21 May 23
@athousandyoung saidThere are parallels to other cities which have much lower rent prices. E.g. Seattle. Those cities made different decisions and the biggest one is probably building enough housing.You're right there is no incentive anywhere to build affordable housing but that's obviously a city management problem.
Elaborate please. What should the city do to incentivize the building of affordable housing? I ask since you are implicitly blaming the city government for the natural result of the free market.
21 May 23
@wildgrass said
There are lots of possibilities but the vox article mentioned that repealing the Ellis act would help.
Also the thing you mentioned too about landlords who purposefully dont rent properties that are livable. Certainly city/state laws can impose fines for this behavior.
Also the thing you mentioned too about landlords who purposefully dont rent properties that are livable. Certainly city/state laws can impose fines for this behavior.
I am in favor of this policy but I doubt most of the people who criticize the government of the City of SF will approve. This violates Laissez-Faire principles and cuts into the profits of the rich AKA "winners".
I'll look into the Ellis Act.
21 May 23
@athousandyoung saidThe problem is the supply of housing. That's what I wrote.
Not in the slightest!
There is a HUGE difference between blocking development of new buildings and enforcing private property rights. The article you used as your reference specifically blamed Measure B.
21 May 23
@wildgrass saidI would be interested in exploring the specifics of what exactly Seattle did that SF did not do. Your post is interesting but way too vague.
There are parallels to other cities which have much lower rent prices. E.g. Seattle. Those cities made different decisions and the biggest one is probably building enough housing.
21 May 23
@wildgrass saidIt's a tautology to say people are homeless because they don't have homes.
The problem is the supply of housing. That's what I wrote.
21 May 23
I agree that repeal of the Ellis Act would be a good idea. I am in favor of repealing it.
But I'll repeat what I wrote above:
I am in favor of this policy but I doubt most of the people who criticize the government of the City of SF will approve. This violates Laissez-Faire principles and cuts into the profits of the rich AKA "winners".
21 May 23
@wildgrass saidYou got that right. I think since Biden opened the border, there are over 5 Million new aliens scattered hither and yon. Your point?
Right now - today - there are a lot more immigrants overstaying their visas than crossing the border on foot.
21 May 23
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidSo, obviously, that's not the point.
It's a tautology to say people are homeless because they don't have homes.
More housing means cheaper housing. It's a basic supply-demand thing. If housing is cheaper, more could afford it. If more could afford it, fewer would be homeless.
It's not a super-skinny limb to climb out on, but I'll state it anyway: unaffordable housing causes a good chunk of homelessness. For decades, San Francisco's economy created 8 times more jobs than beds for those workers to sleep on, driving up rents and property values (the city loves that part - for tax revenues), and this created huge economic incentives for property owners to start their shady shenanigans like you describe that box low-income people out of a warm bed. The city has done more to encourage these shenanigans than prevent it.
The answer is more houses. Luxury, middle-class, shelters. More of all of it.
Or, alternatively, fewer people.
21 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidMy point is that the border wall will not solve the problem.
You got that right. I think since Biden opened the border, there are over 5 Million new aliens scattered hither and yon. Your point?
21 May 23
@wildgrass saidThe reason I object to your reasoning that more houses does not in itself increase supply if those houses are kept off the market by investors.
So, obviously, that's not the point.
More housing means cheaper housing. It's a basic supply-demand thing. If housing is cheaper, more could afford it. If more could afford it, fewer would be homeless.
It's not a super-skinny limb to climb out on, but I'll state it anyway: unaffordable housing causes a good chunk of homelessness. For decades, San Francisco's economy ...[text shortened]... more houses. Luxury, middle-class, shelters. More of all of it.
Or, alternatively, fewer people.
However your other recommendations solve this problem without any need to build more houses.
21 May 23
@athousandyoung saidIn this analysis, San Francisco could stand to build five times more homes than they currently have. FIVE TIMES!!! It's not directly related to homelessness, and does explicitly state it won't solve it, but in my opinion it is an essential part of the solution:
The reason I object to your reasoning that more houses does not in itself increase supply if those houses are kept off the market by investors.
However your other recommendations solve this problem without any need to build more houses.
... if New York, San Jose, and San Francisco—just those three cities—had the permitting standards of Atlanta or Chicago over the previous several decades, the U.S. economy would have been roughly $2 trillion bigger in 2009. American households would have earned an average of $3,685 more a year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-gap-cost-affordability-big-cities/672184/
22 May 23
@wildgrass saidI wasn't aware Chicago had solved the homelessness problem.
In this analysis, San Francisco could stand to build five times more homes than they currently have. FIVE TIMES!!! It's not directly related to homelessness, and does explicitly state it won't solve it, but in my opinion it is an essential part of the solution:
[quote]... if New York, San Jose, and San Francisco—just those three cities—had the permitting standards of Atlan ...[text shortened]... tps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-gap-cost-affordability-big-cities/672184/
You cannot compare Atlanta with San Francisco. SF is on a peninsula. Atlanta is on a wide open expanse of land.
Your article is behind a paywall so I cannot evaluate it properly. In particular I cannot follow up on your "FIVE TIMES!!!" claim but it is critical to recognize that if you bring down the cost of housing you damage property values and take money out of the hands of investors. Investors generally don't mind more housing being built as long as they can buy it. The billionaires of today can easily afford to buy up all that new housing to keep housing prices and therefore property values and landlord profits up.
22 May 23
@mott-the-hoople saidStraight from the Big Book of Republican Fairy Tales.
dont play ignorant…
https://www.cerescourier.com/opinion/editorial/homelessness-crisis-created-democrats/
and ongoing right now with no border control, where do you think all those millions are gonna live?
22 May 23
@athousandyoung saidlol of course. They are partially responsible for the homelessness. Why do you think there are more homeless people
Conclusion so far - CA and the city of SF are in no way responsible for homelessness and it is completely unreasonable to blame these governments for the homelessness in their territory.
Anyone disagree?
in California and more specifically, in San Francisco than almost anywhere else? It comes down to how
the homeless are treated by the government and people in that state/city.