181–190 of 452 posts
Homelesness exists in the US because it's comfortable to be homeless in a rich society. It is not always a result of choice, but so is living in a home. Still, I sincerely believe more people would choose to be homeless if they tried it, because there is nothing inherently bad in living in a tent if the climate allows it. It's just like tourism but with more amenities available due to urban infra + the stigma (that p…
I live in Zurich - the tightest rental market in the world (.7% availability) but don't really have a homeless problem for some reason. I have met a lot of people that have had to move to neighboring cities though.
You border security and permit system kicks out anyone with even a remote chance to become homeless, you're welcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What does this have to do with poor or homeless people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this take a lot but it's a very static take on homelessness. Yes, homeless people are often in a mental state where they are difficult to take care of. However, that doesn't mean they're homeless because they're mentally unstable. Often, the reason they are unstable is because they are homeless. Being on the street heavily exacerbates drug and mental health issues. Plenty of homeless people start out normal and…
> Often, the reason they are unstable is because they are homeless I think a more common situation is that they are on the street because they are unstable, but being on the street makes it much worse.
See e.g. https://www.statista.com/chart/32585/change-in-median-rent-a...
I live just outside Minneapolis. There's an absolute glut right now of largely unoccupied apartments that have sprung up in the last couple years anywhere there was an open lot and many places there wasn't - tearing down a number of historic buildings in the name of cheaply built wooden framed apartments. Well over 100 new buildings in the last five years within a 10 mile radius. Most of them cost more per month to l…
I feel you there with only luxury housing being the only kind of housing being built in many areas. Honestly, a lot of it is damn ugly too. Allowing developers to construct non-luxury housing would help much more than only allowing them to build luxury housing.
The city could set rent restrictions on new development and all that, but that removes the incentive for developers to actually build in that area at all, especially when they can just find an unrestricted space to develop a couple miles away in the next town.
It's a tough problem.
> I’m the kind of person who contributes to society by starting companies that leverage technology to build smart tea kettles that brew themselves while you sleep at night. I’m a fucking innovator. Is there a reason that the press is always making scapegoats out of tech nerds? The vast majority of people are not employed in tech, and are part of the same society and have very similar self interests. Truly tired of ev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Often, the reason they are unstable is because they are homeless I think a more common situation is that they are on the street because they are unstable, but being on the street makes it much worse.
Yeah I buy that to some extent. But according to the studies I've read, the primary driver of homelessness is rising rent, not mental health issues. See e.g. https://www.statista.com/chart/32585/change-in-median-rent-a...
The actual materials cost of a house, you can build one for $60k no problem and absolute shit-tons of cheap land near jobs (ex: unemployment extremely low in the Dakotas, cheap land, high demand for homeless-tier labor in the fields in bumfucklandia as ICE deports illegals making farmers desperate for anybody).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a big problem in Democratic states like California, where the leftists (Dean Preston and other leftist NIMBYs) have allied themselves with homeowner liberals to make it impossible to build housing. Republican states like Texas do a significantly better job, as you can see by looking at annual per capita new housing, and lower rental inflation. There's a growing liberal movement to change this status quo but the…
There is a proposal to build an apartment complex in my neighborhood in Northern Virginia. The houses that had Trump lawn signs up last year, now have lawn signs arguing to block the new housing (or "preserve the neighborhood's character"). NIMBYism is an economic issue, not a culture issue. It has far more to do with how much impact the new housing is expected to have on the value of people's property. Or more salie…
Increased housing nearby brings increased traffic, parking pressure, crowding, and noise, none of which are positives for current residents. Fear and greed don’t motivate renters to be NIMBY, yet we have NIMBY renters because of other factors.
I think anyone who has actually been hands on trying to improve the lives of the unhomed know that 1) it’s a gradient between “I get kicked out of x everyday and go back at night” and “I’m sleeping under a bridge” and 2) rarely is it the actual cost of the home that’s the problem. Often it’s mental health / substance abuse / lack of a support system. Heck I think there is enough movies/shows about how people fall thr…
Building in the UK is also hard. England, which is like 90% of the population, is very densely inhabited. Cities are sprawling, their road and transit infrastructure barely support their current size, never mind bigger population. Plus, with the housing bubble, people who barely could afford their homes in the first place feel understandably terrified of anything that drops these prices down.
What the UK did post-WWII and is proposing to do now feels quite bold, but also smart: build new cities. Milton Keynes, for example, was built from scratch. In fact Bletchley, of Bletchley Park fame and now a small suburb, used to be the train stop.
It was built from scratch with adequate infrastructure, parks, high and low density zones, schools and fire stations, on land which I can only imagine was much cheaper than the equivalent in London zone 7. It hugged an existing train line so was connected to the rest of the country "for free".
Is that a way forward? Bootstrapping whole towns, instead of trying to keep fighting market forces to squeeze more people into existing towns.
I'm not saying you force people to live there, or displace the homeless there. No, simply provide a cheaper decent place to live, and people will come.