Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person(ktla.com)
ktla.com
Los Angeles is spending up to $837k to house a single homeless person
https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/
367 comments
This...is not wrong. Pioneer Square in Seattle used to have a lot of flop houses, part of it being the original "skid row" (logs skid to the saw mill, really muddy and not a desirable place to live). My grandfather in Spokane unwittingly ran a rooming house we cousins called the "empty arms" (inherited from his sister), which housed a lot of people who were just barely getting by.
Seattle's flop houses are mostly gone now...Spokane's are disappearing rapidly and is creating a new homeless problem in an area that used to be fairly immune to it (because of access to cheap housing).
China/Hong Kong and some of Asia have created a new spin on SROs with capsule and pod housing, China leverages a lot of sub-basements for SRO housing (without access to windows because underground), while Japan has cheap 2.5 tatami sized small room apartments. None of these would be allowed in the west, they are barely living, but maybe we should start thinking about them as an alternative to a much worse situation?
Seattle's flop houses are mostly gone now...Spokane's are disappearing rapidly and is creating a new homeless problem in an area that used to be fairly immune to it (because of access to cheap housing).
China/Hong Kong and some of Asia have created a new spin on SROs with capsule and pod housing, China leverages a lot of sub-basements for SRO housing (without access to windows because underground), while Japan has cheap 2.5 tatami sized small room apartments. None of these would be allowed in the west, they are barely living, but maybe we should start thinking about them as an alternative to a much worse situation?
As a single guy and a software engineer, I would pay full price for a pod housing if the area is safe convenient. I'd rent a co-working desk nearby and save a ton of money.
These types of housing just aren't available in Vancouver (or NA in general), but I can totally see a market for it.
These types of housing just aren't available in Vancouver (or NA in general), but I can totally see a market for it.
Yeah I'm past this point in my life but there was nearly a decade post-college where I would have really enjoyed continuing to live in dorm-style housing with other people at a similar stage of life. Saving money on top of it would've made that a no brainer. It's a bit tangential to the discussion on SROs to address homelessness, but I wish that SROs were a more acceptable housing style for a variety of use cases.
My girlfriend lives in a household with 11 people in it by choice. It's not for me but I get the attraction.
Montreal is kinda OK so far! Well until the Hongkongolese notice it if they haven't already!!
Saddens me that the top earners in our world have to dream of affordable housing so they can save a bit of money. Probably not enough to buy a house in that same area. Sigh.
He is in one of the most expensive places that pays below market pay. When money fled Hong Kong a lot of it moved to Vancouver.
Publix in Seattle is a perfect example.
A developer bought them out, them combined every 2-3 SROs to make a (still small) luxury apartment.
I do not begrudge the developer. If you were to propose the opposite (taking an existing set of luxury apartments, and subdivide them into more rent paying units), it would probably be more profitable, but you would never get the plans approved.
A developer bought them out, them combined every 2-3 SROs to make a (still small) luxury apartment.
I do not begrudge the developer. If you were to propose the opposite (taking an existing set of luxury apartments, and subdivide them into more rent paying units), it would probably be more profitable, but you would never get the plans approved.
> it would probably be more profitable, but you would never get the plans approved.
I'm not sure it would be in this market. Catering to people with money is pretty profitable. Catering to lower income tenants...even with more scale on your side, might not work out, especially with the extra overheads involved (with Seattle's strict eviction laws, for example). Most small-scale landlords in Seattle are trying to get away from even moderate income housing that might require them to fund moving costs because of future rent increases (as well as rising eviction costs...it doesn't make much sense to rent to anyone but a very well funded and low risk techie).
I'm not sure it would be in this market. Catering to people with money is pretty profitable. Catering to lower income tenants...even with more scale on your side, might not work out, especially with the extra overheads involved (with Seattle's strict eviction laws, for example). Most small-scale landlords in Seattle are trying to get away from even moderate income housing that might require them to fund moving costs because of future rent increases (as well as rising eviction costs...it doesn't make much sense to rent to anyone but a very well funded and low risk techie).
