Nobody is living on the streets in SF because houses cost too much money. If money was the only issue then they could easily move to a different town where housing is cheaper, there are many places to live that are cheaper than SF.
In my opinion whenever someone says the main problem is the price of housing they are saying it because that is their own personal problem. They want to buy a house, and they think the prices are too high. Why do they not mention unemployment? Or addiction? Or lots of other issues? Because those aren't their own personal problems, so they focus on the one thing that matters to them personally, and that's the price of housing.
This is extremely short-sighted. Expensive real estate is a blood-sucking vampire squid on the real economy, on every economically productive citizen
You are paying for that overpriced housing every time you buy a coffee, you pay $1 for the coffee beans and you $4 for the coffee shop rent. You pay rent of every person who's services they need, from a delivery man to a plumber.
The idea that rising house prices are okay because you own a house is just as daft as the idea that rising food prices are okay because you have a full fridge.
The optimal strategy is to drive down relative cost of food, housing and energy, and other nessesities of life to zero, that's what we call 'economic growth'. Thats why we no longer live like peasants.
Not just this, every last bit of economy is designed to benefit the exclusivity enjoyed by land lords.
No wonder the biggest beneficiary of the big salaries in Bay Area, CA is eventually the real estate market.
If land/housing/space is in short supply then every economic transaction is a kind of rent, you just don't notice it because you are paying for it instalments, its rent nevertheless.
Now do food, utilities, energy, transportation and government.
The idea that amount of people's resources is dedicated to these "overhead of modern life" type things shouldn't be minimized is mind boggling.
Essentially, if you make it easier for people to buy a home, then you will end up with more buyers, when you have more buyers then the demand for the product is increased and that results in the price of the product to rise. If you restrict the buyers then there is less demand for the product, and less demand results in the price of the product dropping. If less people are able to buy, then less people are able to sell, if people can't sell then they will lower prices.
It is hard to restrict buyers for houses, the only way I've thought of that is possible is to increase the minimum down payment size. If the minimum down payment size was increased to something really big like 50% for a few years, that would drastically reduce the number of people that would be able to buy a home, and that drastic decrease in buying demand would result in a drastic decrease in prices.
Conversely, where I live the minimum down payment is 5% if tomorrow the gov were to say "we want to make it easier for people to buy a home, and so we are reducing the minimum down payment to 2%" that would mean that more people would qualify to buy a home. More people qualifying would mean that there are more buyers and buying pressure is increased, and increased buying pressure would result in rising prices. So lowering the minimum down payment size, while well meaning, would soon result in the prices for homes going even higher and we would be right back where we started with many people being priced out of the market.
Increasing the minimum down payment size would also mean people effectively get priced out of the market because they would be unable to afford the minimum down payment, but conversely, the prices of houses would fall drastically because of the decreased buying pressure. People would be forced to save for a bigger downpayment, but the total they would pay when they actually buy the home would be decreased.
"Solve" is a big word, but substantially ameliorate? Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206
https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2021/mar/...
So, building housing isn't going to a total solution.
Mental health issues need wrap around services and the ability to restrict their actions - which years of legislation and rulings (many will blame the ACLU) doesn't allow for such in nearly all cases.
Addicts, for them, they need to WANT to get better. Even then it is still a long road. Hitting bottom may not even happen for some.
The extent to which people ignore the obvious point that homelessness is exploding in the most expensive cities, like SF, but not in less expensive cities, I find mind boggling.
Having spoken to a number of homeless folks, a common pattern is that they really aren’t interested in housing. If you have no dependents, would you rather spend your life a slave to the capitalist corporation/mortgage/property-tax/landlord complex, or just camp out in an area with nice weather year-round, in a community of like-minded people, doing whatever suits your fancy?
I don't know what dynamics were at play when you asked this question or what you specifically asked, but those things can affect the answers quite a lot.
It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
> It's generally not "they really aren’t interested in housing" but "they aren't willing to accept the terms on which that housing is offered."
What’s the difference? Being “interested” in something means being willing to pay its price it in order to reap its benefits. There exist plenty of folks who aren’t willing to pay the price of “work all day and live in a less desirable area” to reap the benefits of “have an address” when they can pay the price of “live as a vagabond” to reap “do as they please 24/7 in some of the most desirable regions on earth”.
Anyway they got homeless people in frozen ass places like the twin cities too. What's your read on the benefits they are reaping?
Regarding homeless folks in areas with inclement weather, as I have not had the opportunity to get to know any of them I will not attempt to speak to their experience.
It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.
Hint: zero.
People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity.
Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
I think you are agreeing with the parent comment here even if you dont think so. These are the people that would take new inexpensive housing - people living with roommates or parents that want their own place, people commuting from far away. These people aren't homeless.
You _assume_ homeless are not among that population, but I would argue there are. Obviously not 100%, but we are arguing about moving the supply curve up, so there is a corresponding adjustment as we move along the demand curve.
But the core point I’m making is that the difference between enough rental units to move an average rental price of $2500/mo to $1000/mo means there are A TON of new units and it would reduce rent pressure even for rental units that are cheaper than $1000/mo.
The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market.
And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
Those were the people I’m speaking about, those are people that many of us see daily, and those are a large portion of the homeless wrecking havoc.
Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.
Then something happened…
You can’t wish away the fact that SFBA has lots of high paying jobs and attracts lots of people from around the country and around the world. The people are already here. All your mentality is doing is dragging any potential remedy out so it takes longer and costs more. You are applying a Heckler’s Veto.
We might as well increase QoL for everyone who actually lives here (and those who are likely to move here in the immediate future), not some idealistic memory of how some of the metro area used to be 30 years ago.
Those conditions are insufficient to cause the effect you think they should.
If SF built enough housing, it would mostly solve the homelessness crisis, but also generate even more tax revenue for investing in better social services, transit etc. As a resident, it feels like a lost opportunity: the pandemic has made remote work common and fewer people will want to move to the SF in the future.