For some reason liberal policymakers (or their constituents) either can't seem to get that in their head, or can't act on it. And instead cling to things like rent control, which "feel good" in the short run but end up doing the opposite of what was intended.

Sometimes I think that every policy (that isn't a "duh, of course" policy) should come with an expiration date. So that the people you wanted to help are specifically identified, and given a finite time to be helped -- and people who come after know that it's a one-time intervention and the system is what it is from now on. Then when the people you thought it would serve / benefit are gone, you are required to assess whether it worked as you thought, and it doesn't just go on autopilot forever. Now, whether the policymakers would respect that, or simply keep on extending it on public opinion, who knows.

It's just too easy for well-intentioned people to put in place rules they think will work, and go away for 10 years and discover it didn't, and then still do nothing to fix it.

These problems have taken decades to mature (or even are an endemic part of how a system is), and it's a bit naive to think that some quick fix will undo them.

Rent control, affirmative action, drug policy, wealth disparity -- all of these have headline-grabbing proposed solutions (often with heated protests) but when it comes down to it (and you observe after a few months), people vote with their $ and behavior according to deeper considerations on the choices they actually want.

While people may say (or appear to) be in support of whatever cause-of-the-moment grabs the headlines, when it actually costs them (or their kids), they will not do what you hoped.

Or, to say it another way, as long as we tolerate politics that are basically just performance art nothing changes.

The parent comment simply makes the point that people vote with their own interests in mind, but say otherwise as long as it doesn’t cost them. We don’t just “tolerate” performance art politics - we actively encourage and vote for it because the alternatives are expensive and unpalatable.

It’s much more comfortable to “blame profits” or “blame campaign financing” or blame Jeff Bezos or blame capitalism than to acknowledge that in a city that maximizes global utility and wellness, you might not have the right to keep poor people from living near you.

Profit friendly "solutions" tend to get given prominence (e.g. a new mental health clinic or two) over profit-unfriendly solutions that actually work (e.g. rent control, building competing housing that decreases the value of existing stock).

It's not really about voter preferences, though. It's about $$$.

If you genuinely believe that homelessness is primarily solved with obviously palliative solutions like mental health clinics then you're probably quite a credulous person. The people touting these ideas certainly know they dont work and if there were more money in actually building housing they'd guide you to believe that instead.

Over the last few decades, we made home ownership a goal for the vast majority of the US populace. Now we expect those homeowners to vote against their own self-interest (to approve additional housing units/zoning).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29784347

What evidence is there that it is due to racism, classism and fear rather than rational self-interest?

Racist and classist concerns also influence property value. Blockbusting was a real estate practice that worked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting

Is there an example of where that happened? A developer building an apartment building can pay more than an owner occupant.

The complaints from wealthy neighborhoods start with quality of life and degrade into questioning "what kind of people" will housing/transportation/amenities attract. I base this on listening to public meetings in SF / Bay Area so lots of local bias.

From a societal POV we should be building higher density and the drawbacks are worth it, but it is also in the rational self-interest of those building neighbors to vote against the new development.

NY has alleviated this somewhat by granting all existing landowners some air-rights that they can choose to sell to nearby highrises. Something like this might be the right way to go so that the nearby owners receive some recompense.

It's the same motivation as Marin County, CA and the Georgetown neighborhood of DC refusing train stops to "keep the riff raff out". The exclusion is the point.

I don’t care who lives next to me, because my interactions with them are limited to kindly waves as we pass on the sidewalk.

If I couldn’t park my car anywhere near my house because the alternative timeline neighborhood had twice as many cars because it had twice as many kitchens and exterior doors, I’d be less satisfied with my neighborhood as compared to now where the parking is generally adequate except on street cleaning days. That’s got nothing whatsoever to do with who the other car owners are, how expensive the other cars are, or how rich they are.

This is also some of where “each new residential lot needs X feet of frontage and Y parking spaces per unit” zoning laws come from. It’s not just “keep the poors out” (although that may be a secondary motivation for some).

1. Less dense development creates suburban sprawl. This means new people live farther away from their jobs than existing residents.

2. Those new people have to drive more miles each day than existing residents. ie traffic congestion is super linear on population growth.

3. The intersections that become bottlenecks get worse every year.

Texas style sprawl spreads out the offices more so their average commute times go up every year at a slower rate (but they still go up). The only proven solution is to allow housing that's dense enough for public transit to work efficiently.

I'm not saying your motivations are based in classism, racism, and fear, but the people motivated enough to engage in the political process "protecting the suburbs" generally are. They're smart enough to educate themselves on these issues, see the consequences, and say, "yes, this is what I want".

Residential zoning creates geographic segregation between rich and poor. In America that also means the housing crisis is making racial segregation worse(https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism). With the way public services are primarily administered at local level, once people are segregated then richer, whiter areas get the best schools, better parks, better maintained infrastructure, faster emergency response times, etc

Ironically, early residential zoning had explicitly bad intentions, but the impact was limited because there was so much land available to build on. 75 years later the consequences have escalated.