I remember watching this fight play out in real time in Seattle:
https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/somethings-rotten-in-roos...
> Most in the crowd were furious about the Sisleys’ refusal to help keep up the neighborhood. “I feel like I’m watching a neighborhood crumble,” said David Ahrens. Another angry resident added, “These are transient places. People are moving in and out. I think you need to get more aggressive with them.”
> In 1994, after the DCLU took action on a number of violations at Sisley properties, including the illegal conversion of a house that was zoned single-family into a six-unit “residents’ club” house, Gilbert brought a similar suit against city officials.
Then there's all of the Carl Haglund stuff.
I think people have tried to cater to low income tenants, and all of them have been run out of town.
https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/somethings-rotten-in-roos...
> Most in the crowd were furious about the Sisleys’ refusal to help keep up the neighborhood. “I feel like I’m watching a neighborhood crumble,” said David Ahrens. Another angry resident added, “These are transient places. People are moving in and out. I think you need to get more aggressive with them.”
> In 1994, after the DCLU took action on a number of violations at Sisley properties, including the illegal conversion of a house that was zoned single-family into a six-unit “residents’ club” house, Gilbert brought a similar suit against city officials.
Then there's all of the Carl Haglund stuff.
I think people have tried to cater to low income tenants, and all of them have been run out of town.
Sorry, Publix in Seattle!!?
Ah, "The Publix" - I saw it a few times in ID and was confused with the SE/Florida based Grocery Store.
Ah, "The Publix" - I saw it a few times in ID and was confused with the SE/Florida based Grocery Store.
That's a possibility
The other possibility is that we should root out the corruption in this process. I am not generally a fan of privitization at all. In the private market however you're building 2/2s in LA for less than half of the cost including furnishings and fixtures.
By that I mean a 2 bed, 2 bathroom, with all of the traditionally middle class loved touches including faux marble, and faux wood flooring etc.
The situation LA is in is unconscionable as 4,000/mo apartments are going up for rent and developed for less than 350k.
The issue here is definitely corruption and not ability, cost, or the need to put people in Parasite style apartments.
The other possibility is that we should root out the corruption in this process. I am not generally a fan of privitization at all. In the private market however you're building 2/2s in LA for less than half of the cost including furnishings and fixtures.
By that I mean a 2 bed, 2 bathroom, with all of the traditionally middle class loved touches including faux marble, and faux wood flooring etc.
The situation LA is in is unconscionable as 4,000/mo apartments are going up for rent and developed for less than 350k.
The issue here is definitely corruption and not ability, cost, or the need to put people in Parasite style apartments.
> The issue here is definitely corruption and not ability, cost, or the need to put people in Parasite style apartments.
You claim corruption, but provide no evidence of such, just that the result doesn't make sense to you. But instead of corruption, maybe it is just capitalism at work here? Developers go with what the market demands, and that demand comes through what the market is willing to pay. In that case, they develop $350k units because they can rent them out for $4k, that sounds really profitable. Why would they bother doing what you think they should do if they can't make money doing it that way? Or is it alleged corruption that allows this behavior? If so, what kind of corruption?
You claim corruption, but provide no evidence of such, just that the result doesn't make sense to you. But instead of corruption, maybe it is just capitalism at work here? Developers go with what the market demands, and that demand comes through what the market is willing to pay. In that case, they develop $350k units because they can rent them out for $4k, that sounds really profitable. Why would they bother doing what you think they should do if they can't make money doing it that way? Or is it alleged corruption that allows this behavior? If so, what kind of corruption?
I suggest its corruption because I also develop units in Los Angeles and have multiple (5 specifically) bids in my inbox from the last two weeks for building out completely fresh 2/2s on new ground with new foundations in the 350k mark. Including all of what I've mentioned. And they're definitely making a margin on me.
That would be why specifically 800+k for a unit described smells of corruption.
That would be why specifically 800+k for a unit described smells of corruption.
