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

211–220 of 368 posts

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

#211

Post by asdff »

fallingfrog wrote: post #136

Part of the problem is that due to the mild climate, LA inherits a large part of the homeless population of the whole country. They come from all 50 states to the west coast. So this isn't entirely a problem of LA's making, even though they have to bear the costs.

Nothing is a mild climate when you are homeless. Its going to be 39* tonight on the streets of LA. If all you have is a nylon tent and no blanket you are probably going to join the ranks of homeless who have died from hypothermia this year in LA, which outnumbers the people who have died from hypothermia in NYC because they actually build homeless shelters in NYC. Six months from now the problem will be flipped and you will be contending with heat stroke as the pavement heats up to 95*, and the city generally lacks widespread cooling centers. Honestly a bigger reason why homeless is so overt here is because its not criminalized. You can smoke crack or shoot up meth openly and police in LA don't care, but try even smoking a joint in Baton Rouge or wherever else and you will be sent to jail.

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

#212

Post by richardfey »

nine_k wrote: post #175
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…

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

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Switzerland

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

#213

Post by nate_meurer »

wolverine876 wrote: post #177
thebean11 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct. I have section 8 tenants in one of mine. They pay around fifteen percent of their rent, and the government pays the rest. There are advantages and disadvantages, but we're three years in and they're good tenants. Ten times better than the colleges students I always had in there before.

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

#214

Post by iso1210 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #202
legitster wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today.

My apartment in Lausanne had a bathroom and a kitchen, except the kitchen was one stovetop and a sink in a small cabinet next to the door. It was small, still cost me 900 CHF/month (in 2006!), but Lausanne is expensive. I don't think those would be allowed in most (American) cities either, I don't think 20 sqm is rentable.

My first place in London in 2003 was £520 a month, about £875 today. It was a 10 square metre room with a shower in one corner, bed in one corner, small kitchen sink in one corner, and a door in the fourth corner. There was a shared toilet.

Ideally I'd have had a slightly smaller room, but with a private toilet (there was certainly enough space in the footprint for a 2m*1m toilet/sink/shower), but apart form that it was great (given the cost - about half my net income), far better than sharing a house. As a young person needing to be close to a London office but without the luxury of having parents giving me a free room.

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

#216

Post by shagmin »

Dig1t wrote: post #78
nimbius wrote: post #17

the fact that any housing is getting built is frankly a refreshing turn of events. for people unfamiliar with los angeles, is very much a city of landed gentry. republican legislation designed to curtail rising taxes for elderly residents 40 years ago wound up creating a cloistered elite of land-owners that pay nearly nothing in tax and resist any attempt to create additional housing. They coast on a bubble of six-fi…

I think you're talking about this in pretty black/white terms and the partisan framing doesn't do much. Prop 13 is a double edged sword IMO. It does have the problem you describe of landed gentry not getting hit with high property taxes, but also it does protect middle class people from getting kicked out of their homes due to the popularity of the area they live in. My parents are the perfect example of this, my dad…

Regarding your last point, I think you're overestimating how much rental income is subject to California's income taxes. For real estate investors expensive areas like most of CA have a reputation for being profitable in a different way than most other places.

Often rent alone isn't profitable in CA if you have to get a mortgage and even if you don't - the rent you would get is a low ROI, so investors rely more on appreciation. For some it's considered a win if the monthly cashflow is around break even, but some investors bet so heavily on appreciation and rely on the low property taxes that they find having a renter isn't worth the risk. They just want to own something that's going up in value $100,000 every year with minimal hassle.

On top of this, when they go to sell, it will often be through a 1031 exchange where they can sell the property and not have to pay taxes on the appreciation right away as long as they quickly buy another-like property within a short period after. Eventually they will have to pay the capital gains if they ever just want to sell and keep the money, but they've spent years with a negative cashflow (especially if they just let the buildings stay empty) which will help out with those capital gains taxes.

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

#217

Post by closeparen »

999900000999 wrote: post #201
wolverine876 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today. Are you defining a unit with a kitchen and bathroom as a 'luxury apartment'? Would you live without them?

My first apartment didn't have a kitchen. And it was fine, we are talking about a homeless shelter. You do not need to have stainless steel appliances, it should be a short-term stopgap until you find a better solution. Historically lower income people had to share common amenities like a shower. Just because it would be nice for every single person to have a big apartment with brand new appliances doesn't make it fe…

No, we are not talking about a homeless shelter or a temporary stopgap, these kinds of units are the "something better" that people in homeless shelters and other temporary stopgaps are in a holding pattern waiting for.

Shipping the homeless elsewhere than California's most expensive cities is way outside the Overton window.

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

#218

Post by mullingitover »

quartesixte wrote: post #81
mullingitover wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nothing to do with liberal policy. It was pure corruption that happened right under the noses of voters. The sales tax ballot measure to fund housing had an innocent-looking line which restricted the contractors eligible for the jobs. The contractors had to have experience building this type of housing. The problem with this is that there were only two contractors that met the requirement, and as a result they c…

God. And it was Democrats who pushed for it too IIRC. Corruption deep on both sides of the aisle.

To be fair, the republican party trashed its brand so thoroughly that it essentially doesn't exist in California, so we're under one party rule. There is no other side of the aisle. It's a shame because Schwarzenegger gave the party a winning formula when he was governor, but the party swung so far off the rails that his centrism makes him a bolshevik to the party as it exists now. One party rule isn't good, but we don't have any sane alternatives here.

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

#219

Post by thebean11 »

coding123 wrote: post #146

This pisses me off a LOT. I'm currently owner building a house. It's going to end up costing 100k and I'm doing this paycheck to paycheck. Doing it because I can't afford a house. I'm too old to have a 30 year mortgage. Is LA willing to send me 1/8 of that cost to house my wife and I? And we'll do it ourselves. Can the homeless build their own houses? Are these people just going to be getting hand-outs forever? Why d…

Why are you too old to have a 30 year mortgage?

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

#220

Post by WalterBright »

wolverine876 wrote: post #127
999900000999 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy the argument SROs were removed to get rid of Slums. In fact, my first apartment, ironically in LA was a very small step up from an SRO. It had a private bathroom, but not much else. Now the city has effectively made this housing illegal to build. These units for the homeless are basically luxury condos. It's never been about helping people, Garcerti and the boys just ripped off the people of Los Angeles.…

> These units for the homeless are basically luxury condos. What is luxurious about them? Or are you referring to the price?

> What is luxurious about them?

I'm reminded of a previous thread where I asserted that America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings :-/

Post reply on HN