It's like saying 'We want to change the zoning to make housing more affordable but don't worry it won't make housing more affordable'.

If you just add apartment house to existing residential street, you achieve neither. Especially when zoning does not allows small shops to appear.

This.

In my city (London) that happens too. The ultra luxury flats are 50% unsold and have an occupancy rate that is lower still and they are STILL building more luxury housing with swimming pools and gyms nobody uses.

The Soviet Union wasnt this bad at allocating resources.

This is a free market that needs to be taken out and shot. It's culminated in the creation of assets, much like NFTs, whose existence is not predicated on them actually being used because all it needs to do is soak up capital, and actually useful economic activity had to be mandated into existence by local government (Ordinances to mandate % affordable housing).

The worst part isnt even that. The worst part is that if developers cheap out and sell you a flammable flat they can charge you $100k++ after you've bought the flat to fix the flammability that was a result of their shoddy construction.

And if you do die, it's not their problem.

This is the culmination of decades of the UK mindlessly nodding along to the 1%'s "market knows best" propaganda.

There's a reason the supposedly "free market" Singaporean government builds 90% of the housing stock in the country like they're fervent Stalinists. Coz that's the economically efficient way to house people.

Well yeah, they’re generally amazing deals for decent quality new built apartments.

Yeah sure, the staircase looks just average and not like a luxury hotel and there’s no gym or infinity pool!

Doesn’t really seem like such a disaster when you get to live in a nice heavily discounted apartment on some of the most desirable square feet of earth in the world.

It's more profitable for them to sell appartements at 700$/sqft for only half of them to sell, costing them 350$/sqft to build, than to sell for 400$/sqft an appartment that cost 250$/sqft to build.

The disaster isn't that there is no access to the pool. The issue is that they're trying to spite the poors and shame them, because they're trying to prevent them from moving in.

If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it.

As the above commenter said, it's simply a market failure. It has nothing to do with the price of the land or anything, it's that the appartements are seen as an investment asset and will be bought at an exorbitant price eventually, as long as the price of the appartment doesn't fall in that "luxury" building. It's gross resource misallocation.

That’s really not true though. The facilities beyond the “poor doors” aren’t any different from how most normal people live, they’re just right next to luxury accommodation for rich people. The contrast is obviously more apparent, but the developers aren’t doing anything to screw over the poors (what’d be the point?).

> If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it.

Of course, but the politicians would rather virtue signal about “poor doors” than actually solve problems.

I'm sure that politicians are incompetent and corrupt. That being said, we can agree that there is a market failure here.

Isn’t that just… normal? Until a few years ago I thought that apartment building gyms were something that only exist in american movies.

Parking is hardly a given for any apartment in European cities, London even has tons of luxury apartments without parking.

This applies to most voters, not just liberals ones. But I agree, as someone living in the SF Bay Area, the NIMBYism is hypocritical and very annoying to see.

While I visit large cities, they often seem more dystopian then somewhere I'd actually want to live. Liberals can have them.

This is currently a massive problem in the Intermountain West in places like Boise.

> I combine the address histories with a simulation model to estimate that building 100 new market-rate units leads 45-70 and 17-39 people to move out of below-median and bottom-quintile income tracts

The people represented in your vague "liberal policymakers" are almost universally in support of "market-rate units," contrary to your claims. Did you read any of the articles or studies you linked to?

The Trump Administration suspended part of a 2016 rule designed to reduce segregation and expand opportunity for low-income families with Housing Choice Vouchers. Is he a "liberal policymaker" as well?

In truth, they just aren't very smart. And worse, they are quite confident they are indeed very smart.

This isn't some grand conspiracy to increase homelessness and increase the cost of housing. The problem is that we elect idiots to local government.

Just because the policy makers are dumb, doesn't mean that the voters behind them are too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States#...

Genuinely smart people are usually satisfied with their own line of work, or realize that politicians and their families in the age of (a)social networks are subject to constant barrage of unhinged hate messaging and threats emanating from the Internet. So they think twice before even entering the race for any public office.

We would probably be better off with sortition (basically, drawing lots and choosing random people to serve in legislatures).

HN in general has this disease, but it's pretty prevalent in STEM fields in general- The "I know how to solve a differential equation so that means I am a rational decision maker" disease.

It's important to acknowledge that the more education a person has the more likely they are to reverse-engineer a reason to think something that they want to think, especially when it comes to emotionally charged issues like those that politicians encounter every day.

Having technical skills does not automagically make you a good leader or policymaker. It just means you have good technical skills.

I would go so far as to say there are probably more people with good technical skills that should not be making policy than the opposite.

In context, a STEM background is someone who has and can actually engineer or science. Writing some code doesn't qualify. Every human on the planet should be able to design an experiment and do basic statistics. I think the bar we have for our fellow human should be much higher than it currently is. The moniker, that person is an "Every (Hu)Man" , should be a badge of honor.