Heh I lived in one in Spokane, which was a former brothel. Rent was cheap and the people were OK but it was infested with endless spiders.
"I want these barely homless people out of my community" turned into "I want these homeless people out of my community"
How do you unwittingly run a rooming house?
You inherit property from your sister and...after putting work into it, realize that you are only getting low-end tenants. I guess it is hard to call it a rooming house, they were full apartments from what I remember, but we still thought of it as a flop house.
It didn't last long, he gave the place to my uncle after running it for a few years. My uncle quickly sold it after fixing it up a bit, he didn't want to be in that kind of business either.
It didn't last long, he gave the place to my uncle after running it for a few years. My uncle quickly sold it after fixing it up a bit, he didn't want to be in that kind of business either.
I'm not convinced this isn't done intentionally to prevent a deflationary market.
I don't buy the argument SROs were removed to get rid of Slums.
In fact, my first apartment, ironically in LA was a very small step up from an SRO. It had a private bathroom, but not much else.
Now the city has effectively made this housing illegal to build.
These units for the homeless are basically luxury condos. It's never been about helping people, Garcerti and the boys just ripped off the people of Los Angeles.
A more realistic plan would be to offer relocation assistance or at the very least relax building requirements.
None of that will happen, my first, my beautiful 600$ apartment is now 1300$. I miss the city LA used to be.
I had the privilege of living in a neighborhood with 3$ bottles of Soju and 4$ Tortas. It was absolutely amazing.
In fact, my first apartment, ironically in LA was a very small step up from an SRO. It had a private bathroom, but not much else.
Now the city has effectively made this housing illegal to build.
These units for the homeless are basically luxury condos. It's never been about helping people, Garcerti and the boys just ripped off the people of Los Angeles.
A more realistic plan would be to offer relocation assistance or at the very least relax building requirements.
None of that will happen, my first, my beautiful 600$ apartment is now 1300$. I miss the city LA used to be.
I had the privilege of living in a neighborhood with 3$ bottles of Soju and 4$ Tortas. It was absolutely amazing.
> I don't buy the argument SROs were removed to get rid of Slums.
"Criticizing hotel life was one thing; effectively controlling it was another. By 1910, reformers had established the idea that hotel housing was a public nuisance. From 1900 through the 1940s, interlocking groups of reformers and landowners transformed objections about hotel life into practices to control living in hotels. For the goals of the culturally and socially reorganized new city to succeed, aberrant forms of housing had to be prevented and removed—slum and hotel alike. Yet gaining control was neither automatic nor preordained. Hotel housing was entrenched in some areas and in others, still expanding (fig. 8.1). A few handfuls of reformers had to do more than galvanize public opinion against the notion of living in hotels; they also had to establish whole new governmental organizations and procedures to give cities and states the necessary legal and bureaucratic power." https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...
"As with the SFRA's applications of blight and nonbuilding, the actions of other hotel-closing agencies were not (in their own minds) aiming the wrecking ball at the homes of the poor but "eliminating dead tissue," "applying the scalpel," "clearing away the mistakes of the past," and building "an attractive new city." About a Norfolk, Virginia, hotel district, one planning journal editor reported in 1961 that "progress had reached the demolition stage." Local agents crowed that they had "reduced to rubble . . . scores of flophouses not renowned for adding luster to their city's good name."
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...
"Criticizing hotel life was one thing; effectively controlling it was another. By 1910, reformers had established the idea that hotel housing was a public nuisance. From 1900 through the 1940s, interlocking groups of reformers and landowners transformed objections about hotel life into practices to control living in hotels. For the goals of the culturally and socially reorganized new city to succeed, aberrant forms of housing had to be prevented and removed—slum and hotel alike. Yet gaining control was neither automatic nor preordained. Hotel housing was entrenched in some areas and in others, still expanding (fig. 8.1). A few handfuls of reformers had to do more than galvanize public opinion against the notion of living in hotels; they also had to establish whole new governmental organizations and procedures to give cities and states the necessary legal and bureaucratic power." https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...
