|
sim posted:I would argue that living in a home vs living on the street would be a net improvement for society, despite people needing additional help beyond just housing. We can do both. This is also ignoring that the root cause for a good portion of this substance abuse is not having a stable home to feel safe in.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
A lot of non-homeless people, people who have homes to live in, are mentally ill and/or addicted to all sorts of poo poo, and cause hell of troubles for themselves and their neighbours. A shitload of the time they're not mentally ill and/or addicted to any sorts of poo poo, but still cause hella troubles for themselves and their neighbours. Should they... should they be kicked out of their homes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
sim posted:I would argue that living in a home vs living on the street would be a net improvement for society, despite people needing additional help beyond just housing. We can do both. But this is where the surface level solution of "just put folks experiencing homelessness in the empty houses, bing bong so simple" starts to fall apart, because reality is way more complex than that. Folks are going to need additional help, so it's not enough to just hand them the keys to a house without regard to what issues contributed to their homelessness in the first place. And if the community has the will to provide those additional services, then there would be no need to resort to empty houses, because properly funded shelters, short-term housing, and substance abuse treatment facilities are a far better way to help those same people. Not to mention that you're only going to worsen the rate of homelessness as your vacancy rate craters and rents shoot upward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Baronash posted:But this is where the surface level solution of "just put folks experiencing homelessness in the empty houses, bing bong so simple" starts to fall apart, because reality is way more complex than that. I think the term is wraparound services. People need a home so they can have a bank account, receive checks, and feel safe. Social workers have a place to go to and talk with clients, and so and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Folks are going to need additional help, so it's not enough to just hand them the keys to a house without regard to what issues contributed to their homelessness in the first place. And if the community has the will to provide those additional services, then there would be no need to resort to empty houses, because properly funded shelters, short-term housing, and substance abuse treatment facilities are a far better way to help those same people. Not to mention that you're only going to worsen the rate of homelessness as your vacancy rate craters and rents shoot upward. Yes, also make sure everyone is allowed to work. NYC is having a homeless problem with migrants who are fully functional but are barred from working legally. It’s the stupidest thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Cicero posted:5% isn't a very high vacancy rate, a typical historical level is like 7% IIRC. And you WANT a fair amount of vacancy, both to reduce landlord leverage over renters, and also because of certain amount of market liquidity is necessary for anyone to, y'know, rent or buy a home. A market with all occupied homes is one where you can't move there. Because the homes are occupied. Cicero posted:It's just weird to me that people are (higher) framing vacancy rates as bad, when they're actually good, at least to a point. Cicero posted:A very large percentage of homeless people have serious mental illness or substance abuse issues, such that putting them in random homes will likely end poorly. So many are not in a good place mentally to take care of a regular home, either as a cause or effect of homelessness, this is something that shelters are equipped to deal with that standard apartments or houses are not. We need to build a lot more emergency/temporary housing that's explicitly designed to help people who are currently homeless and may need heavy support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
It's also worth remembering that homelessness isn't just the crazy dude on the sidewalk, or the tweaker. It's the people living in their cars, couch-surfing, all that poo poo. They just need homes, and there's no reason to think they need a whole bunch of "support" to be able to maintain a home in a safe and reasonable fashion, beyond providing them a home they can afford.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
"Support services are important and needed" isn't a reason to not give people homes in the absence of those services.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:I think citing historical rates at a time when homelessness is this high, housing costs are such a huge part of the average household's budget, and the demand for housing is so high is a bit disingenuous. A vacancy tax would drive a few more people to rent out places faster, driving down some of those costs, and punishing people who sit on real estate not wanting to lower the rent because a piece of software tells them to hold out for another couple of months. It seems relevant to me considering the historically low vacancy rate is a big part of why housing costs and homelessness are so high
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's also worth remembering that homelessness isn't just the crazy dude on the sidewalk, or the tweaker. It's the people living in their cars, couch-surfing, all that poo poo. They just need homes, and there's no reason to think they need a whole bunch of "support" to be able to maintain a home in a safe and reasonable fashion, beyond providing them a home they can afford. Ultimately, some of this comes down to how we set up post World War 2. Convincing the suburbs to build ANYTHING is a rock fight. Plus you have to build where people want to be. Proximity to jobs, services, amenities is something that needs to be considered. If I had a magic home I'd put a moratorium on houses being built over 2200 square feet but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:"Support services are important and needed" isn't a reason to not give people homes in the absence of those services. No, but perhaps the solutions are more complicated than one liners are able to express. The city paying market rate on rentals to house its homeless population is, obviously, going to significantly decrease the vacancy rate, which means rising rents that will exacerbate the issues of housing affordability and, as a result, homelessness. And even assuming that the funding for this would just be brand new money that fell out of the sky and not diverted from existing social services programs, there's still obviously the question of whether that's the most effective use of that funding. Consider, as an example, San Diego. Median home price in San Diego is $812,000. Instead of buying or renting homes at those prices (and contributing to the housing crisis as a side effect), they are instead pursuing a plan to purchase extended-stay hotels at a per-unit cost that is less than half of that ($383k).
