dr low housing price (in a region with jobs of course) beats ANY negative factor. At least until it's not literally slums, and possibly not even then.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
Housing thats just 10-25% cheaper isn’t going to attract the chronic homeless, they can’t make housing work in LCOLs which is why they are hanging out in HCOLs un the first place. Also, you might be doing better for the middle class, but even in the working poor isn’t going to be helped much by that. Anyways, none if what you said has anything to do with the visible homeless who have many other issues to work through before they can even think about paying even a little rent.