Rising rent, not poverty, is the real driver of homelessness

Post by laidoffamazon » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 8:07 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #49

Tiktaalik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this not the easiest decision in the world? Unfortunately wealthy established homeowners don't want more people to near to them so they vote against any and all change. Welp! This is why higher orders of government need to step in to "force" municipalities to enact some of these sorts of policy changes you describe. This gives the local municipalities cover to enact the good policies that the selfish rich wo…

Unfortunately wealthy established homeowners don't want more people to near to them so they vote against any and all change. Yes, combined with useful idiot "anti-gentrification" activists who have convinced themselves that the concept of supply and demand is a capitalist myth.

Post by aorloff » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

deathanatos wrote: post #21

twblalock wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you signed an agreement to pay a certain amount, for a certain number of months, and then you don't do it, the counterparty should be able to come after you. I understand that some of the people who break leases are experiencing hardship, but others are just breaking their leases because they can -- and a lot more people would do that if it was easier. That would put landlords on the defensive and result in more r…

There's "covering risk", and there's tenant lock-in. I have no problem with requiring a tenant to rent for a year, to prevent quick turnover and the risk and costs associated with that. But multiple landlords now have all had the same policy: the lease will never go month-to-month, basically. You can , but e.g., for my current lease, it costs ~60% more to go month to month. This creates bizarre pay-off points, and gr…

Post by xxpor » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

fnimick wrote: post #67

dionidium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the thing I always say about the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco is like, look, if you can't figure out how to gain from an influx of wealthy, highly-educated, low-criminality, nerdy tech workers, then that's really on you. What a gift! Any city would be lucky to have that "problem." You have to actively work to make that a negative (by, say, refusing to a…

> the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco The people who are complaining about this are not the same people who are restricting housing access. A similar dynamic happens in Boston, where people are resentful of gentrifiers, and I can't blame them. They're not the ones voting to block housing, it's the already rich people in the area who do that.

Post by nickpinkston » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 8:09 PM UTC

Post by zozbot234 » Fri, Jan 06, 2023, 8:10 PM UTC

fnimick wrote: post #67

dionidium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the thing I always say about the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco is like, look, if you can't figure out how to gain from an influx of wealthy, highly-educated, low-criminality, nerdy tech workers, then that's really on you. What a gift! Any city would be lucky to have that "problem." You have to actively work to make that a negative (by, say, refusing to a…

> the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco The people who are complaining about this are not the same people who are restricting housing access. A similar dynamic happens in Boston, where people are resentful of gentrifiers, and I can't blame them. They're not the ones voting to block housing, it's the already rich people in the area who do that.