Live data from Hacker News

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

ktla.com

291–300 of 368 posts

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

#291
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a possibility The other possibility is that we should root out the corruption in this process. I am not generally a fan of privitization at all. In the private market however you're building 2/2s in LA for less than half of the cost including furnishings and fixtures. By that I mean a 2 bed, 2 bathroom, with all of the traditionally middle class loved touches including faux marble, and faux wood flooring etc.…

> The issue here is definitely corruption and not ability, cost, or the need to put people in Parasite style apartments. You claim corruption, but provide no evidence of such, just that the result doesn't make sense to you. But instead of corruption, maybe it is just capitalism at work here? Developers go with what the market demands, and that demand comes through what the market is willing to pay. In that case, they…

I suggest its corruption because I also develop units in Los Angeles and have multiple (5 specifically) bids in my inbox from the last two weeks for building out completely fresh 2/2s on new ground with new foundations in the 350k mark. Including all of what I've mentioned. And they're definitely making a margin on me.

That would be why specifically 800+k for a unit described smells of corruption.

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

#292
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a single guy and a software engineer, I would pay full price for a pod housing if the area is safe convenient. I'd rent a co-working desk nearby and save a ton of money. These types of housing just aren't available in Vancouver (or NA in general), but I can totally see a market for it.

Saddens me that the top earners in our world have to dream of affordable housing so they can save a bit of money. Probably not enough to buy a house in that same area. Sigh.

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

#293
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I live in Seattle. Please tell me which facility within 50 miles of me will both safely house people, and provide psychiatric/drug treatment for them, and I'll get right onto advocating for getting people out of tents and into that facility. Does it have a name, address, and website?

Also, it needs to have room for 5,500 unsheltered homeless people. [1]

That facility, of course, does not exist. This is my entire point. In some parallel universe where support services exist, I'd prefer them being used over people living in tents. I'd even support mandating them, because I also don't like stepping over human shit when I take a walk in my neighborhood. We don't live in that parallel universe, though, and the services that exist aren't up to the task. Shelters are unsafe, have incredibly limited admission hours, are often at capacity, don't provide enough support services, and refuse to take addicts. There's a reason people are sleeping in tents, and that reason isn't 'they don't know that shelters exist'.

Those people know shelters exist. Those shelters either don't want those people, or those people don't want to live in those shelters, because that life is worse than living in a tent by the overpass. If we're going to talk about compassion, I'm not sure how compassionate it is to force people into a living condition that's worse than the squalor they already live in.

As of February 23rd, 2022, we have exactly three options that we can implement.

1. Sweep the streets and 'house' all homeless people in prison. [2]

2. Keep sweeping tent cities from street to street, shuffling people between 3rd and 4th and back to 3rd and back to 4th. [3]

3. Do nothing and let people live in tent cities.

There is no option 4. It doesn't exist. I'd like one to exist, but it doesn't.

I don't like any of these three options, but the one I dislike least is #3. We just voted for a city council that is going to double down on #2. My prediction is that four years from now, we'll be exactly where we are today. Nobody's building a magical housing and treatment facility for 5,500 people.

[1] There are, at any point in time, ~6,000 sheltered homeless and ~5,500 unsheltered homeless in King county (population 2,200,000).

[2] This is what people mean when they talk about criminalizing poverty.

[3] This is what we call 'Re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic'. This can be done on a local level, by sweeping tents out of neighbourhoods which complain the loudest, on a municipal level by having suburban police arrest people and release them in the city center, or on a national level, by giving mid-western homeless people a one-way bus ticket to the coasts. The net result is the same - it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it around.

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

#294
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a reason to justify tyranny to me. What do you mean mob rule. In a (true) democratic society just a small group can change something the majority disagrees with because they got together? The majority is also together in the same matter isnt it?

Well, the idea recognizes two concepts: - We don't want the minority enforcing on the majority - We don't want a plurality or even a majority enforcing on a minority under certain circumstances So, for instance, even if 300 million Americans think "sfe22 should be stripped of their assets and have it given to us 300 million" that's not going to happen. Yes, that is 'tyrannical' of you to have such power but it is so…

Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to set an example that still would tell many a lot about this hypothetical america. Would a tyrant really be of any help then, maybe if it was somehow “good” to me, for a limited time but definitely does not justify its existence and cost on freedom and wealth.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> It's a shame because Schwarzenegger gave the party a winning formula when he was governor

Yes, but “find a political cypher of a celebrity, run in an irregular election leveraging a crisis created by Republican state and federal policies, and appoint an listen to a lot of establishment Dems as advisers while ignoring Republican Party insiders and donors because you don't need them once you have the dual advantages of celebrity and incumbency and don't care about the party as such” isn't really a structurally-repeatable strategy.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, Publix in Seattle!!?

Ah, "The Publix" - I saw it a few times in ID and was confused with the SE/Florida based Grocery Store.

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

#297
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a single guy and a software engineer, I would pay full price for a pod housing if the area is safe convenient. I'd rent a co-working desk nearby and save a ton of money. These types of housing just aren't available in Vancouver (or NA in general), but I can totally see a market for it.

Saddens me that the top earners in our world have to dream of affordable housing so they can save a bit of money. Probably not enough to buy a house in that same area. Sigh.

He is in one of the most expensive places that pays below market pay. When money fled Hong Kong a lot of it moved to Vancouver.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Shipping the homeless elsewhere than California's most expensive cities is way outside the Overton window. Why? Unless you can show proof that most of the homeless in SF and LA are locals who fell on hard times rather than junkies who moved in for better weather and benefits, shipping them out seems completely reasonable.

Ship them where? Can other cities ship to LA/SF? How does this work?

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

#299
post #105
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where housing prices grow in an unbounded, absolutely detached from reality manner, it is.

It's actually the land which goes up in value. Houses go down in value, like a new car. Sometimes this is masked, by regular maintenance, retrofits, and repairs. But if left to pot, a house is eventually worthless, then even a cost, for the new owner has to tear it down and rebuild. Land appreciates. A house costs.

Depends on the house, but houses can get more valuable much faster than the minimal maintenance costs associated with them. That’s less common in earthquake zones, but scarcity can easily drive up prices because “they don’t make them like they used to” or something interesting happened in the location etc.

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

#300
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I live in Seattle. Please tell me which facility within 50 miles of me will both safely house people, and provide psychiatric/drug treatment for them, and I'll get right onto advocating for getting people out of tents and into that facility. Does it…

Nobody's building a magical housing and treatment facility for 5,500 people.

Yeah, that's the problem; nobody's building it, not because the facility is impossible to build or run, but because it would require the political will to compel anyone arrested on multiple counts of vagrancy to be held there on the condition of accepting some form of treatment or further counseling.

It is not magic; the tent city phenomena is not a permanent fixture of big west coast cities.

Post reply on HN