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

LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 312 posts

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#151

Post by thebigman433 »

londons_explore wrote: post #114
spoonjim wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I see someone who is quite clearly very recently homeless I give them as much money as I can afford to, like $50-100, because I feel like it can get them out of homelessness. When I see someone completely out of their mind I don’t feel like anything I can do will make a material difference, just get them different levels of stoned for the next 3 hours.

When you give $50-100, please employ them to do a task. Ie. "Here's $50. Go and buy me some ice cream. You can have another $50 when you bring it to me". It discourages begging and encourages an entrepreneur mentality.

This is the most stereotype hn comment I can imagine.

Why does your goal have to include putting them in some weird spot where youre holding power over them to teach some "entrepreneur mentality". Most of the temporarily homeless population is embarrassed to ask for money, just treat them like an adult if youre going to offer help.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#152

Post by tunesmith »

EarthIsHome wrote: post #143
dcolkitt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one big way to prevent this downward trend in quality of life is to build more cheap housing One pedantic quibble. It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically. It's perfectly fine simply to build more housing of any type. Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Throughout all of American history, new h…

I'm all for building more housing for people. Ending homelessness, by definition, would mean to provide housing. But the thing is, we don't even need to build more housing. There are more than 30 times more vacant homes [0] than there are homeless. It makes the most sense to redistribute resources more effectively and efficiently. We should be looking at our system as a whole when it clearly doesn't distribute necess…

I don't think that "we don't need to build more housing" follows from "we have more vacant houses than houseless". It seems like the implicit assumption there is we have the ability to move all the houseless to those house, but that sounds really unlikely (albeit an extremely interesting project if it's tried).

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#154

Post by Klinky »

spfzero wrote: post #132
onion2k wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Only if people actually live in those houses, and they're bought by people living in the cheaper houses right now who then move up in to the new housing stock. If people buy the new houses as investments and leave them empty most of the year then it has no impact on the rest…

Wow, buying a house and leaving it vacant most of the year doesn't seem like a very good investment. In my experience when people I've known bought an investment property the number one thing on their minds was occupancy, and if they thought it would lie vacant for more than a month or two, they wouldn't buy it. I do see your point about foreign investors though, they will view the house as a bank account, one that w…

Housing prices in my area have literally doubled in the last 5~ years. Sitting on a house doesn't look so bad with those returns. At the same time flipping is also a housing investment method that inflates prices while often diluting the quality of the housing market, as it's often not done properly.

Let's also not forget the housing crisis saw a lot of money pouring into bad investments. Assuming people only make wise investments is naive. The market is crazy right now with people paying over asking and waiving inspections. A lot of people are going to ride that train over the cliff.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#155

Post by JumpCrisscross »

slg wrote: post #124
dcolkitt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one big way to prevent this downward trend in quality of life is to build more cheap housing One pedantic quibble. It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically. It's perfectly fine simply to build more housing of any type. Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Throughout all of American history, new h…

This generally doesn't happen for two primary reasons. First cities are not closed systems. Places like LA and the Bay Area have a built up demand that exceeds housing. The new housing would have to be added at an extremely high right to keep up with that demand otherwise the city just grows rather than becomes cheaper. When a city simply grows, the cheaper units never flow down to the bottom of the market as someone…

> cheaper units never flow down to the bottom of the market

“Never” is too strong.

It happened to me in New York. I negotiated down my rent on account of nearby buildings with better amenities opening at slightly higher but similar enough pricing, net effective.

Meanwhile, Brooklyn and San Francisco were busy blocking all new construction, thereby forcing their restaurant workers to compete with millionaires.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#156

Post by jollybean »

koolba wrote: post #43
jollybean wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are small-c conservative progressives. They are not into spectacles or aggressive populism, generally correct, a little effete, but are definitely progressive. They are like the 'Vermont' or 'Nice Schoolteacher' or 'Librarian' of Journalism.

Promoting an author who’s book is literally titled, “In Defense of Looting”[1] isn’t progressive. It’s promoting the breakdown of the rule of law. That wasn’t an accident either. [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...

The title of the piece is:

"One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'"

To the extent that they identify that the view is labelled with the editorially appropriate moniker: 'Controversial' - I'm glad that people have a chance to speak their minds.

'Covering' a book or a perspective is not overtly 'promoting' it.

If they're drawing from a wide perspective (they don't quite though), then this would be a good thing.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#157

Post by simfree »

onion2k wrote: post #145
dnautics wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not occupied isn't it losing money at least by bleeding to property taxes?

Yes, but property values in London are increasing at a rate that more than pays for that (many times over actually).

Same in Seattle, my block has a 2017 constructed home that has never had occupants, owned by a non-resident from China. He owns at least a few other empty new homes in the inner suburbs as well.

About once every 2 weeks his son pops by to make sure the house has not burned down or had a pipe burst.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#158

Post by epistasis »

sp332 wrote: post #149
tylerhou wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What concrete data do you have to suggest that luxury homes aren't being occupied at significantly higher rates than general housing stock?

Vancouver https://bc.ctvnews.ca/10-800-housing-units-sit-empty-in-vanc... Manhattan https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-h... Seattle https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/luxury-apartments-whos-bu... Melbourne https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ghost-tower-warn... Boston https://bostonagentmagazine.com/2018/09/11/study-bostons-new...

That seems like solid evidence that vacancy is not the problem in the least...

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#159

Post by BurningFrog »

EarthIsHome wrote: post #143
dcolkitt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one big way to prevent this downward trend in quality of life is to build more cheap housing One pedantic quibble. It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically. It's perfectly fine simply to build more housing of any type. Today's new expensive housing will indirectly create more cheap housing in the pre-existing housing stock, by pulling demand out of the market. Throughout all of American history, new h…

I'm all for building more housing for people. Ending homelessness, by definition, would mean to provide housing. But the thing is, we don't even need to build more housing. There are more than 30 times more vacant homes [0] than there are homeless. It makes the most sense to redistribute resources more effectively and efficiently. We should be looking at our system as a whole when it clearly doesn't distribute necess…

Those houses are empty for a reason.

Usually they are where there is a housing surplus, because population in the area has declined.

I predict offering the people in my Oakland neighborhood shantytowns housing in abandoned rustbelt towns will not find many takers.

Re: LA pays $2600 per homeless tent, per month

#160

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Klinky wrote: post #154
spfzero wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, buying a house and leaving it vacant most of the year doesn't seem like a very good investment. In my experience when people I've known bought an investment property the number one thing on their minds was occupancy, and if they thought it would lie vacant for more than a month or two, they wouldn't buy it. I do see your point about foreign investors though, they will view the house as a bank account, one that w…

Housing prices in my area have literally doubled in the last 5~ years. Sitting on a house doesn't look so bad with those returns. At the same time flipping is also a housing investment method that inflates prices while often diluting the quality of the housing market, as it's often not done properly. Let's also not forget the housing crisis saw a lot of money pouring into bad investments. Assuming people only make wi…

> Sitting on a house doesn't look so bad with those returns

Those returns are underwritten by voters rejecting new housing. If that political landscape changes, the incentives for landholders evolve.

Post reply on HN