It's rough that talent in these large cities generally flows to the megacorps or private companies in general.

I'd personally love to leave my tech job temporarily for city govt if the pay/environment was similar.

Is that on top of all the house building that has been done and is being done still? If they are so incompetent, why are new town homes, condos, and apartment complexes popping up all over the place?

Sure, it still can't keep up with demand...a 25% growth in population over the last decade is no joke. But Seattle is nowhere near as dysfunctional as SF, at the very least.

All the growth is concentrated on like 5% of the land and unaffordable for normal people. Open it all up for development.

Turns out I preferred studying Hamilton instead of Hamiltonians.

I also suspect many believe the solution to this problem is to "stop electing idiots" when in reality the solution is to stop expecting government to solve the problem, and recognize we should remove the power from the government and allow private actors to solve it

There’s a bit of both, but it’s not a conspiracy. Most cities have this problem (even outside US), because the issue is that most baby boomers have their financial health tied in real estate.

This makes those policies ideal, because they look like attacking the problem without really fixing anything.

It's not about whether they're smart people or not, it's about whether they're smarter than the problem they're trying to solve.

I, aware of the risk of Dunning-Kruger effect, nonetheless consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. I'm a well-educated a computer engineer; I score well in interviews, in exams, and also in Trivial Pursuit. But the steel, silicon, and copper that I work with and am respected for is highly predictable. Electrons and hydraulic fluid are intimidating to a layman but with a bit of education and experience can be broken down into understandable subcomponents and reliable mathematics.

Back in school, we engineers with our mathematical, physics-based hard science liked to denigrate the 'soft science' employed in educational, social, and political fields. However, after further growth, I've come to realize that physics is simple and people are really, really complicated.

The less popular narrative that’s just as true, at least in California if you pay attention to the politics, is that PHIMBYs who are mostly renters and insist on 100% affordable or nothing, play just as big a role.

If you look at who blocked SB50 or who pitched the “Mission moratorium , it was PHIMBY renters.

It’s easy to rally people up against greedy rich people. But the elephant in the room is that so much resistance comes from poor people who think “luxury housing” (aka anything market rate) will lead to more gentrification.

You can agree or disagree with the PHIMBY position but most people find it complex enough they just pretend that faction doesn’t exist despite the huge role it plays.

Basically don't exist. AHIMBYs do, but even people who demand affordable units don't want public units anywhere close to where they live.

> But the elephant in the room is that so much resistance comes from poor people who think “luxury housing” (aka anything market rate) will lead to more gentrification.

In any place without open space, the only way to build new housing is redevelopement; if you target the top of the market (which is what “market rate” housing means), you cannot have any hyperlocal (and wider, on a short-term scale) effect besides more gentrification.

The intermediate term, wider area (but still somewhat local) effect may be more affordable housing as existing housing becomes more down-market through competitive forces, but that also could be offset by further increasing nonhousing costs and reduction in nonhousing services targeting the lower income segment as the gentrifiers reshape local markets.

does it actually work that way? a large part of land value seems to come from network effects: the more densely populated a region, the more valuable each sqft.

upzoning a plot often seems to be an immediate profit, too. SFH worth $1M, gets upzoned, suddenly a developer can pay $2M for the plot and tear down the house + build high-density units that are very valuable.

maybe values fall once you overbuild, but i have yet to see that in my lifetime.

Yes, density drives up the price of land, but much of the value of a home isn't land value; poorer people in the neighborhood drives down the value per square foot of existing dwelling because people with money don't want to live near people without money by and large, both directly and indirectly. (E.g., better off people want to, and will pay a premium to, live near “good schools”, but there is pretty solid evidence that almost none of the difference in the things which people look to to assess that is due to the school itself, it is almost entirely incidental consequences of the demographics of the students attending the school: “good schools” aren't ones that make better students, they are made by better students.)

Until the potential realizable by dense redevelopment drives up the land value so much that the added land value exceeds the lost value of the existing improvements, it's a loss, and even then it's a gain that can only be realized by abandoning the home, which becomes a liability that needs to be dealt with to unlock the value.

Homeowners want the value of their home to increase, but often what they more specifically want is to continue living in the home while leveraging greater equity to enhance their lifestyle. This is not served by land value increases (even if they reach the level of net property value increases after decrease in value of existing improvements) that are only accessible by redevelopment. People who live in homes they own are not like absentee owners and tend to ascribe significant value to existing community character and significant negative value to moving, on top of theit investment interests in the property.

