Mental health and addiction problems are substantially ameliorated by inexpensive housing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193206 and it is easier to maintain housing that is inexpensive than housing that is expensive.

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.

The obvious explanation would be that expensive cities are more desirable to live in and thus see both higher property values and more homeless.

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 was homeless for years, not by choice. My relationships with homeless people did and still do go a lot farther than "spoken to a number of them" and I don't think this is accurate at all. I can't speak for anyone but myself but this was never my attitude and I doubt anyone I know now would endorse it.

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."

Were you living in year-round gorgeous weather areas alike I mentioned? (Coastal Southern California)

> 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”.

My experience of homelessness, including two years in coastal southern california yes, was a lot more miserable and desperate than the one you had or are imagining. I don't remember anyone else around me having that great a time either.

Anyway they got homeless people in frozen ass places like the twin cities too. What's your read on the benefits they are reaping?

I’m sorry you did not enjoy your experience. However that does not invalidate the experiences of the people I have spoken with, despite your attempts to project otherwise.

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.

> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution.

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.

Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets?

Hint: zero.

Your statement is blatantly factually false. I’m trying to decide if you meant it to be literal or hyperbole.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

You missed the word “jobless” in the comment. The jobless, especially when the person is in essence unemployable due to mental illness is not going to be successful at self maintaining housing at $2.5k, $1k, or even $100/mo.

You are applying a boolean data type, when the facts on the ground are more complicated.

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.

If you are homeless, unemployed and unable to be employed due to mental health issues, anything more than “free” is too much for you to afford.

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.

What if you got it down to 0/month? I think you're thinking too small.

Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices.

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.

> 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.

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.

Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?

What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?

I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies).

You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.

They could all afford an SRO ten years back.

Then something happened…