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

221–230 of 368 posts

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

#221

Post by Ansil849 »

This article is a perfect example of how word tenses can be used to manipulate and misrepresent information.

The title says that the city "is spending" an amount, which suggests that this is a routine cost, leaving the reader of the headline to fill in the blanks 'oh, is spending annually?'.

But the tense in the article itself is different:

> Most of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments. 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.

"Is spending" != 'expected to spend'.

The former has the unstated implication that this is a recurring cost, or at least that this is a cost the city is in the process of spending, whereas the article explains that this is only a projected cost.

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

#222

Post by cosmie »

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?

Section 8 isn't restricted to just subsidized housing developments[1]. It can also be used as a subsidy to any private market rental as well, where the landlord is paid the subsidy from the Section 8 program and the tenant is responsible for any rental costs above that (if any).

That said, it's a hassle for landlords. They have a separate contract and commitments with the local housing authority that disburses the subsidy, in addition to the lease with the tenant. And are subject to annual home inspections by that housing authority. And most importantly in a booming market, there are legal caps to how much a tenant's annual income can be dedicated to housing and utilities. Between the income limits to qualify for section 8 and the cap on income that can go to housing, the amount that an individual can actually spend on top of the subsidy is fairly limited and may not bridge the gap to going-rates for private rentals in an area. Between that and the stigma attached to the quality of tenants using section 8, it's common for private landlords in a good market with a standard or better unit to pass on a section 8 applicant and hold out for another tenant with fewer strings attached to the transaction.

[1] https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_se...

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

#223

Post by legitster »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #197
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…

This...is not wrong. Pioneer Square in Seattle used to have a lot of flop houses, part of it being the original "skid row" (logs skid to the saw mill, really muddy and not a desirable place to live). My grandfather in Spokane unwittingly ran a rooming house we cousins called the "empty arms" (inherited from his sister), which housed a lot of people who were just barely getting by. Seattle's flop houses are mostly gon…

Publix in Seattle is a perfect example.

A developer bought them out, them combined every 2-3 SROs to make a (still small) luxury apartment.

I do not begrudge the developer. If you were to propose the opposite (taking an existing set of luxury apartments, and subdivide them into more rent paying units), it would probably be more profitable, but you would never get the plans approved.

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

#225

Post by peter303 »

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…

SROs have returned as urban co-housing dorms for z-llenials. They consist of a cramped bedroom, sometimes with a private bath. But shared cooking, dining and recreation spaces.

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

#226

Post by nate_meurer »

wolverine876 wrote: post #181
omegaworks wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmmm ... Section 8 is not known for paying a lot, afaik, and not a large source of demand. Also, rents have been shooting up while Section 8 has (afaik) not. But do we have data anywhere? (I don't.)

Section 8 pays close to market rate, otherwise the program wouldn't get anywhere. My section 8 unit is tad cheaper than what I could get otherwise. But my rents are always lower than market anyway.

The tradeoff is that the government always pays on time, and there is some motivation for tenants to behave (e.g., noise, nuisance, property upkeep) in order to keep their section 8 voucher in good standing.

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

#227

Post by mikeg8 »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #139
rmason wrote: post #32

Do you realize that you could give that homeless person a first class ticket to Detroit? Put them up in a hotel until an abandoned house could be totally rebuilt for them. Pay their electricity, water, heating costs and taxes for the next ten years and still save California taxpayers $600,000!

Do you realize that forced relocation is a crime against humanity?

Not if they are unlawfully occupying a space to begin with.

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

#228

Post by Shuang1 »

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…

Republicans caused all the problems in a city that they haven't controlled since 2001, in a state they haven't controlled since 1987? That really is incredible! I wonder how they accomplished that.

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

#229

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

dealforager wrote: post #59
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…

The solution is real free markets. Constant government intervention in the housing market, the stock market, education, healthcare, and everything else under the sun has led us to where we are today. It always feels nice for a bit when the government bails you out, but the long term consequences are always much more severe. Prices are information and when all the information is polluted, it becomes very difficult to…

> The solution is real free markets.

A ludicrous suggestion.

The "free market" optimizes for one single thing: Profit.

Providing housing for homeless people is not profitable, and so a free market would never do it.

> Constant government intervention in the housing market, the stock market, education, healthcare, and everything else under the sun has led us to where we are today.

Health care is in the same boat. If a poor person gets cancer, the free market would gladly let them die. They wouldn't be able to pay for treatment.

Education is similar. If the government didn't provide schools, a considerable portion of children would go uneducated.

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

#230

Post by dahfizz »

muaytimbo wrote: post #186
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…

Actually this proposition made it "less illegal" to be poor and a homeowner. Now poor people can keep their homes even if, through no fault of their own, property values rise around them. Property taxes in general are a complete sham, what other item do you continually need to pay for after you own it? And why is the amount you need to pay pegged to what other people in the neighborhood around you are doing?

My municipality charges a yearly excise tax on cars, which is functionally the same as property tax. I have the same philosophical objects to both, but the car tax is pretty low so practically it is not worth getting upset about.
Post reply on HN