This is also why the most vocal NIMBYs are often senior citizens who plan to live in their home till they die. They don't benefit from the higher land values at all, because they never intend to sell the property, and will be dead before somebody reaps the financial gains. However, they have to deal with all the community externalities, and they're often at a stage in their life where they're least suited for that.

there was a time in this scenario when those schools and public infrastructure didn't exist. presumably, the thing which justified their build-out was an earlier increase in density. one would therefore expect further increases in density to justify more forms of (or larger scale) public infrastructure. what scenarios would lead one to value the existing public infrastructure but not value the future public infrastructure? is it just a problem of time horizons/discounting (i.e. that the negative externalities of upscaling are immediate while the positives accrue over a longer time period)? that would seem to align with the anecdote about seniors, at least. but then i'm curious how the original community ever overcame these tradeoffs in order to achieve enough density and construct the earlier forms of public infrastructure.

A cluster of 4 1000-pop villages will usually share an elementary school, with students bussed 10-20 miles to it. A 4000-pop light suburban town will have its own elementary school, usually one where parents will drive their kids 1-2 miles to it. A 4000-pop dense suburban development will place a 1-2 story elementary school and associated park & fields inside the middle of the neighborhood, where most students can walk to it via footpaths without crossing major roads. A 4000-pop urban neighborhood will build a 4-6 story schoolhouse on a major avenue where all the students are close by.

A cluster of villages or small towns will have 2-lane roads snaking between major village centers. A dense suburban neighborhood has a road hierarchy, 6-lane boulevards with commercial strip malls, fed by 2-lane residential streets. An urban neighborhood builds mass transit.

In each case, you can't really upgrade the existing infrastructure to the point where it's appropriate for the new density. You have to tear it down and build it a different way, at a cost that's usually higher and more disruptive than just building it a different way in the first place.

It makes me wonder why we don't have more bands of underhoused Millenials going off into the wilderness to found new cities. That's how we got the infrastructure in the first place: land developers generally subdivided undeveloped farm/ranch/wilderness land, and sold it to people living in overcrowded tenements in the city. Or in the case of Europe/Japan/Russia/China, bombed the hell out of each other until all the infrastructure was destroyed and then built new infrastructure from scratch to house the survivors. Perhaps a tongue-in-cheek-yet-actually-practical way of looking at this might be to treat cities as disposable, with a lifetime of a few generations, and then once the people outgrow them it's time to abandon the city and build a new one.

the young people i know come to cities in an attempt to establish themselves socially (i.e. to explore and make connections with more people like them). density (in terms of people per unit of travel time) is hugely relevant to that: leave for the wilderness and the breadth of social ties open to you substantially decreases.

this seems to me among one of the central generational conflicts in cities. young people primarily prefer city life for growing their social opportunities (and so a lot of them are interested in development/upscaling to facilitate that). AFAICT most families and older people come to cities for proximity to the basic needs, and either they don't value cities for the social component, or they're established enough that what they prefer is the stability of maintaining their existing ties v.s. growing new ones (so development/upscaling just gets in the way).

Long term they’ll be worth more, but short term prices will go down.

No one sees prices really go down because that could trigger another ‘08 style collapse. Banks are less leveraged, but there’s a lot of people with mortgages too big for their sake.

This is a culture war first and foremost. It's racism, classism, and fear of the unknown.

But yes, a number of liberal policies keep people on the streets. As documented multiple times in "evicted", the building inspector is sometimes responsible for more evictions than the landlord.

However there's more to it than that as we see with the homeless camps. Many of these people have little to no reason to care about anything. Often addicted to hard drugs (including alcohol) with no want to sober, no reason to. There's enough money in theft, prostitution, and odd jobs to keep homeless living sustainable. We cannot convince these people that there's more to life, and therefore we cannot convince them into free education for skilled work.

The education system on this is also broken, especially high school and universities. Therefore the problem were seeing is not simply housing, work, education, it's all symptoms of government rot. Systems that were created a long time ago of which their purpose has been lost. The solution to all this is to wipe the slate clean and start again with people that actually care and aren't sitting on a government paycheck.

Trusting the word of people is not representative of what they actually do. All of these people claimed to want X but make no effort towards it. People lie, especially to themselves.

But also, we have plenty of land if we could do something about all that ridiculous eminent domain that keeps us from building a high speed rail system. Ironically though, even in California's heartland, a lot of that land is in the hands of disinterested speculators as part of their enormous portfolios built during the Great depression and handed down generation to generation.

I doubt we do any of these things though. Until there's some sort of phase transition in our political system, everything is gridlock all the way down with occasional spurts of disruptive innovation with calls for regulation shortly thereafter.

More than likely (at least here in Seattle), the 60 year old building next door has already been bought by a developer and is just waiting its turn to be redeveloped into more fancy new luxury housing.

I'm not sure if there is a better term for it but people are highly susceptible for falling for a "it's your fault because you touched it last" bias. Luxury apartments are "bad" because their rents are high, even though they alleviate demand for regular housing. Evictions are "bad", even though the alternative is for landlords to factor that risk into the price or require very good credit and a stable income.

It's not just with housing either. Everyone loved student loans until they enabled colleges to raise their tuition prices. Now people are demanding the government to throw even more money at the problem with student loan forgiveness, which increases people's willingness to pay and would enable colleges to raise tuition even more.

Eh?

