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

331–340 of 368 posts

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

#331

Post by rcpt »

pbuzbee wrote: post #153
Dig1t wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If property taxes were level across properties, wouldn't we likely see property values drop, given the presumed higher taxes in the future? I'd rather see us adopt lower but uniform property tax rates that are revenue-neutral with Prop 13 rates. Of course I'm only an aspiring property owner so I have a significant bias here.

> wouldn't we likely see property values drop, given the presumed higher taxes in the future?

Yes. Prop 13 is priced in to the market. Buyers are willing to bid higher because they expect that tax cut.

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

#332

Post by davewasthere »

Australia has that beat.

We're spending around $4m (USD 2.87m) per person to house refugees in Nauru offshore detention. Because reasons.

Persionally, I'd rather let the formally recognised refugees come to Australia and pay them each $100k a year for a savings of 3.9m/year/person. Bargain!

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

#333

Post by seanmcdirmid »

muaytimbo wrote: post #316
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Property taxes in general are a complete sham, what other item do you continually need to pay for after you own it? City infrastructure needs constant maintnence, city services need to be constantly funded. And local schools (where most property tax in much of the USA goes) keep going even after your house is built (suffice it to say, areas with the best schools have the highest property taxes). > And why is the am…

This is demonstrably false, just because my property is "developed" (I'm not sure what developed vs non-developed means in this context) does not mean I consume more services. Homeowners are under no obligation to consume more city services because their property is nicer.

Value is a proxy for utilization. The alternative is a straight up land tax that would be unfair to those who decide to leave their property undeveloped.

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

#334

Post by rcpt »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #119
JJMcJ wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> curtail rising taxes That, of course, was Proposition 13, a ballot initiative. The fallout was exactly what people predicted. Prop 13 did two things. It capped property taxes, though there have been a variety of ways of getting around that. The other thing was it capped increases in property taxes. Not quite Prop 13 but you can't have high increases in property values, and simultaneously have affordable housing. Im…

> Not quite Prop 13 but you can't have high increases in property values, and simultaneously have affordable housing. If you means test things, it can work better. If you're an artist or a retiree in san francisco, and then someone goes and invents the internet, prices will go way way up around you. If you don't want to force the artists and retirees to learn to code to keep up with housing catering to newcomers, som…

Retirees and the disabled have the California Tax Postponement Program to protect them from rising taxes. Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.

Artists? They can cash out for enormous windfall profits if they can't sell enough art.

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

#335

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rcpt wrote: post #331
pbuzbee wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If property taxes were level across properties, wouldn't we likely see property values drop, given the presumed higher taxes in the future? I'd rather see us adopt lower but uniform property tax rates that are revenue-neutral with Prop 13 rates. Of course I'm only an aspiring property owner so I have a significant bias here.

> wouldn't we likely see property values drop, given the presumed higher taxes in the future? Yes. Prop 13 is priced in to the market. Buyers are willing to bid higher because they expect that tax cut.

The tax resets when they buy, which also leads to people not wanting to sell because they don’t want to give up their tax cut.

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

#336

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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!

You could give them a ticket to Detroit, but they will wind up in LA quickly because they sold the house California bought them, but a bunch of drugs, and the weather is better for being homeless in LA than Detroit.

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

#337

Post by refurb »

gutitout wrote: post #292
byw wrote: 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.

Why is that sad that he doesn't want to spend money on housing he doesn't want?

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

#338

Post by wolverine876 »

WalterBright wrote: post #203
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?

I lived for 3 years in a college dorm with no kitchen or bathroom. I even had to have a roommate. Some of the best times in my life. For my senior year I moved into an apartment with my own bathroom and kitchen. It turned out to be a step down.

This is shameless.

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

#339

Post by wolverine876 »

asdff wrote: post #286
wolverine876 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that based on? And what did SROs provide? Did they provide plumbing, HVAC, and security? I never heard of SROs being known for their a/c and security, and the plumbing didn't have a great reputation.

They provided your own room with a lock on the door and a bed, and a shared bathroom and kitchen, for a price that was substantially lower than any other unit of housing on offer in the area, so yes they provided these things. If these things were lacking, then it was the state of the times in code enforcement and you would expect these things to be lacking in any lower income housing unit during this time as well. T…

Again, what is all that based on? A story without evidence is fiction - a nice story, but not reality.

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

#340

Post by wolverine876 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #312
wolverine876 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Government stole it from tax payers Actually, we agreed that it was a good idea and organized our government to carry it out, and we broadly support it. > The foolish Commenters and citizens who disagree with you are "foolish"? People can't possibly disagree with you for legitimate reasons? Is your opinion the standard by which we measure legitimacy? Lucky I met you! > decaying urban centers Urban centers have been…

It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency. Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens. There is no way that small rooms in dense housing buildings should cost more than single family homes. There is either grift involved or homeless housing is WAY over regulated/zoned.

> It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency.

Which programs do you mean? There are many watchdog agencies in and outside government, including the press, and including right here right now.

> Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens

A broad statement, but what is it based on? There are honest and dishonest people in government, just like the people on my block.

Post reply on HN