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:A very large percentage of homeless people have serious mental illness or substance abuse issues, such that putting them in random homes will likely end poorly. So many are not in a good place mentally to take care of a regular home, either as a cause or effect of homelessness, this is something that shelters are equipped to deal with that standard apartments or houses are not. We need to build a lot more emergency/temporary housing that's explicitly designed to help people who are currently homeless and may need heavy support. So boarding houses basically. The old boarding houses had some issues, but they were certainly cheap and many famous people spent some of their lives in a boarding house. But urban reformers and suburban advocates gradually pushed them out. By the late 70s, boarding houses had become basically illegal in most of the US. I can see an argument for bringing them back, but if you think the respectable locals hate apartments, you haven't seen anything yet. The vitriol that will be thrown against any new boarding house will be through the stratosphere. Freakazoid_ posted:What I don't get about housing prices is who's really affording it? Who is actually living in these homes and how can they afford these obscene prices? https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-reports/home-buyer-and-seller-generational-trends Mostly people who already have homes. First-time homebuyers have dropped to 26% of purchases, down from ~40% first time homebuyers just a few years ago. A lot of this is people buying in less hellish-ly expensive markets. But in the most extreme markets (cities that are so goddamn expensive that they are losing new-ish college grads), the only ways are to be a DINK with two six-figures+ incomes OR rely in big gifts from family OR be an older family that already has property. And boomer money is a big part of it. The average age of a homebuyer is up to 47 years old, and it's increasing every year. In the most extreme markets, even DINKs with two six-figures incomes struggle to buy without help from mommy and daddy. And that's exactly why the affordability crisis is trickling down from the top tier cities to the second and third tier cities. Two people making $110k/year might struggle to buy a Bay Area house or San Diego house, but they sure as hell can afford to outbid the typical Philadelphian or Atlantian. https://www.homecity.com/blog/the-average-age-to-buy-a-house/ golden bubble fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:It seems relevant to me considering the historically low vacancy rate is a big part of why housing costs and homelessness are so high We definitely, without question need to build more homes, however arguing that the vacancy rate should be higher in a vacuum is literally saying "it would be better for this house to be empty than for an otherwise unhoused person to live here."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 05:35
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:We definitely, without question need to build more homes, however arguing that the vacancy rate should be higher in a vacuum is literally saying "it would be better for this house to be empty than for an otherwise unhoused person to live here." Nah, in a vacuum it could mean either "build more homes" or "keep certain people from having homes". And the post wasn't in a vacuum anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
pointing to a vacancies while saying "the housing supply isn't the problem, see?" in a vacuum is what dogshit nimbys in powerful positions have done for a decade because they actually believe that, if you don't build a new building, new people won't move to the city, and nothing will ever change, and they can be 24 years old forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:We definitely, without question need to build more homes, however arguing that the vacancy rate should be higher in a vacuum is literally saying "it would be better for this house to be empty than for an otherwise unhoused person to live here." "If you strip a situation of context to the point of meaninglessness, then I'm totally right" is not the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. Somehow, despite correctly identifying housing costs as a major driver of homelessness, you've repeatedly ignored anyone pointing out that low vacancy rates are a major cause of rising housing costs. That's why shelters and other supportive housing projects generally aim to increase the supply of available housing, rather than worsen housing markets already in crisis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:pointing to a vacancies while saying "the housing supply isn't the problem, see?" in a vacuum is what dogshit nimbys in powerful positions have done for a decade because they actually believe that, if you don't build a new building, new people won't move to the city, and nothing will ever change, and they can be 24 years old forever. Baronash posted:"If you strip a situation of context to the point of meaninglessness, then I'm totally right" is not the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. Somehow, despite correctly identifying housing costs as a major driver of homelessness, you've repeatedly ignored anyone pointing out that low vacancy rates are a major cause of rising housing costs. That's why shelters and other supportive housing projects generally aim to increase the supply of available housing, rather than worsen housing markets already in crisis. Housing supply is absolutely a huge problem. But in a place like Seattle or the Bay Area or NYC, even if there aren't a ton of them, homes sitting vacant beyond the normal vacancy between tenants means that there are unhoused people who could be living there that aren't. I get that a decently high vacancy rate is a good thing, but I see it as just an indicator, not a goal in and of itself; encouraging otherwise-vacant units to be rented via a vacancy tax is a good thing. It would also force the gathering of data regarding housing and housing costs that we don't currently have. I don't think we actually know what the vacancy rate is; most of the sites I'm looking at Googling for it cite it at 5ish percent, but they don't cite their sources. At one point, the City Council tried to gather that sort of data (as well as data on rent costs), but the mayor vetoed it at the behest of landlords. I