The paper you are citing doesn't mention homelessnessness at all. You might want to believe that a decrease in homelessness will follow from the kind of value-chain effects it describes -- but if so, that's your own speculation. Not something that the paper makes any claims about. Yet you're waving it about as if it does exactly that.

Meanwhile, it's a complex subject (due to secondary effects), and other papers (easily findable) have described either negative rent-lowering effects, or extremely limited rent-lowering effects (or effects that reach the mid-range but not low-range).

And the paper you cited not only does not make any statement against the social housing policies that you vilify -- in the conclusion it tacitly supports them. And it explicitly says that adjustments to market-rate housing "are not a panacea for all housing-market problems."

Incidentally, home owners tend to vote Conservative, whereas renters tend to vote Labour. Labour’s housing policy tends to revolve around cheap rentals (social housing) rather than cheap houses for sale.

Paying 5% of an entire property price is a steep price in an already expensive market. This is even worse when compared to paying nothing when not selling, which just forces people to stay where they are (specially if the market is more expensive from the last time you moved) and further constrains supply and raises house prices.

Council taxes are effectively based on property price, in a weird kind of way.

Making it expensive for home owners to move constrains supply and raises house prices even more.

There's a couple really good books that delve into this complex issue [1], [2]. The TLDR is that early 20th century American cities were quick to level entire neighborhoods to bring in modern infrastructure. It was swift and brutal, wiping out 50 to 100 years of history without much thought. All replaced with boring concrete roads and bland architecture.

So in the 60s and 70s, activists changed city laws to empower local residents with the ability to delay or out-right block housing projects.

What you're seeing now is the result of 40-50 years of cities stuck going through very tedious processes to get anything moved forward.

The problem with empowering any local resident is that you see only the people who want to stop something at the hearings and all it really takes are a hand-full. The rest of the residents are impartial or just too busy to care.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Neighborhood-Defenders-Participatory-...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Gates-Fighting-Housing-America...

“Without much thought” is whitewashing. There was usually very careful thought about who was targeted for harm, and who for gains (race, ethnicity, and class were central focuses of this thought.)

Obviously, there was a lot of very careful thought that went into every project. Public opinion has always mattered in government and it'd always get faster approval if you tackle infrastructure projects in certain areas over others. It'd also become a much more affordable effort if you did it in areas with cheaper land value and used cheaper building materials.

Still, my mistake for using that expression, as it's distracting you from my main point.

That said, preventing gentrification requires an active effort from policy makers.

That's how you kill a city.

And if housing prices go down that might allow the wrong sort of person into their communities. Some people conceive this in racial terms but for others its that they think of poor people as lazy or impulsive and so not good neighbors.

And I've certainly heard coworkers complaining that if poor people could move into their communities they wouldn't be paying their "fair share" of the school's running cost and so spending per pupil would drop.

And, least concretely, I think, developers would profit and they align with our mental images of greedy capitalists more than landlords do. At least for non-renters who do most of the voting about these things.

You can build single-family housing on vast swaths of land for landlord sharks to snap up and rent out. However, that results in a city of short-term inhabitants who aren't invested in taking care of the city and eventually the city is less desirable and the rentals dry up.

Or you can ban single-family housing rentals, build high-density housing for rentals, and reserve the single-family units for long-term residents who will upkeep the desirability of the city.

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative policymakers and more to do with the sort of short-term thinking that "build more housing - there are no consequences" represents.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/business/china-birth-rate...

That's the perverse thing about this, the moment you get hit by homelessness you lose basically even the most basic power you had to fight against it, your power to vote.

The only way to realistically fix this is if homelessness becomes at the very least a very sizable minority, if not a majority. And while that may be the push needed to address it, it would also be a humanitarian catastrophe.

I think your points are actually the popular ones. The less-popular view is that the current homeless crisis is highly correlated with drug-addiction, and it's not clear that just providing housing to fentanyl addicts will solve it.

The data I've seen points in the other direction: A majority of homeless drug addicts started using AFTER they became addicts. I imagine once you're at the bottom and have little hope to improve, it's easy to give in to abandon.

But even Spokane has been changing...the flop houses of old are mostly being redeveloped, housing is becoming not so cheap anymore.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/san-francisco-drug...

If you look at more data, you see that even in California (https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/california/2021/mea...), SF is not at the top (Lake, Mendocino and Inyo rank higher). I'm not saying drug use is not a problem in SF. I'm just saying it's not the primary reason why we have a big homeless problem.

That said, compare with Ohio (https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/ohio/2021/measure/f...) where there are dozens of counties that more than double SF's overdose rate. And still, their homelessness rate is a fraction of California's.

sfchronicle has the overdose death rate for:

SF at 61 per 100k

Humboldt at 31 per 100k

Cited from Cali Dept of public health

CountryHealthRankings has:

SF at 23 per 100k

Humboldt at 32 per 100k

When I grew up in Germany we had neighbors where the dad had no education, worked in a warehouse, had a house, 3 children and the mom stayed at home. In the same area now they can barely scrape by if both parents work full time. Add some mental problems to this and you quickly drop out because there is no safetey margin left these days.

