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

321–330 of 376 posts

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

#321

Post by emptysongglass »

dionidium wrote: post #37
jlmorton wrote: post #17

Imagine you're a municipality like San Francisco. You control all of the zoning regulations, and many of the permitting requirements. You have a AA+ credit rating, and even in today's higher rate environment, you can borrow billions of dollars at 6%. You already own oodles of land. You can build to whatever height you want within reason, because you control the zoning, and you even control many of the ordinances that…

Yeah, the thing I always say about the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco is like, look, if you can't figure out how to gain from an influx of wealthy, highly-educated, low-criminality, nerdy tech workers, then that's really on you. What a gift! Any city would be lucky to have that "problem." You have to actively work to make that a negative (by, say, refusing to a…

I didn't want the tech workers flowing into Seattle with Amazon's decision to invade by building their HQ right in the heart. There was a lot of music culture there, at Cap Hill, in the basements of Seattle families that had lived there a long time. It really felt, if you were there, like an invasion: nobody coming in had any context of what was already there, they just took and took and all they could offer was software expertise and money. The city lapped it up.

Sometimes it isn't about just building to accomodating: it's about hey we don't know who you are, you just heard our city was the place to be but you didn't care about the music or the art just came in clueless.

We're not good stewards of the places we move to. We move in and pillage. Our lives are code and Zoom stand-ups, which fine whatever but what are you bringing in outside your code and Nanoleaf wall lights that give you just enough design to be tech-hip. We're raiders, trading our money for jacked up bulletproof lattes and a scene that doesn't belong to us, nodding along to punk music that's not for us, not about us except as the enemy.

Honestly, the best thing Microsoft did was have their own little stronghold out in Redmond. Amazon upended that careful respect-at-a-distance by landing their dumb super-HQ like an atomic bomb in downtown Seattle.

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

#322

Post by UncleEntity »

pwinnski wrote: post #314
WalterBright wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It also says that they sounded the alarm when shrink was at 3.5%, but they're back down to the more-normal 2.5% now. That's a decline that undercuts the very-popular trope that open theft is rampant or out of control in certain cites.

They also say that shoplifting isn’t as bad as industrialized (organized?) theft.

And casual shoplifting becomes a problem when everything, like ice cream, is behind lock and key (also from the referenced article).

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

#323

Post by UncleEntity »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #211
bradlys wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> low taxes and low spending? Almost no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending. Maybe a few libertarians scattered throughout the country that managed to get a seat but they're a very small minority. Everyone is all about high taxes and high spending. It's just "high taxes for thee but not for me". So, for instance, republicans will repeal taxes on the rich and large corporations even when we…

> no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending Wyoming says hello.

After the Great Recession Arizona did a “temporary” increase in (sales, I believe) tax to make up for the deficit and it really was temporary.

Coming from California temporary tax means “until the heat death of the universe” so I was very surprised.

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

#324

Post by UncleEntity »

supersour wrote: post #243
ejb999 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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?

The state has an interest in keeping its cities economically healthy, perhaps more than the city government itself which is focused on appeasing citizens with its delivery of police/recreation services. The state government can act more dynamically since it has a wider voter base to consider, including those who would like to live in the city but are pushed out. The Valley must maintain some level of competitiveness…

> This is an existential threat to California…

California was doing just fine when I was a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s. No doubt it’ll be doing just fine when the tech bros take their ball and go home.

There’s absolutely nothing in California that is essential for the tech industry but plenty to offer that turned it into an economic powerhouse before that time.

Pretty depressing that the only way I could possibly permanently move back to the land of my birth is in a casket.

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

#325

Post by ArtemZ »

Joeri wrote: post #96
ROTMetro wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, just average people, who built the community over time into something desirable, that were promised with zoning laws that it would be the type of community (single family homes, etc) that they wanted, and that then dedicated the majority of their lifetime earning power to purchase a home there. There are how many acres of land in this country? Why do you have a right to overrule the will of people in one comparat…

You don’t even need to build, there’s plenty of cheap already built housing in places like detroit. Ask yourself: why do people prefer to live in san francisco so much more than detroit? It has nothing to do with the housing market. Solving the housing problem might not need to involve housing policies at all, just creating reasons for people to want to look for housing in other places.

Detroit is a crime ridden and cold place in comparison to San Francisco. I moved to a similar city (Cleveland, OH) and I see why people may want to live in SF instead of this place. The neighborhoods look very depressing, it's overcast most of the time and despite cold weather adequate house construction quality is just not there, so maybe I'm paying less for the rent, but living in these old houses with leaking foundations and walls full of holes is just not comfortable.