guess what I'm saying is that we should have a relatively high vacancy rate as a side effect of good housing policy, not as a goal in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VICE/status/1687177583274704897 I just stumbled upon this article. The letter itself can be viewed here (and is also linked in that Vice article). This was a response for a public Request for Input that was issued by the FHFA. It's a short letter that has left me confused. They are advocating for a national policy and are stating leverage can be used by Government Sponsored Entities (GSE) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement these rent control/tenant protection policies: quote:Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages on the secondary market support nearly half of rental units in the U.S. With this large of a market share, Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) have the influence needed to meaningfully change the trajectory of the housing crisis. We believe that implementing rent regulations as a condition on federally-backed mortgages will protect tenants, stabilize neighborhoods, promote income diversity in regional economies, and improve the long-term outlook for housing affordability. We encourage the FHFA to pursue this policy alongside other forms of tenant protections and efforts to increase the supply of truly affordable housing. Wouldn't that just lead to builders/owners go to non-GSEs to get their loans elsewhere since rent control is such a dividing line for a lot of developers/owners? I guess they don't clarify how much of the other rental units are supported by non-GSE loans, but I'm guessing it would be a decent amount. I could be completely wrong about that point, of course. My other main thought about this is they seem to use anecdotal claims over empirical evidence at times. For example: quote:There is substantial empirical evidence that rent regulation policies do not limit new construction, nor the overall supply of housing. A 2007 study of rent control analyzed 76 cities in New Jersey with varying rent stabilization laws, controlling for population, demographics, income, and renter-occupied units, finding little to no statistically significant effect of moderate rent controls on new construction. Other studies have found similar results. When rent control was repealed in Massachusetts, there was no corresponding increase in housing supply, highlighting again a lack of causal relationship between rent regulations and housing supply. Importantly, there are studies that show that rent control laws can cause landlords to search for loopholes, such as condo conversions, that impact the supply of rental housing; however this simply highlights the need for policy design to eliminate loopholes In this, they use the study of NJ rent stabilization as evidence that new construction is not affected by these laws. In the same breath, they talk about how important it is to eliminate loopholes after pointing to a very broad example of a policy with lots of "loopholes" to support their claim. They do not mention the studies or instances of stricter rent control and how new construction was impacted in these, such as this study. Or even the [anecdotal] example of St Paul, which still has stalled projects even after carving out a 20 year exemption for new construction. Regardless, this is an interesting letter and news article and does make me wonder if more and more economists will start being pro-rent control. I don't think the minimum wage analogy holds much weight, as I think the impact of these policies are very different (price control vs non-price control). But maybe time will tell and more economists will be convinced with this wave of rent control/stabilization vs the previous waves. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Aug 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Kalit posted:example of St Paul, which still has stalled projects even after carving out a 20 year exemption for new construction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:If this neighborhood ends up being just a bunch of loving McMansions, I'm going to be pissed. Wealthy NIMBYs fought tooth and nail against any kind of density. No kidding, I was shocked when they came out with the final vision, which is a great mixture of different types of housing/businesses. However, in case you didn't know, there was always a plan for some SFHs at Highland Bridge. But I agree, hopefully they don't scrap the market-rate apartments completely for additional SFHs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Housing is infuriating. It's why I don't work with housing policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Housing is infuriating. It's why I don't work with housing policy. I wanted to do housing policy after grad school but its so hard to break in. I think what's frustrating is that housing policy is all inverted. The federal government has very little swing on housing policy and has (mostly) abandon section 8 housing for an underfunded voucher program system. At the very least, HUD could strictly enforce segregation policies on landlords who "find" people to rent to after a voucher is mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
I can’t currently access the letter, but on whose behalf was it submitted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I can’t currently access the letter, but on whose behalf was it submitted? According to the Vice article: quote:The letter from economists is part of a larger campaign initiated by the People’s Action’s Homes Guarantee campaign Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Aug 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:I guess what I'm saying is that we should have a relatively high vacancy rate as a side effect of good housing policy, not as a goal in and of itself. Higher vacancy rate isn't the end goal, but it is a mechanism towards the goal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
First American City to Tame Inflation Owes Its Success to Affordable Housing “In May, the Twin Cities became the first major metropolitan area to see annual inflation fall below the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. Its 1.8% pace of price increases was the lowest of any region that month.” “Well before pandemic-related supply-chain snarls and labor shortages roiled the economy, the city of Minneapolis eliminated zoning that allowed only single-family homes and since 2018 has invested $320 million for rental assistance and subsidies.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Any chance you could post the full article please? I’m paywalled off from it
