Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

kcrw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 376 posts

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

#161

Post by zozbot234 »

majormajor wrote: post #116
zozbot234 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are. What do you think "anti-gentrification activism" boils down to, in practice? Build more and drive prices down? Of course not, the activists will conveniently tell you that this makes gentrification worse ! Which totally defies economic logic: there's only so much demand in the world for places like Manhattan!

> Which totally defies economic logic: there's only so much demand in the world for places like Manhattan! How much demand "in the world" to live in Manhattan do you think there is? The more the price drops, of course, the demand will go up. So how much "in the world" at both current prices and also if, say, prices went down by 5%? 10%? 50%? 75%? I think there's enough currently-unmet demand to keep the prices from f…

The effective demand for places like Manhattan comes from the highly productive economic activity that can be pursued in such places. So if the demand for places like Manhattan (or Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai etc.) really was that boundless, that would be plenty of reason to build as many of them as possible and speed towards that post-scarcity techno-utopia.

(But the ghost cities of China actually show how this can go wrong. So, as it turns out, you can only YIMBY so much.)

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

#162

Post by wolverine876 »

exolymph wrote: post #27

The non-visible homeless (people down on their luck, to an approximation) get mentally sorted into the vast category of "that's unfortunate but it doesn't affect me directly," which might influence people's votes or charitable donations, but doesn't arouse much passion for most of us. By contrast, the visible homeless are a visceral inconvenience, even a danger, so people feel strongly about how that problem is addre…

I'm guessing that you misunderstand the threats, and are much more likely to be hit by someone in an SUV. I've spent lots and lots of time in cities; I've never had a problem with a homeless person.

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

#163

Post by Lendal »

More theorizing. Why don't they just ask the homeless, on an individual level, why they're homeless? They know better than we do. It's not like they're animals, such that we can't ask them a simple set of questions.

My personal theory? The reason there's more homeless in LA and NYC is because LA and NYC are huge. There's more of everything in those cities. Why shouldn't there be more homelessness as well?

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

#164

Post by wolverine876 »

googlryas wrote: post #156
themitigating wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"visceral inconvenience" The problem with the homeless isn't how it offends your senses. "I'm not all that likely to be accosted, but if I ever am, it will be a big deal, so navigating those places is nerve-wracking because my threat-detection is constantly dialed up." Have you ever thought that being this worried about threats is something you're partially responsible for?

Every self preservation instinct is something each person is ultimately responsible for, but that doesn't mean that is the only dial that can be adjusted to solve the issue. Some people really do worry too much. Some areas really could be cleaned up so that random people feel comfortable moving through them without threat of assault.

> Some areas really could be cleaned up

Cleaned? People who are homeless are dirt?

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

#165

Post by bradlys »

klipt wrote: post #133
bradlys wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well - to be more clear - SF is socially progressive. It is incredibly fiscally conservative. It is part of Silicon Valley - a neoliberal paradise. The whole area is incredibly classically liberal and not socialist leaning at all... After all - becoming a tycoon is everyone's wet dream there.

> SF is socially progressive. It is incredibly fiscally conservative Wouldn't "fiscally conservative" mean low taxes and low spending? I believe SF spends about $57,000 annually per homeless person which doesn't sound very fiscally conservative. Of course a lot of that money goes missing while being funneled through the homeless industrial complex...

> low taxes and low spending?

Almost no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending. Maybe a few libertarians scattered throughout the country that managed to get a seat but they're a very small minority.

Everyone is all about high taxes and high spending. It's just "high taxes for thee but not for me". So, for instance, republicans will repeal taxes on the rich and large corporations even when we already tax the middle class W2 earners more than the rich already. Similarly, republicans are huge for the MIC. So much for being fiscally conservative when they want to spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on a stupid boondoggle airplane that no one gives a shit about.

Democrats have the same issues. They also have a hardon for the MIC and spending on stupid shit. The dems in SF will spend it on stupid trashcans or whatever nonsense that doesn't move the bar at all.

They will tax the hell out of the working class and spend the money on shit that doesn't improve the material conditions of everyday people. It's why we can't have healthcare. Both parties have no interest because that doesn't make their lobbyists money.

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

#166

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mrguyorama wrote: post #114
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nationwide, yes, renters turn out to vote at a far lower rate than homeowners Wider than I expected. Thank you. Asking because in New York, renters turn out, and that drives policy outcomes. (They’re also less likely to think supply and demand is a myth.)

By and large, poorer people vote less than wealthy people. It is harder to vote in america as a poorer person in many areas, arguably on purpose.

> harder to vote in america as a poorer person in many areas, arguably on purpose

Is this true in San Francisco?

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

#167

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wolverine876 wrote: post #158
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…

> 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! Those tech workers, once they move, are not customers, they are the city. It's their city as much as anyone's, any failures or successes are theirs; what have they done?

> what have they done?

This should be easy to answer once the city starts cutting its budget.

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

#168

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

zozbot234 wrote: post #129
jorvi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is how things happen in the US. In most North-Western European countries, city planning and zoning is taken very seriously.

Not so, there are blighted areas even in places like London.

Don't the suburbs/banlieues of Paris have quite the reputation as well?

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

#169

Post by rr888 »

jlmorton wrote: post #17

Imagine you're a municipality like San Francisco. You control all of the zoning regulations, and many of the permitting requirements. You have a AA+ credit rating, and even in today's higher rate environment, you can borrow billions of dollars at 6%. You already own oodles of land. You can build to whatever height you want within reason, because you control the zoning, and you even control many of the ordinances that…

> But people will happily pay you $40/sq foot per year for housing,

Some, but most families couldn't afford it.

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

#170

Post by lelandbatey »

wolverine876 wrote: post #158
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…

> 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! Those tech workers, once they move, are not customers, they are the city. It's their city as much as anyone's, any failures or successes are theirs; what have they done?

New arrivals to a city, no matter their socioeconomic status, in the aggregate, have less influence than folks who are long established in the city. It's a human thing.
Post reply on HN