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

#326

Post by simfree »

emptysongglass wrote: post #321
dionidium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the thing I always say about the people who complain about tech workers and gentrification in a place like San Francisco is like, look, if you can't figure out how to gain from an influx of wealthy, highly-educated, low-criminality, nerdy tech workers, then that's really on you. What a gift! Any city would be lucky to have that "problem." You have to actively work to make that a negative (by, say, refusing to a…

I didn't want the tech workers flowing into Seattle with Amazon's decision to invade by building their HQ right in the heart. There was a lot of music culture there, at Cap Hill, in the basements of Seattle families that had lived there a long time. It really felt, if you were there, like an invasion: nobody coming in had any context of what was already there, they just took and took and all they could offer was soft…

The displacement is real, Ballard used to be mostly Boeing employees, but your not going to be buying there with Boeing's pay and stability problems today.

Visiting Georgetown is a glimpse into the Seattle of 20 years ago IMO. It has it's charm.

Amazon is definitely a turn and burn, threadbare employer that doesn't understand how to value talent and internal resources they develop. Low and mid-level employees are like chewing gum to them, lasting a year or two before Amazon spits them out.

Many of their workers embrace this mentality, making decisions based around their ephemeral stay in Seattle that normal Seattleites find off-putting.

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

#327

Post by twblalock »

triceratops wrote: post #295
twblalock wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, no, there would be no options other than home ownership or homelessness (or government housing projects, which are only options in certain areas and are always pretty bad). Rentals don't just exist without landlords to own and maintain them. No apartment buildings would get built if there weren't landlords ready to buy them from the property developers. The existing ones would be left vacant because it would be c…

> there would be no options other than home ownership or homelessness There are also extended-stay hotels. But other than that, is near-universal home ownership such a bad thing? What's the big difference between paying a mortgage and paying rent? Rent already pays for mortgage, repairs, and maintenance anyway. All that's left is closing costs when you move.

How can someone on minimum wage own a home? Even if home values dropped by 90% nationwide, there would still be people who can’t afford to buy one. What are they supposed to do, live in tents? Come on, be serious.

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

#328

Post by jeffbee »

rsj_hn wrote: post #299
jeffbee wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations on squeezing every toxic canard about "transient" renters into a single comment! According to the Census American Community Survey of 2021, 43% of renters in San Francisco have lived in the same dwelling for ten years or more. It certainly is not typical that a person arrives and departs the city in just 6 years.

I will respond to the one factual claim buried in all the emotional outrage. Let's look at the 2021 American Community Survey. How long someone has lived in a unit is called "tenure". You want to look at tenure for renters, which is this table: https://data.census.gov/table?q=san+francisco&t=Owner/Renter... Here is the data: Renter occupied: 427300 Moved in 2019 or later 170948 Moved in 2015 to 2018 70878 Moved in 20…

FYI your link doesn't go directly to the specific table you are using, which I believe is B25026.

I am using S2502.

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

#329

Post by snapplebobapple »

jlmorton wrote: post #17

Imagine you're a municipality like San Francisco. You control all of the zoning regulations, and many of the permitting requirements. You have a AA+ credit rating, and even in today's higher rate environment, you can borrow billions of dollars at 6%. You already own oodles of land. You can build to whatever height you want within reason, because you control the zoning, and you even control many of the ordinances that…

You don't have to do any of that other than change the zoning/permitting/building process (which you would need to do for your plan above as well otherwise you won't be building much of anything). The problem in San fran isn't lack of builders or even lack of labor to build. The problem in san fran is the government forcing the process to permit and build something to multi year approaching decade timelines (if it is even approved).

Basically all they have to do is set some basic, reasonable rules (heights, setbacks, etc) that, if you stay within them, you get your permit in a month or two the problem would be 70% solved within a decade. They might have to rezone some of san fran to allow denser building construction (with the same fast tracked permit described above) to get to 100% but that is literally it. They aren't doing it because the nimbys like the system the way it is (and the increased house value windfall it has given them).

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

#330

Post by Tiktaalik »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #251
majormajor wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately wealthy established homeowners don't want more people to near to them so they vote against any and all change. Sometimes poor established renters also don't want change. In the 20th century a lot of cities grew practically 'out of nowhere'. Why has that stopped? That's a great pressure relief valve and gets new buyers/renters out of a vicious feedback loop caused by the tendency of already cash-or-pro…

> Sometimes poor established renters also don't want change. The way this is framed is so insidious. The "change" that "poor established renters" don't want is more expensive housing that they can't afford that will incentivize their current landlords to raise the rent on the properties they have and also change the local businesses to also raise prices. It's not the same change.

Yes let's be clear here.

On one hand you have working class renters that are fighting a literally existential threat to their existence in the city. For many, if they are evicted, without the controlled, affordable rents they will be forced to move into some existence unknown.

On the other hand you have the top 10-5% ultra wealthy that don't want new apartments because they don't want to see poors near them.

These are not the same.

Post reply on HN