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

191–200 of 312 posts

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

#191

Post by chadcmulligan »

beervirus wrote: post #79
ravenstine wrote: post #44

Won't these programs just expand ad infinitum if we don't address the root causes of homelessness? I'm glad we're helping the homeless, but the lack of housing is a symptom and less so a cause. LA has way more homeless people than it used to. Why don't we address that?

What are you saying the cause is?

Its probably nicer being homeless in California than living poor in Minnesota or some other place thats cold (not an American, and never been to Minnesota). I've just always thought if I was homeless I'd move to the beach where its warm.

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

#192

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

stale2002 wrote: post #185
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…

> If people buy the new houses as investments and leave them empty most of the year Fortunately, this is already a metric that is tracked, called the vacancy rate. And what we see is, that in in-demand cities, that have high rents, the vacancy rate is pretty low. So, if the vacancy rate is 5%, that means that if you build 100 houses, then 95 of them are going to be lived in. Yes, it sucks that those other 5 houses ar…

One factor in vacancy rates at least in SF / NY - rent control. You really CANNOT rent to someone without a big risk - so if you have an elderly parent who might want to move in in the future, you have kids who might want a place - and are wealthy - you really need to keep place empty.

So yes, the rich do leave I think more places empty in some places because they can afford to and because the economic calculation is not simple. If you rent and want to end the rental later you end up in a bad spot.

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

#193

Post by nthj »

CivBase wrote: post #176
barbecue_sauce wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 25 y/o moving to SF isn't going to buy an apartment period.

I'm confused. What will a 25 y/o moving to SF buy? They can't all be homeless or wealthy enough to buy a house in SF.

I believe the confusion is over the term "buy." In San Francisco/US terminology, a 25 y/o is likely to rent or lease an apartment. Buying would more likely be of a condo (or a house, as you mentioned.)

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

#194

Post by vxNsr »

BurningFrog wrote: post #167
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…

I'm fascinated by how widespread this weird idea is. Even if we buy the exotic premise that investors would buy houses and leave them empty - generating zero rental income for these greed driven people - as an investment, we still have to explain why they would only do this with new housing stock. Why can't you do the same trick with existing housing?

I’ve heard of it too, apparently foreign money (mostly China) needs a legit way to pull the money out of their country and real estate is a good way to do it that doesn’t alarm regulators. Can’t say why it doesn’t make sense to rent it out. But I do know that Vancouver passed laws to limit this type of purchase.

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

#195

Post by vmception »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #57

Posting this because most people in HN have a warped view of what homelessness is, especially in california. First of all, when most people think homeless they think "fentanyl addict out of his mind living in squalor" and while there are certainly a bunch of those people in the homeless population, they aren't even a majority of the homeless. In general, about 2/3 of the homeless are transiently homeless. They will b…

Its because HN is the silicon valley town crier whose readers are either transient, foreigners, or people coming from privilege already in the area. Groups so far removed from the problem that they have no idea what's going on.

They'll latch on to any contrived empathic half-solution and then leave the area.

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

#196

Post by icelancer »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #111
icelancer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I'm an expat in a developing country and even for the poorest people a roof over their heads is affordable. It's affordable here, too. Just not in one of the wealthiest and thus most expensive cities in the United States.

That's a fair call, there's certainly places in the states that treat it as yet another utility rather than an investment. From my experience in Asia the attitude is so wildly different, they build more houses than is ever needed, people can run stores and sell basic goods out of their spare front room for a few hours a day as side income. I'm not familiar with local laws in the US but in Australia you'd get fined a…

>> I'm not familiar with local laws in the US but in Australia you'd get fined a few thousand dollars trying to sell groceries from a house in suburbia, many have to get in their cars and travel a few km to the designated "commercial" area simply to buy some bread.

This would definitely play out the exact same way in America.

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

#197

Post by themacguffinman »

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…

That sounds like an argument to add housing at an extremely high rate. Of course places like the Bay Area have huge pent up demand that requires huge supply to satisfy, the housing in these cities have been constricted for decades and needs substantial resources to correct. This is like saying that more money generally doesn't help debt if you accumulate more debt than you earn. Somehow, the point is missed.

The existence of SRO hotels and similarly "special" dwellings are symptoms of severe housing deficit yet they're portrayed as necessary. There's no reason that the bottom of the housing market needs to be specially gimped, especially when LA is paying $2600 per month for a tent. In a less starved & dysfunctional market, old and adequate housing stock can satisfy that role.

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

#198

Post by dcolkitt »

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…

> someone else will move in who lives outside the city

I don't really see this as a gotcha. Those would-be new arrivals to the city don't materialize out of thin air. Presumably they left some other place behind, and their migration is freeing up housing stock wherever they leave behind. The underlying dynamic is still the same. New housing increases low-end affordability by soaking up mid-end demand for old housing stock.

Maybe you build housing in the Bay Area, and all it does is bring in new people who pay the same market rate. But that migration will free up housing stock in Ohio. The only difference is that instead of helping the house poor in your local area the policy helps the house poor in flyover country. Unless you place a lot more moral weight on helping Californians than Midwesterners, what's the difference?

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

#199

Post by anm89 »

If anything the marginal cost per unit would be a better metric. The fact that big bureaucracy is expensive at small scale isn't that surprising.

There is also a major fallacy here, that this money could be simply used to put people into homes dollar for dollar. If they are this inefficient getting people into tents, whats to say that the inefficiency isn't magnified with a more complicated project.

There is no magical box that you can go drop cash into that pays rent for someone who was previously homeless. It comes with it's own set of logistics.

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

#200

Post by DemocracyFTW »

dcolkitt wrote: post #78
0xB31B1B wrote: post #57

Posting this because most people in HN have a warped view of what homelessness is, especially in california. First of all, when most people think homeless they think "fentanyl addict out of his mind living in squalor" and while there are certainly a bunch of those people in the homeless population, they aren't even a majority of the homeless. In general, about 2/3 of the homeless are transiently homeless. They will b…

> 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…

> It's not necessary to build cheap housing specifically

because cheap housing falls from the sky. It trickles down, yknow. Some people get rich first, then we all profit from their breadcrumbs. There's a god, and god is just. Jeez.

Post reply on HN