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

Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

ktla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 368 posts

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#161

Post by mym1990 »

mwint wrote: post #98
legitster wrote: post #66

In the last 50 years, cities across the country closed down over 1 million SROs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy ) in an effort to remove slums or just neglect at increasing property value. There are now over half of a million homeless. It's honestly impressive the number is not more. For the 1.2 billion dollars they are spending, if all of the apartments were built to the spec of a roadside mote…

Basically, we’d be better off if the government had done nothing. Seems like that happens a lot.

Incentives for governments to deliver good results are much lower than in the private markets(not non-existent though), which is why governments are so bad at capital allocation. Its almost like the government wants to look like they are doing something, without ever actually following through.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#162

Post by thebean11 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #130
legitster wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great point, but may still disagree with it. To put it another way, we are taking people out of homelessness, and putting them in houses that are more expensive than 30-40% of units on the market. So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. The cost to house homeless shouldn't be slightly below median. Realistically, it should…

> So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. There are programs like that, including large ones like federal Section 8. It's not simple at all: Landlords will often refuse to rent to Section 8 participants. Also, people who are unhoused often need other services in order to get back on their feet.

I thought section 8 housing could only be rented to section 8 participants?

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#163

Post by asdff »

wolverine876 wrote: post #124
legitster wrote: post #66

In the last 50 years, cities across the country closed down over 1 million SROs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy ) in an effort to remove slums or just neglect at increasing property value. There are now over half of a million homeless. It's honestly impressive the number is not more. For the 1.2 billion dollars they are spending, if all of the apartments were built to the spec of a roadside mote…

Where do all these numbers and other claims come from? Without evidence, we're all writing works of fiction - compelling stories, but not reality. > handed over design and construction of the crossovers to a company that builds snowplows. Who is analogous to the snowplow building company? > SROs used to be provided by the private market, largely free to taxpayers! What do we know about SROs and their outcomes?

>What do we know about SROs and their outcomes?

That they housed people who today live in nylon tents with no plumbing/hvac/security.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#164

Post by tgv »

vasco wrote: post #133

> Our European visitors are important to us. > This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws. Thanks, I guess?

It's weapon grade American bullshit.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#165

Post by johnmarcus »

slg wrote: post #70

>The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit. It sounds like that "up to" in the title is doing a lot of work if 86% are below $700k. I would also like to throw in the added context that the median home price is roughly $915k[1]. Also be mindful whether we are discussing LA county or LA city. The article is about an LA…

Journalism is left to the comments these days. God forbid a professional journalist actually present factual information in a clear and concise way for people to digest and make decisions for themselves.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#166

Post by omegaworks »

wolverine876 wrote: post #130
legitster wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great point, but may still disagree with it. To put it another way, we are taking people out of homelessness, and putting them in houses that are more expensive than 30-40% of units on the market. So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. The cost to house homeless shouldn't be slightly below median. Realistically, it should…

> So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent. There are programs like that, including large ones like federal Section 8. It's not simple at all: Landlords will often refuse to rent to Section 8 participants. Also, people who are unhoused often need other services in order to get back on their feet.

And unfortunately, in certain areas that used to be affordable to low income working class people, the folks that win the lottery for the few Section 8 vouchers can drive up rent, as that flat rate is now considered the floor that landlords can charge.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#167

Post by linksnapzz »

vkou wrote: post #62
linksnapzz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 85% of those homeless have unresolved psychiatric & drug-abuse issues. It's not compassionate to let them do their thing, and squat in filth on public sidewalks untreated.

No, it's not particularly compassionate, but when no alternative exists, it's better than criminalizing poverty, or from sweeping people out of 3rd street, into 4th street, and then, three weeks later, back to 3rd. You'll find that most progressives don't actually like people camping in parks, they just think it's the best option out of all the shitty ones currently available. If you want to fix homelessness, you nee…

I don't think compelling longterm vagrants to accept mandatory psychiatric and drug treatment in a secure facility under state custodial care is criminalizing poverty. Doing that would make the housing problem all the more solvable for those homeless whose ultimate and not proximate problem is affordability of shelter & transport.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#168

Post by dangus »

tempnow987 wrote: post #29

$837,000 is just the cost of the unit. If you are housing actual homeless, you MUST offer supportive services on-site or have some other types of supervision or these units are going to be trashed. You MUST budget for a lot of ongoing costs. I'd say $800K+ per unit + maybe $100K+/year for supportive services / maintenance etc? One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else?

I think the high cost has a lot to do with the fact that we've moved well beyond the preventative phase of care.

We are paying extra to correct years of bad zoning and healthcare policies. This is the price of bad city planning and expensive non-universal healthcare.

I wonder if UBI would be more cost efficient, especially for people who are not yet homeless but in danger of becoming homeless.

Still, I think getting people housing is the right general approach.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#169

Post by wolverine876 »

tgflynn wrote: post #134
wolverine876 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would free markets help homeless people? Is there any basis for this, other than claiming that one's favorite solution is the best? Free markets serve those who pay the most, which is good for allocating iPhones, but not for healthcare, basic housing, basic food, education, safety, etc., which should not depend on ability to pay. > It's the same thing that happens in social media, trolls and bots pollute the info…

> Free markets serve those who pay the most As someone who has spent years in a low income situation due to health issues that hasn't been my experience. At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes. There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even…

I am not doubting your experience, but I don't think we can project that to the larger situation.

> At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes.

The data shows otherwise, that many people haven't been able to afford food (think of school lunch programs) and especially quality food. Also, large 'food deserts' exists in poor communities where food is unavailable beyond very expensive small stores.

> There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.

I've thought that, but it turns out that they don't often don't serve low-income people. I've also spent plenty of time in low income areas, and retail options are very slim. I've been in the best grocery store in the neighborhood, where fruit scales were rusty, and it stunk of something rotting. It was packed.

Re: Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person

#170

Post by asdff »

mikeg8 wrote: post #147
_jal wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now build that in downtown LA explicitly for housing homeless folks, and let us know how your permitting process goes.

You would think that the city of LA would be able to do something to alleviate the permit process that the city of LA created to reduce the building costs being funded/managed by city of LA.

Maybe if the permitting process wasn't just a device for grifting in LA county.
Post reply on HN