You'll always hear people priding themselves in living in a democracy, having the power to decide, and yet when any such failure of the majority to care for the minority is pointed out it conspicuously always falls on someone else's shoulders. It's the fentanyl, they're all lazy, it's their lifestyle. People will not waste a second bragging about the good things they did with their power to vote but will always implicitly support leaving hundreds of thousands of their own people in the dirt just so the price of their real-estate is maintained, or ravaging entire nations on the other side of the world to have a cheaper tank of gas.

I think that's becoming an ever bigger problem. The decision makers are completely disconnected from the concerns of people with low incomes. They live in different areas, go to different schools, have different entertainment and work at different workplaces.

I remember chatting with a waitress last year on a hike. She told me about reduced working hours during COVID, worries about paying rent, car insurance and health care bills. She was really close to losing everything because she had no parents or relatives she could move to. And I thought about how I personally barely noticed COVID other than a few minor inconveniences like mask wearing or reduced socializing.

I don't know how to fix this but this complete disconnect between people who are in a position to make decisions vs the people who are most affected by these decisions is pretty scary.

It may seem trivial to some -- "just vote somewhere with a shelter" but it's worth noting that homelessness as a state is an extreme burden and these kind of options simply may not exist depending on an individual.

Very poor people tend to have neither. Obviously they don't have money, but they also tend to be overwhelmed with the daily struggle to stay alive, or emotionally beaten down by dealing with various kinds of trauma.

That means even when homeless people manage to vote individually, they aren't likely to find politicians who cater to their needs directly. Instead the best they can hope for is a politician who caters to middle-class and wealthy people who care about the abstract concept of homelessness and have their own ideas about how to address it.

Why on earth is a home address needed to vote? Of course you need to vote where you are registered, I cannot vote in another city beside mine too, but even if I lose my house today I can keep voting in my city until I have a document that proves my identity, eventually for all my life.

Pardon my rant, it is not towards you or your comment, but some policies in the US are simply crazy.

we built this meatgrinder and I forget why and for who

One of the chart captions says "Homelessness climbs faster when rent affordability reaches 22% and 32% thresholds", but they don't seem to have actually found data that demonstrated this was a temporal (rather than a geographic) effect.

> Monroe County in Florida, where the median market rate rent consumes 62.9 percent of the area’s median household income.

at this point, if they’re using the IRS definition of “household”, they’re probably overestimating how much each household pays on rent. as rent per sqft rises there’s a competing effect whereby more people of different tax households pool their income and collectively rent just one unit.

e.g. median IRS household income is $100,000. median house rent is $60,000/yr. 4 unrelated people each making the median income choose to share that roof. the median share of income going to rent in this case is 15% — not the 60% that could be calculated if you compared median unit rent directly to median IRS household income.

the methodology seems pretty important and should be touched on, otherwise it’s easy for the reader to misinterpret what these numbers actually mean.

Yes, rent prices have increased over the last decade. But the affordability, purity, availability, and use of those very destructive drugs have also increased over the same time period.

The chart that I would be interested in seeing is are those elements plotted against homelessness rate. I suspect that the correlation coefficient between per-capita meth use and homelessness rate would be ~1.

If LA had more affordable rent, a lot of those people currently living in tents would have more privacy, more stability, less temptation to turn to cheap drugs to cope.

Those locales differ on much more than just housing costs.

We should address the housing problem. We should also address the drug problem.

The same people who complain about homelessness and pretend to care about the poor are the ones to call the building of new housing """gentrification"""

Endless committees to decide if someone can build new housing is just absurd. (Hello California)

This is why the building of new homes should _not_ be a matter of vote. Just like deciding your career or in which companies to invest. The overall public should _not_ get a say in what private contractors build, unless in absolutely extreme cases such as when pollution is involved (noise/air..). Just like McDonald's does not get a say in whether a new Burger King should open, homeowners should not get a say in whether new housing should be built. No matter how much they pretend ""it'll push poor out of cities!!!1!""

I don't think there's any conspiracy, just a lack of solid understanding of the problem. I think we are "victims of our own success" in that I think our last housing crisis was solved by the birth of modern suburbs and this made the single family detached house designed for a nuclear family our default standard and trying to emulate that or improve on that has gone weird and unhelpful places.

But thrilled to see an article connecting homelessness to housing supply issues rather than the tired trope of "They are all junkies and crazies."

Citizens at the margins who can't find a place don't go directly to the streets - they crash with family, then friends, then live in their car (until they can't afford to move it). Most homeless in SF are invisible. Getting this cohort into an apartment is mostly dependent on having affordable apartments.

Everyone was on /r/vancouver was like "where did all these people come from?!"

Well it's as you say. They were the "hidden homeless," couch surfing at their friends.

