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

171–180 of 368 posts

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

#171

Post by mikeg8 »

hardtke wrote: post #123
mikeg8 wrote: post #39

I'm finishing construction next month an 1,100 sq/ft single family home in the north bay area; a very high cost-of-living region. We started construction in Sept 2021, after an intentional delay of a couple months to let lumber prices drop after peaking in May-June. My home will be built for about $350k (less land acquisition). I'm acting as contractor and have connections in the industry so very few can build at my…

Are your subcontractors fully insured? Do they fully pay workers compensation? Are their employees legally authorized to work in the US? There is a quite substantial price premium in the market now for contractors that follow the law, and government projects are forced to follow the law.

I work full-time as a subcontractor on commercial projects in the SF bay area and am fairly familiar with the costs associated with insurance, workers comp etc. We utilize union labor to install our projects. And you are right, it does cost a lot to follow the laws. But those costs are not nearly high enough to explain how 400-600 sq/ft units are being built for between $1,100-$1,400 a square foot. My guess is much of the cost bloat is "administrative" and has nothing to do with real construction costs.

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

#172

Post by asdff »

mistrial9 wrote: post #87
jseliger wrote: post #36

L.A. is fighting against CEQA, Prop 13, and its own bureaucracy and process: https://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-... . If we're actually going to do something substantial about homelessness, we need to focus on abundance, not scarcity, and supply-side progressivism: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/opinion/supply-side-progr...

" fighting against CEQA" this is like identifying the color of the shirt that a security guard is wearing, and declaring it to be the problem. CEQA was enacted because, under the banner of "free markets" .. unbelievable, extreme, vast, sustained chemical pollution was laid out into the open air, soil and water, for profit, again and again and again.. Ordinary people literally cannot believe things that have been done…

And today CEQA exists for nimbys to stall housing and infrastructure while polluters remain unaccountable.

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

#173

Post by kuang_eleven »

jvanderbot wrote: post #109
long_time_gone wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, we'd be better off if voters didn't demand short-term actions with negative long-term effects.

Precisely this. In LA there are constant referendums about homelessness, in CA massive budget increases, and yet, nobody will allow a shelter or multi-family unit to be constructed in their neighborhood, lest their soaring land value peak. In CA, it's my firm belief that people have a tad too much power over the minutae of government operations. What did we even elect people for if we are going to try to solve everyt…

Luckily, SB9 and SB10 are massive pushes in the right direction for California, accompanied by incandescent rage of my local NIMBYs.

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

#174

Post by jvanderbot »

sfe22 wrote: post #159
jvanderbot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely this. In LA there are constant referendums about homelessness, in CA massive budget increases, and yet, nobody will allow a shelter or multi-family unit to be constructed in their neighborhood, lest their soaring land value peak. In CA, it's my firm belief that people have a tad too much power over the minutae of government operations. What did we even elect people for if we are going to try to solve everyt…

So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?

Absolutely not. Democracy can be fair and open elections, not crowdsourced legislation.

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

#175

Post by nine_k »

jvanderbot wrote: post #109
long_time_gone wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, we'd be better off if voters didn't demand short-term actions with negative long-term effects.

Precisely this. In LA there are constant referendums about homelessness, in CA massive budget increases, and yet, nobody will allow a shelter or multi-family unit to be constructed in their neighborhood, lest their soaring land value peak. In CA, it's my firm belief that people have a tad too much power over the minutae of government operations. What did we even elect people for if we are going to try to solve everyt…

For some reason, referendum-soaked Switzerland is governed somehow more sanely.

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

#176

Post by wolverine876 »

holbrad wrote: post #144
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…

Generally for most goods markets work really well. There's two intrinsic failure cases: externalities and monopolies. So arguably housing fits into the monopoly bucket, especially if you lean towards a land value tax. Safety and a monopoly on force most would argue are the domains of government. But the rest of your examples seem fine to be market based, though the devil is in the detail.

> Generally for most goods markets work really well. There's two intrinsic failure cases: externalities and monopolies.

I agree, but you are omitting two other cases: Equity and availability.

Again, markets are built to serve those who provide the highest profit. That's fine for iPhones, but not for health, safety, education, basic food, and basic shelter. Everyone should have those, regardless of how much profit they provide.

Markets also depend on 'creative destruction', businesses fail and their goods and services go away. That can't happen with healthcare, food, education, safety, and shelter. There are 'food deserts' in poor communities, where people can't get anything but expensive corner-store groceries. We can't have a safety, education, shelter, or healthcare desert (or a food desert).

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

#177

Post by wolverine876 »

thebean11 wrote: post #162
wolverine876 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Unless I'm confusing my programs, Section 8 is a voucher that is used to rent market units.

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

#178

Post by setr »

sfe22 wrote: post #159
jvanderbot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely this. In LA there are constant referendums about homelessness, in CA massive budget increases, and yet, nobody will allow a shelter or multi-family unit to be constructed in their neighborhood, lest their soaring land value peak. In CA, it's my firm belief that people have a tad too much power over the minutae of government operations. What did we even elect people for if we are going to try to solve everyt…

So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?

Sounds more like too much direct democracy, and needs to slide further towards representative.

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

#179

Post by banannaise »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #69
pooper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else? Where is that money going now? Who gets this money now and why would they give it up?

Before it went into people's pockets, so they could care for their families and improve their life conditions.

Realistically, that money was going to police, to harass this person for sleeping on the street. This is, obviously, also expensive.
Post reply on HN