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

201–210 of 312 posts

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

#201

Post by zuminator »

slg wrote: post #175
stickfigure wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With sufficient deferred maintenance, today's 3 bedroom luxury condo is next decade's slum. It takes time to reach steady-state.

A 3 bedroom luxury condo never becomes an SRO hotel with shared bathrooms regardless of how little maintenance goes into the place. A neglected property will obviously fall down market in terms of desirability, but a place like that will never reach the actual bottom of the market.

I can't provide a counterexample to the specific 3br luxury->SRO scenario, but it certainly does happen on occasion that previously expensive units wind up getting subdivided into cheaper units. I knew someone who lived in a low-end furnished room (with shared bathroom) that had previously been part of a larger unit.

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

#202

Post by missedthecue »

elliekelly wrote: post #189
throwaway98797 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math does not add up. 1/3 would over time vastly out number the 2/3 group unless the two third group is growing exponentially.

Unless the 1/3 group doesn’t have a terribly long life expectancy.

I mean they might die at 60 instead of 80, but that could still mean 30 or 40 years on the street. A homeless camp isn't necessarily conducive to lengthy lifespans but it's not Stalingrad.

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

#203

Post by missedthecue »

pseudalopex wrote: post #188
throwaway98797 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math does not add up. 1/3 would over time vastly out number the 2/3 group unless the two third group is growing exponentially.

You assume transiently homeless people become chronically homeless faster than chronically homeless people find homes or die.

That seems like a reasonable assumption does it not?

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

#204

Post by stale2002 »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #192
stale2002 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people buy the new houses as investments and leave them empty most of the year Fortunately, this is already a metric that is tracked, called the vacancy rate. And what we see is, that in in-demand cities, that have high rents, the vacancy rate is pretty low. So, if the vacancy rate is 5%, that means that if you build 100 houses, then 95 of them are going to be lived in. Yes, it sucks that those other 5 houses ar…

One factor in vacancy rates at least in SF / NY - rent control. You really CANNOT rent to someone without a big risk - so if you have an elderly parent who might want to move in in the future, you have kids who might want a place - and are wealthy - you really need to keep place empty. So yes, the rich do leave I think more places empty in some places because they can afford to and because the economic calculation is…

> more places empty in some places

Ok, this is a nice story that one could make up. But once again, my point is that vacancy rate is something that is already tracked.

In San Francisco, the vacancy rate is about 3.5%.

So, in other words, regardless of whatever story you are making up about parents, or rent control or whatever, the actual data shows, that the vacancy rate is very low, and therefore not much of a problem.

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

#205

Post by halsom »

CivBase wrote: post #176
barbecue_sauce wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 25 y/o moving to SF isn't going to buy an apartment period.

I'm confused. What will a 25 y/o moving to SF buy? They can't all be homeless or wealthy enough to buy a house in SF.

You have got to be shitting me. Only on HN could you find such insufferably out of touch bourgeoise commentary as this.

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

#206

Post by JumpCrisscross »

slg wrote: post #173
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cheaper units never flow down to the bottom of the market “Never” is too strong. It happened to me in New York. I negotiated down my rent on account of nearby buildings with better amenities opening at slightly higher but similar enough pricing, net effective. Meanwhile, Brooklyn and San Francisco were busy blocking all new construction, thereby forcing their restaurant workers to compete with millionaires.

You are disputing a point I never made. I didn't say "no units ever get cheaper". I said when growth outpaces new housing "cheaper units never flow down to the bottom of the market". You said yourself that the new construction had slightly higher pricing meaning your unit was in the same basic market as the new construction and also implies you likely were not shopping at "the bottom of the market". Do you think you…

> Do you think you would have been able to negotiate your rent down if the new building was in an entirely different class and was charging 2x or 3x your rent?

Yes. What do you think people bidding for ultra-lux housing do if they don’t have supply?

In New York, the ultra-wealthy have penthouses. In San Francisco, they have rows of townhouses. Which one do you think displaces more affordable housing?

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

#207

Post by dodobirdlord »

CivBase wrote: post #121
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…

Do we actually have a "housing" shortage, though? I know that supply of stereotypical single-family, detatched homes is massively outstripped by demand in many parts of the US and that's a problem. But is there actually a shortage of "housing" - places to live - including apartments, condos, duplexes, mobile homes, etc? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm genuinely curious as I've never been to LA or s…

Yes, there is a housing shortage in many major US cities. This is evident both from the high rent in these cities, and the large share of workers who commute long distances to work in these cities.

It can be hard to immediately see that there is a shortage of something like housing, because it’s rare that people will actually end up without housing because there isn’t enough to go around. But this is because people will rationally choose to live further and further from their jobs and commute longer and longer distances as the shortage drives prices up near their workplace, rather than choosing to go without housing.

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

#208

Post by darkhorse22 »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #63

Monthly rent for a furnished apartment at my university (i.e. already overpriced and in demand) is $1049. Why not buy these people a ticket and a year's prepaid rent to somewhere with a much, much cheaper cost of living. It would save the city money and these people would have a real place to live (i.e. not homeless anymore, instead of homeless in a tent).

You had to apply and be accepted to the university, and their confidence that you won't turn your apartment into a crack den is factored into the monthly rent.

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

#209

Post by browningstreet »

Last year I went from making $20K/mo to I’m 50 years old. I had no one to draw from, I had no more debt I could create, aside for obscene %APR credit card options.

Now imagine that I can’t draw 6 figures, I still pulled $2K in my worst months, I still had to move out of my home and live in my car and visit my partner who crashed on couches from friends who could only reasonably accommodate one of us… my ex- let me visit my kid as much as possible and sleep in his bedroom, but I couldn’t land a 6 figure job at the end of the narrative. The options aren’t awesome, nor sufficient, and the cruelty and neglect, even from other friends, is mortifying. It was really fucking hard for me, but I’m fine again. I don’t see how it’s humane for the likes of those who don’t have my arc as their probability. My European friends shake their heads and know the US is really broken.

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

#210

Post by pseudalopex »

missedthecue wrote: post #203
pseudalopex wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume transiently homeless people become chronically homeless faster than chronically homeless people find homes or die.

That seems like a reasonable assumption does it not?

Assuming most homeless people are chronically homeless seems reasonable too. But it's wrong. Let's have more data and fewer assumptions.
Post reply on HN