All of a sudden the pandemic hit and these publicly owned social housing apartments added new rules saying "no guests" and such, and suddenly boom, you see the real amount of homeless.

Then misfortunes happen, they lose their job, they lose their health, they lose their apartment etc etc.

Now they're stuck.

They don't move to cheaper areas of the country because 1) there are real costs to moving (money they don't have) and 2) the economic prospects in the cheaper part of the country are worse.

This is not meaningfully true for people with lower skill levels. You can have a much higher standard of living as a laborer in Laredo than in SF.

For a person of sane mind without drug addiction setting up your own shelter (tent, whatever) is trivially easy to do and vastly superior to organized shelter. It doesn't take much ingenuity to find a secluded spot no one will find; for instance even in crowded in chicago I'd just climb onto an abandoned building and sleep on the roof.

> There are currently 435 sites countywide with 11,499 beds available.

Meanwhile there are 48,041 unsheltered homeless people in LA county at last count[2].

With that being said, some people do not want to use shelters, and because the shelter beds are wildly outnumbered by the homeless population the government is not allowed to penalize anyone for camping on the street. Only when the government has provided adequate shelter for everyone can any ordinances against street camping be enforced, per the Supreme Court ruling in Martin v. Boise.

[1] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/400d7b75f18747c4ae1ad22...

[2] http://www.laalmanac.com/social/so14.php

A better question would be -- what the average shelter utilization?

It does, because the claim was not that there's a bed for everyone who wants one. The claim was exactly this:

> There are shelters for every homeless person already. The homeless prefer the street.

Which is a plainly incorrect statement, if for no other reason than the fact that 'the homeless' aren't a monolithic group with the identical goals.

I didn't say that they were a monolithic group. I said the homeless prefer the street. Considering there is space for them in shelters this is obviously true. Obviously there are many reasons why they prefer the street, but they are monolithic in their choice to not utilize the shelters.

If you're not making any distinctions within the population you're just spouting meaningless statements. You can also say 'the homeless prefer permanent housing,' or 'the homeless have never used drugs in their life' and it's equally true, because it's true in some cases.

> Obviously there are many reasons why they prefer the street, but they are monolithic in their choice to not utilize the shelters.

Considering the fact that there are in fact homeless people in shelters, saying they're 'monolithic' in their choice not to utilize shelters is incorrect on its face.

I wasn't surprised to see LA here. When I was a young adult. , anyone could get a minimum wage job, and while it wasn't the absolute best apartment, you at least had a roof over your head.

Now the city is a living nightmare for anyone who doesn't make at least 100K a year, I also noticed in the last 10 years or so the city got much meaner. The charm is gone, but I think rational people will move and be fine.

If you want to be stupid, and watch your rent increase well beyond what you can afford, stay. This isn't just LA, but any unaffordable city.

People live in these places because that's where the jobs are. You can move to a 'cheap' city, but you'll find that it's cheap because the pay is equally cheap.

The bigger problem is that the landowning class is viciously extracting far more wealth from the populace than is warranted by the service they provide, and using that wealth to lobby to prevent competition that would reduce the rents they extract.

I was making just as much in Chicago as I was in LA, and my rent was about 50% less, and I didn't need a car. This was in a much more desirable area where I could do all of my grocery shopping, hit several bars, and generally socialize ( met my first real girlfriend in real life) without driving.

>The bigger problem is that the landowning class is viciously extracting far more wealth from the populace than is warranted by the service they provide, and using that wealth to lobby to prevent competition that would reduce the rents they extract.

The competition is the rest of America, you can find a $1,500 two-bedroom in Chicago because several other landlords have to compete.

If you mentally trap yourself in a place like LA, then sure two bedrooms start at $2,800 and there's nothing you can do. Sure, you can hop on Twitter and complain. Your rent is still 2,800. Aside from a full-blown communist revolution, I don't see a way to make a place like LA affordable for normal people

Not many places can compete with southern California's mild climate. Yes, Chicago is cheaper, but it also has ~100 fewer days of sun per year, and the mental trap of living in LA is matched by the literal trap of Chicago's weather forcing you indoors for a full third of the year.

If your willing to pay 2800+ so you can visit Venice Beach once a day, that's your choice.

America is a very big country with tons of affordable places to live. I do have sympathy for people trapped in LA, for example, if you share custody with your ex, you can't really just move. This doesn't change the facts on the ground.

I do think our housing shortage makes hiring even harder in a tight labor market.

Statistically, there are always going to be some growing cities and some shrinking cities, because a stochastically generated distribution like population movement should have a nonzero standard deviation. If growing cities are consistently unaffordable, that's a national problem.

They have no ability, nor will to fix such a massive problem. With LA this has been in motion for decades.

You let everyone say construction offends them, and make it so only luxury housing is profitable to build. This is the result.

LA is uniquely horrible since you both need a car and an extremely expensive apartment. Even on the low end you're talking about $600 to $1,000 for the privilege of driving.

