151–160 of 1001 posts
In principle, I hate this. Cities should be able to plan their own growth. In practice, coming from CA, I am 100% onboard. It's a mess of red tape and bullshit lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stats like these are only true because the general public and policymakers/NGOs mean completely different populations of people when discussing "the homeless." Private market housing in SF will not get most of the very visible & mentally ill off of the streets, this likely requires services and some level of compulsion.
If you redefine "homelessness" to only include those with addiction or mental illness problems, then you might have a point. But that's not a terrible useful definition, and many of those addiction and mental illness problems stem from not having housing and the extreme difficulty of that situation. Other areas with higher rates of addiction, but cheaper housing, have lower rates of homelessness. Cheaper housing real…
I am not redefining anything, I am describing to you what people are colloquially talking about and why these conversations oftentimes are just people talking past each other because they have different issues in mind. When people in SF say "homelessness is out of control", they are typically talking about the population I am mentioning - one that is unlikely to be helped by changes to housing costs at the margin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US states are the ultimate unit of law (at least pre civil war). States can supersede the authority of their cities and counties with near impunity since there is no Bill of Rights between each state and its constituent parts.
That’s interesting that we have county and city governing bodies at all. It’s natural things like those bodies would unfold but to go this long with the state staying out of these affairs and stepping in when needed is pretty fascinating to see in real time like this.
I get not wanting to suddenly put an extra five hundred families onto a road that was only designed for a hundred single-family dwellings. What I don't get is being so nimby that you'd rather have your streets utterly full of homeless people and human waste.
How would the builder's remedy work in a place like Atherton if the homeowners form a pact and refuse to sell to any developers? E.g. if Marc Andreessen ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre... ) and Steph Curry ( https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/29/steph-curry-shoots-his-ni... ) form a coalition with other residents then they can effectively keep the city down zoned even if builder's remedy i…
They can try. It only takes one defector to cash a cheque. Or bankruptcy, divorce, general orneriness ...
This "hack" is apparently used in famous "no zoning" Houston to keep exclusive neighborhoods exclusive (https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/houston-doesnt-have-zoning... )
Virtually every affluent residential neighborhood in Houston has strict private deed restrictions — and, remarkably many of those deed restrictions can be enforced by the city. That’s why River Oaks, Houston’s wealthiest neighborhood, doesn’t have apartment buildings or office buildings in the middle of the neighborhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we are going to find out. Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs.
> Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... because they're mentally ill.... because of drugs.
* No Pets
* No Visitors
* Curfew Time
* Limits on the number of people per unit (meaning, families and couples cannot always be accommodated together)
- and a host of others. Also in some places there is a requirement that you have a social worker, and/or receiving mental healthcare treatment - except there are long waiting periods.
For most long term homeless people telling them "you have to give up your dog" will keep them on the streets - its not "housing, no questions asked" its "housing with rules".
Building more housing will reduce the existing homeless population - because a significant portion of existing homeless are working poor, but more importantly, it will stall the creation of new homeless, the longer you're homeless the more likely you are to acquire an addiction, or other mental health issue.
The logical move would seem to be to submit lots of proposals for super tall massive ugly developments on Wednesday. No need to actually have the cash arranged to build them. Propose 100 floor tiny apartments everywhere. Then, they get approved. Then the city gets it's zoning laws in place and regrets the approval of your massive ugly development. But then you go to the city with an offer... Send in a new, more reaso…
This seems like a way to reduce homelessness and fix the housing market in one fell swoop.
> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?