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Any chance you could post the full article please? I’m paywalled off from it Does this link work? https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/first-american-city-to-tame-inflation-owes-its-success-to-affordable-housing-1.1956752.amp.html If it doesn’t work directly, I found it by putting the headline in google and clicking the BNN bloomberg link. nelson fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Aug 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
nelson posted:Does this link work? That worked for me, thanks! For as much as everyone seems to poo poo on Frey, he’s done incredible work with regards to housing here. Hopefully this trend continues and we keep the average rent increase really low while massively increasing the housing supply
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's also worth remembering that homelessness isn't just the crazy dude on the sidewalk, or the tweaker. It's the people living in their cars, couch-surfing, all that poo poo. They just need homes, and there's no reason to think they need a whole bunch of "support" to be able to maintain a home in a safe and reasonable fashion, beyond providing them a home they can afford. There's a ton of "car camping" videos on TikTok/IG and while some are affluent white 20 something influencers doing "van life", it seems clear that most of them are young people trying to make the best of a ridiculous market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Kalit posted:For as much as everyone seems to poo poo on Frey, he’s done incredible work with regards to housing here. Hopefully this trend continues and we keep the average rent increase really low while massively increasing the housing supply
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Eh, I also think the ire heaped upon Frey is overdone, but I think the city council drove the upzoning and deserves that credit. Haven't been in tune with Minneapolis politics for a few years though, so maybe you're thinking of subsequent developments I might have missed? What's interesting is that there haven't been much buildings in much of the former single family housing zoned area. The major housing development has been 5 over 1's squeezed into commercial and former industrial areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
karthun posted:What's interesting is that there haven't been much buildings in much of the former single family housing zoned area. The major housing development has been 5 over 1's squeezed into commercial and former industrial areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
I live in a Suburb that has been building 5 over 1s and bicycle paths for the last 10 years with a republican mayor and city council, using Tax Increment Financing. Since it's an election year, there's a lot of talk about the city's debt, the lack of transparency in the budget, and the likelihood of corruption with these developer deals. But from my perspective, despite leaning more progressive, I'm kind of okay with developers getting deals if this is the result? The city/county is slowing turning purple and there are way more democratic candidates running this year. But talking to them in person, I haven't been impressed. They're all running on a platform of reducing debt, financial transparency, and more environmental and community review. Which is like, exactly what slows progress in a lot of democratic majority cities. Like for once I wish the democratic candidates would just be like: yeah we're going to continue to give developers deals and spend city money like crazy, but we're going to spend it on transit and density! Be bold! Requiring new developments all have EV charging stations isn't exactly going to shift the needle on climate change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
Requiring EV charging stations as an overall rule is probably a win overall. Going through a 12-month process of arguing over it for every single place, however ...
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Requiring EV charging stations as an overall rule is probably a win overall. Going through a 12-month process of arguing over it for every single place, however ... EVs are going to loving murder us. It's just more car infrastructure: more parking that won't be used exclusively by EVs, more roads, stroads, and freeways that won't be used exclusively by EVs, more tires that require more oil that spew out more rubber and microplastics, more brake pads doing the same, more minerals needing to be mined out of the earth that requires yet more fossil fuels, and more chemicals being used in the manufacturing that get dumped back into the ecosystem. It's not an improvement, it's just a thing that extends the lifetime of the habits we can't afford to have, and lets lovely people greenwash building more parking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:It's not an improvement, it's just a thing that extends the lifetime of the habits we can't afford to have, and lets lovely people greenwash building more parking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
The democratic candidate for my district, which is the densest part of the city, said one of their most important issues is preserving "green space" within the city. They were lamenting how an empty lawn was replaced with a bunch of condos. They are trying really hard to make me vote for a republican.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:EVs are going to loving murder us. It's just more car infrastructure: more parking that won't be used exclusively by EVs, more roads, stroads, and freeways that won't be used exclusively by EVs, more tires that require more oil that spew out more rubber and microplastics, more brake pads doing the same, more minerals needing to be mined out of the earth that requires yet more fossil fuels, and more chemicals being used in the manufacturing that get dumped back into the ecosystem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Doing everything possible to reduce VMTs is the only solution. EVs are green-washed bullshit distracting us from real solutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 16:38
|
|