Affordable and unaffordable is a subjective measure. Clearly there are a lot of people willing to live on the razor's edge for the benefits they perceive coastal California cities provide (and other areas with higher than average demand relative to supply).

No it isn't. Affordable and unaffordable can be defined objectively for a specific population (e.g. "Americans") by observing that population's behavior. If people avoid living somewhere due to the cost of living, it's unaffordable. There's nothing terribly ambiguous about that. The consequences can also be expressed with numbers, e.g.:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2016/12/07/zoning-r...

For the people living somewhere despite its cost of living, it is affordable. For their definition of affordable, because it is subjective.

It is like the joke "I would rather be dead in <insert place> than alive in <insert another place>".

You substituted a useless definition for a useful one. Nobody cares about the affordability to a particular individual. There's probably somebody living in a rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco paying $500/month, but it's plainly nonsense to argue on that basis that rent in San Francisco is $500/month.

Aggregate affordability is operationalized via its effect on population movements, and San Francisco is not affordable, period. Debasing the metrics won't save you, it's just frustrating to deal with people who find it convenient to deny reality.

Relative to rent, wages are not keeping up and we are facing a future where a significant portion of the population will not have stable housing.

Best case, it also creates effective pressure for extra terrestrial colonization, pluralizing our egg baskets. NIMBY could fuel human exploitation of the solar system.

I feel like this glamorizes the issue and makes the fundamental fact that we aren't respecting the humanity of those around us RIGHT NOW seem like it's all part of a grand "plan". Versus the more obvious fact that the society we currently have created is suboptimal and must be corrected

Then it just becomes NIMB: Not In My Biosphere.

But I wonder to what degree this is a US phenomenon. Take Tokyo, for instance. It has an amazing array of commuter rail lines linking it to the surrounding area. And it sits in a country where the population is not rising. So, to what extent does this dynamic apply to Tokyo?

And if it doesn't apply to Tokyo, could we fix it in the US by 1) adding huge amounts of commuter rail, and 2) stopping population growth?

In my country, in theory, you cannot have more than 33% of your income used to pay rent.

Well, it’s not forbidden, the bank can be flexible, but they surely are double checking because they take the risk for the debt to be cleared if you became insolvent because of them.

Personally, I've never had a stable income in the UK, so for the last two places I rented I had to pay 12 months upfront.

I'm quite skeptical the 33% threshold makes much sense (though it may be a decent heuristic in most cases).

Compare these two scenarios:

1) Affordable rent: £18k/yr income, £500/mo rent, £823/mo left after tax

2) Unaffordable rent: £30k/yr income, £1000/mo rent, £1005/mo left after tax

#2 is better off financially than #1, assuming costs other than housing are similar [1]. But the 33% affordability threshold will make it harder for #2 to rent than #1.

[1] I think that's broadly the case, but will vary based on circumstances. E.g. childcare is more expensive in London, or you might need a car in a rural area.

Landlords usually want proof of income, and the most typical cutoff stated is gross income must be 3x rent. Though it may be a somewhat higher fraction of your net (after tax) income.

In Manhattan, and perhaps other extreme markets, the factors are even higher.

It can get very expensive for the landlord if a tenant can't pay. Plus for larger firms such as apartment complexes and rental agencies, they may be forbidden from making subjective judgements of tenants due to laws against dicrimination. Meaning they use one-size-fits-all rules like income cutoff.

Renting to somebody who has a high chance of not being able to pay their rent 3 months from now is indeed a risk, and one that landlords go to great lengths to avoid. Prospective renters may not be in debt yet, but nonpaying renters are hard to get rid of.

Also, homelessness itself can trigger mental issues across the general population who previously were well to do.

Mental health issues are usually manageable if you have the resources to manage them.

If homelessness is increasing, then it seems likely that something's causing the increase. If the cause is mental illness, something's causing that mental illness to be more prevalent or less manageable.

High rent seems like a decent hypothesis of it being less manageable.

I'm sure it does but I'm genuinely curious whether this legitimately drives a significant increase in mental issues. Anecdotally as someone who's always been able bodied thus able to find day labor doing mindless unskilled work like moving drywall even in the worst economies, I find homelessness to be less stressful as the responsibilities and day to day worries just were much more basic. It takes maybe 2 hours of day labor a day to live a luxurious by homeless standard existence (plenty of money for food, drink, patching tent/shelter, maintaining excellent REI-tier outdoor clothing that ensure you're nice and warm in all climates, etc). By contrast, now that I have legal residence-zoned housing (in my state I could be found in violation of child negligence laws if I don't provide whatever CPS considers adequate shelter, so I have no choice) I find my stresses and worries to be much higher as the amount of money needed to maintain artificially limited thus expensive housing to be significantly higher.

If you are of sound body and mind, free of addiction and able and willing to work a couple hours a day (which believe it or not, lots of shitty jobs will tolerate you not being showered or whatever just fine), being homeless can be a pretty easy and low worry - even freeing - existence.