Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 312 posts

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#131

Post by mod »

alsetmusic wrote: post #86

"In 2013 the Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the cost of emergency room treatment and jail time averaged over $16,000 per year per homeless person, while the cost of providing a fully subsidized apartment was only $11,000."[0] Obviously, the numbers will change with the area. The cost of an apartment in the Bay Area or LA would be much greater, for example. But the book makes a good case…

Okay, but giving them housing likely doesn't eliminate the emergency treatment, nor the jail time, in a great many cases.

(I would guess a majority, but I have no data to back that. My expectations is that the transient homeless are not getting into trouble for the most part.)

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#132

Post by spfzero »

onion2k wrote: post #106
dcolkitt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one big way to prevent this downward trend in quality of life is to build more cheap housing One pedantic quibble. It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically. It's perfectly fine simply to build more housing of any type. Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Throughout all of American history, new h…

Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Only if people actually live in those houses, and they're bought by people living in the cheaper houses right now who then move up in to the new housing stock. If people buy the new houses as investments and leave them empty most of the year then it has no impact on the rest…

Wow, buying a house and leaving it vacant most of the year doesn't seem like a very good investment. In my experience when people I've known bought an investment property the number one thing on their minds was occupancy, and if they thought it would lie vacant for more than a month or two, they wouldn't buy it.

I do see your point about foreign investors though, they will view the house as a bank account, one that won't lose money, and will probably appreciate, and is safe from the corruption (or corruption investigations) of their home country. And they have money they need to put somewhere, so why not there?

But even they would probably prefer someone to be living in it and paying them in the meantime, because that improves the return by a lot, and doesn't put the principal at risk.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#133

Post by TchoBeer »

alisonkisk wrote: post #117
TchoBeer wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More luxery houses would lower prices for luxery housing, but not necessarily for affordable housing. I don't know how much those are competing markets

They compete strongly. Rich people pay a lot for junky apartments due to the shortage.

Somehow I doubt that's a considerable driver of affordable housing prices, but it's possible. Where did you get that from?

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#134

Post by etxm »

cactus2093 wrote: post #118
et-al wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you've read that CityObservatory article from a few years back [0]. Unfortunately as the Tiktaalik mentioned, we have a housing shortage now . So the trickle-down economics of luxury housing won't work for at least a generation. Also, all the actual luxury housing that ends up being built is bought by wealthy investors buying their third or fourth property. Just look at the housing market in London. > Throughou…

Why would you need to wait a generation? More like a couple of months. People who are moving to luxury housing live somewhere now, which is less new. When they move out of there, someone else can move in, etc. and on down the line freeing up multiple housing units one by one at ultimately different prices. It adds to the total housing stock in the city immediately. And no, “all” the luxury housing is not being bought…

I’m not sure it would be a whole generation, but I could see a decent percent taking a generation.

Anecdote time

I’m nowhere near rich, but we recently upgraded from a condo to a house and kept our condo. Our intention is to rent it out until our kid is old enough to move out and give it to them.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#135

Post by throwaway316943 »

onion2k wrote: post #106
dcolkitt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one big way to prevent this downward trend in quality of life is to build more cheap housing One pedantic quibble. It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically. It's perfectly fine simply to build more housing of any type. Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Throughout all of American history, new h…

Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Only if people actually live in those houses, and they're bought by people living in the cheaper houses right now who then move up in to the new housing stock. If people buy the new houses as investments and leave them empty most of the year then it has no impact on the rest…

Luxury second homes should simply be taxed at a high rate, it’s one of the least defensible indulgences so with enough of a campaign it could happen. Ditto for speculative foreign buyers, this is already happening in some cities that have been hard hit by such “investments”.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#137

Post by spfzero »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #93
dcolkitt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one big way to prevent this downward trend in quality of life is to build more cheap housing One pedantic quibble. It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically. It's perfectly fine simply to build more housing of any type. Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Throughout all of American history, new h…

Yea, 100% Agree. Fully supportive of all housing. I was specifically referring to SRO type housing or boarding houses which are currently illegal to build, but there is so much simple stuff to be done here anything helps.

Boarding houses used to be pretty common in the USA. Are they really illegal to build now? "Sober Living" homes seem legal to build, they're all over the place, and they meet the definition of "boarding house".

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#138

Post by etxm »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #129
cactus2093 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need to wait a generation? More like a couple of months. People who are moving to luxury housing live somewhere now, which is less new. When they move out of there, someone else can move in, etc. and on down the line freeing up multiple housing units one by one at ultimately different prices. It adds to the total housing stock in the city immediately. And no, “all” the luxury housing is not being bought…

> People who are moving to luxury housing live somewhere now, which is less new. People living a $1mil shithole aren't going to be moving into a $2mil luxury home. You need to find the buyer that can afford a $2mil luxury house. This is why the problem takes so long to work out. Prices are inflated, and luxury homes will be inflated even more - the people that would normally buy them aren't going to be able to move a…

It’s very sad that the phrase “$1mil shithole” can actually be a thing.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#139

Post by dnautics »

spfzero wrote: post #132
onion2k wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Only if people actually live in those houses, and they're bought by people living in the cheaper houses right now who then move up in to the new housing stock. If people buy the new houses as investments and leave them empty most of the year then it has no impact on the rest…

Wow, buying a house and leaving it vacant most of the year doesn't seem like a very good investment. In my experience when people I've known bought an investment property the number one thing on their minds was occupancy, and if they thought it would lie vacant for more than a month or two, they wouldn't buy it. I do see your point about foreign investors though, they will view the house as a bank account, one that w…

If it's not occupied isn't it losing money at least by bleeding to property taxes?

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#140

Post by dnautics »

TchoBeer wrote: post #133
alisonkisk wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They compete strongly. Rich people pay a lot for junky apartments due to the shortage.

Somehow I doubt that's a considerable driver of affordable housing prices, but it's possible. Where did you get that from?

You ever seen techies living in the mission district?
Post reply on HN