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

371–376 of 376 posts

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

#371

Post by closeparen »

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.

>more expensive housing that they can't afford that will incentivize their current landlords to raise the rent

That's nonsense. If anything, newer and higher-quality competition nearby is downward pressure on rents in existing buildings.

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

#372

Post by triceratops »

twblalock wrote: post #327
triceratops wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Roommates? Co-ownership? A higher minimum wage? Permitting smaller houses?

Keep in mind the median housing unit price today skews higher because things like studios and SROs never go up for sale. SROs are effectively illegal to build in many cities today.

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

#373

Post by andrewla »

cjwilliams wrote: post #202
andrewla wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but not really the policy outcome that people are thinking of when they talk about solving the "homeless problem". The guy passed on in the subway car next to his own feces is not going to be helped in any way by these policies. There are no good solutions here that respect the rights of the individual and also our collective right to live in a civil society. Involuntarily detention through the criminal justice…

No reason why mental institutions cant be compassionate and devote time and effort to individuals. Much better than letting these people live in their own excrement in the subway.

Well, maybe "no reason" is a bit strong. Organizations cannot be engineered to be compassionate; compassionate individuals can make an organization more compassionate, but the bottleneck will always be finding people who are compassionate, have subject matter expertise, and are willing to work for the wages offered.

And even with compassion there are still problematic situations. Involuntary confinement of any sort requires a careful application of principles -- when is it okay to confine someone; when and how do you decide when they can or must be released; who can make the judgment calls and what checks are in place to prevent abuse. These are questions that seem to have no good answers.

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

#374

Post by krainboltgreene »

closeparen wrote: post #371
krainboltgreene wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>more expensive housing that they can't afford that will incentivize their current landlords to raise the rent That's nonsense. If anything, newer and higher-quality competition nearby is downward pressure on rents in existing buildings.

Sure if you just chose to ignore the evidence.

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

#375

Post by fxleach »

jjav wrote: post #351
fxleach wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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? Conversely, what gives a right to people who don't even live somewhere to go pass laws in that place so that those who have made their life there can no longer afford to stay and need to get kicked out so that the newcomers can take their place? Either of these is too extreme, there needs to be so…

The people that currently live there are not being ousted by outsiders imposing laws on them so they can no longer afford to live there. That is false. The people that currently live there are making laws so that no one else can move into the neighbourhood.

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

#376

Post by thebradbain »

jjav wrote: post #353
thebradbain wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one in San Francisco today built it to what it is. That city hasn’t changed in any substantial way since before 1960. It’s long been coasting off its past success.

> No one in San Francisco today built it to what it is. That city hasn’t changed in any substantial way since before 1960. SF has changed quite substantially just from the late 90s which is the time I've been around the area. If you find some 60s hippies to interview they'll recount even more change from those decades.

In demographic and vibe, sure, but the built environment is very much the same. The city was even _downzoned_ in 1978 [1] to keep single family homes at the end of their life from being demolished and rebuilt into denser apartments: 76% of the city would be rezoned as single family home only.

https://sbuss.substack.com/p/when-did-things-go-wrong-in-san...

Post reply on HN