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

231–240 of 376 posts

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

#231

Post by freeone3000 »

twblalock wrote: post #174
deathanatos wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term of the lease isn't materially longer than 12 months. (Mine actually is >12 mo, but not by a whole lot.) But at the end of the (say) 12 months, you sign the next lease, for another (say) 12 months, or move out. (The rent invariably goes up, at this point.) It's at those individual lease boundaries that I (rather technically) have the opportunity to go month-to-month, if I want to be bled dry. My note about it…

> They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market. Is that wrong? Do you think you are entitled to live in someone else's property, at a price below what others in the market would pay, for as long as you like? There has to be some balance here. Someone is contracting to let you live in their property. If they don't get something out of it, why should they do it? Why would anyone be…

If nobody wanted to be a landlord, it'd be so much easier to find a place to live -- so many vacancies, so much empty space, so little occupied land...

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

#232

Post by g_sch »

WalterBright wrote: post #214

Should check the drug addiction rate among the street dwellers before drawing such conclusions. In Seattle, 90% are addicted to drugs or alcohol, or are mentally ill. https://komonews.com/news/local/komo-news-special-seattle-is...

As other commenters have mentioned, people living on the street don't comprise the majority of unhoused people. It does seem like California has a higher overall percentage of "unsheltered unhoused" people among the unhoused. But e.g. here in NYC the vast majority of unhoused people move in and out of the (largely corrupt, poorly maintained, highly restrictive) shelter system, and a only small percentage live on the street or in the subway.

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

#233

Post by mattpallissard »

wolverine876 wrote: post #162
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.

A variant of this comment comes up every time someone expresses tense situations.

I used to live around the corner from homeless services in the greater Seattle area and commute by foot after dark regularly. I never got physically assaulted but certainly would have if I didn't have my wits about me.

Are most homeless folks problematic? Absolutely not. Is there higher prevalence of mental illness, drug abuse, and other things that lend themselves to irratic behavior among that demographic? Absolutely.

It's ok to be both compassionate and recognize that there is a real safety/health issue. We don't have to minimize someone's experience based on "the numbers"

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

#234

Post by WalterBright »

pwinnski wrote: post #197
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food deserts are the result of theft driving away low margin businesses that don't want to absorb the hit.

This is a popular trope, but companies have already begun walking back their claims of rampant theft[0]. There are increased profits when building in more prosperous areas, so one might understand why companies choose to do so given limited resources. But lower profits in inner cities are not always about theft so much as a lack of cash. 0. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/walgreens-may-have-cried-t...

That isn't what the article says. It says Walgreens is walking back their anti-theft measures because it's costly and ineffective and the customers don't like them.

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

#235

Post by mrguyorama »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #166
mrguyorama wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unfortunately at this point, you've reached the end of my knowledge. I assume California has reasonable mail in voting procedures. That should make the "cost" of voting very very minimal. Do we still see poor people voting less there? I don't know actually.

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

#236

Post by twelve40 »

WesternWind wrote: post #226
dasil003 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a questionable take on two levels. First, yes, yes there is something magic about SF's geography, it's the closest major city to the largest VC hub in the world. These companies thrive on young talent that prefers to live in a city. It's not dissimilar to the gold rush 170 years ago when you think about it. Second, what do you mean "San Francisco is just not suitable any more"? The tech companies and their em…

Just FYI, San Jose is bigger than San Francisco in terms of population and square miles. That's not to say that SF might not be more of a major city than SJ, in fact I would say that personally I think it is in terms of culture and history and social impact, but it's at least debatable.

I think SJ vs SF distinction is not very material to this thread. The OG Silicon Valley of HP and Fairchild Semiconductor fame liked to build corporate campuses around Stanford on cheap (at the time) land. 90's Yahoo, Doubleclick, Google followed suit. In the late 2000's, a new wave of startups like Twitter figured they don't have to stick to corporate code and just move up to a more fun city up north, combined with some tax breaks from SF specifically. How does it matter? It's the same area (i drive up and down every day) with much the same problems.

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

#237

Post by prottog »

pwinnski wrote: post #197
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food deserts are the result of theft driving away low margin businesses that don't want to absorb the hit.

This is a popular trope, but companies have already begun walking back their claims of rampant theft[0]. There are increased profits when building in more prosperous areas, so one might understand why companies choose to do so given limited resources. But lower profits in inner cities are not always about theft so much as a lack of cash. 0. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/walgreens-may-have-cried-t...

The article doesn't support your claim. What it supports is the idea that for Walgreens as a whole, shrinkage isn't a make-or-break issue. It says nothing about whether Walgreens will choose to place or keep a store at a high-theft location or whether a mom-and-pop store can survive in the same.

The grocery business is famous for having very thin margins, so anything that cuts in will necessarily cause fewer options for the people of that area. Academic studies have generally shown that this is in fact not a trope but fact.

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

#238

Post by mindover »

germinalphrase wrote: post #105
slibhb wrote: post #53

When people talk about "homelessness," they're often referring to street people. Most technically homeless people aren't street people, they're between jobs or living in their car or something like that. It seems clear that lower rent/housing prices would help with homelessness but I don't think it would help street people.

To further your point, the U of Chicago recently released a report that around 50 percent of homeless individuals are employed.

In the US or in Chicago? I doubt 50% of homeless people in CA are employed… but I could be wrong.

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

#239

Post by fxleach »

ejb999 wrote: post #141
Tiktaalik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this not the easiest decision in the world? Unfortunately wealthy established homeowners don't want more people to near to them so they vote against any and all change. Welp! This is why higher orders of government need to step in to "force" municipalities to enact some of these sorts of policy changes you describe. This gives the local municipalities cover to enact the good policies that the selfish rich wo…

>>This is why higher orders of government need to step in to "force" municipalities to enact some of these sorts of policy changes you describe. The people that live there, don't want their city/neighborhood to change in a certain way, so people that don't live there should force them to do it? Why are people that aren't even voters in that location have a say at all?

It's not "their" city/neighbourhood. It existed before them and it will exist after. What gives someone a right to move in and create laws to make it harder for other people to do the same thing they did? I understand they actually have that right, it's just shitty to have that kind of mindset.

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

#240

Post by dano »

Building more housing is tossed out as if this is a single dimension economics problem, like widgets in Freshman econ.

Perform a capacity utilization study of all available housing, where Capacity is the number of room days of housing available and utilization is the amount it is actually occupied. Then tag each of these housing units (room) across multiple dimensions including cost, location, house, apartment, condo, etc..

Find out how existing housing is actually being used and how much it is being used. Then adjust the financial incentives to change the usage to what you think it ought to be.

I live in an medium to high cost of living location and the number of underutilized properties due to second homes, opportunistic rentals, and basic investment properties (downtown condos) is substantial.

If someone can point me to a city that has performed a Housing Capacity Utilization study, I'd like to read it.

Post reply on HN