"As with the SFRA's applications of blight and nonbuilding, the actions of other hotel-closing agencies were not (in their own minds) aiming the wrecking ball at the homes of the poor but "eliminating dead tissue," "applying the scalpel," "clearing away the mistakes of the past," and building "an attractive new city." About a Norfolk, Virginia, hotel district, one planning journal editor reported in 1961 that "progress had reached the demolition stage." Local agents crowed that they had "reduced to rubble . . . scores of flophouses not renowned for adding luster to their city's good name."
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...
> These units for the homeless are basically luxury condos.
What is luxurious about them? Or are you referring to the price?
What is luxurious about them? Or are you referring to the price?
My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today.
> My grandparent's first apartment in SF didn't have it's own kitchen or bathroom. They thought it was a nice enough place, but you literally couldn't legally rent it out today.
Are you defining a unit with a kitchen and bathroom as a 'luxury apartment'? Would you live without them?
Are you defining a unit with a kitchen and bathroom as a 'luxury apartment'? Would you live without them?
My first apartment didn't have a kitchen. And it was fine, we are talking about a homeless shelter. You do not need to have stainless steel appliances, it should be a short-term stopgap until you find a better solution. Historically lower income people had to share common amenities like a shower. Just because it would be nice for every single person to have a big apartment with brand new appliances doesn't make it feasible .
I don't know about you, but given the choice between sleeping on the streets or having to share a shower with a reasonable number of other people, I'd share that shower.
Instead LA built a bunch of vanity projects which provide no real help to the vast majority of homeless people. The only thing you can really do is move your feet, which is what I did .
Anyone struggling to find affordable housing in LA should get out. You can move to Vegas and drive in every other week to see your friends.
I don't know about you, but given the choice between sleeping on the streets or having to share a shower with a reasonable number of other people, I'd share that shower.
Instead LA built a bunch of vanity projects which provide no real help to the vast majority of homeless people. The only thing you can really do is move your feet, which is what I did .
Anyone struggling to find affordable housing in LA should get out. You can move to Vegas and drive in every other week to see your friends.
No, we are not talking about a homeless shelter or a temporary stopgap, these kinds of units are the "something better" that people in homeless shelters and other temporary stopgaps are in a holding pattern waiting for.
Shipping the homeless elsewhere than California's most expensive cities is way outside the Overton window.
Shipping the homeless elsewhere than California's most expensive cities is way outside the Overton window.
> Shipping the homeless elsewhere than California's most expensive cities is way outside the Overton window.
Why? Unless you can show proof that most of the homeless in SF and LA are locals who fell on hard times rather than junkies who moved in for better weather and benefits, shipping them out seems completely reasonable.
Why? Unless you can show proof that most of the homeless in SF and LA are locals who fell on hard times rather than junkies who moved in for better weather and benefits, shipping them out seems completely reasonable.
Ask the Democrats and judges if they think that's reasonable.
And where will you ship them to? Smaller cities don't want them and they'll be inhospitable enough they won't want to be there either - they'd rather ship themselves back where they can stay close to their drug sources and still rotate with their panhandling around enough that the locals don't get too familiar with them.
So if you want to do something about the vagrant encampments being in the city you live in, the most effective thing that you can do is move to where they aren't, which is what everyone else who cared that much about it already did long ago.
And where will you ship them to? Smaller cities don't want them and they'll be inhospitable enough they won't want to be there either - they'd rather ship themselves back where they can stay close to their drug sources and still rotate with their panhandling around enough that the locals don't get too familiar with them.
So if you want to do something about the vagrant encampments being in the city you live in, the most effective thing that you can do is move to where they aren't, which is what everyone else who cared that much about it already did long ago.
Ship them where? Can other cities ship to LA/SF? How does this work?
I assume the model would be to build the same kinds of supportive housing facilities but to do so in markets where the same budget buys more units.
> Why?
Morality and optics of forced relocations aside, because it leads to cycles of retaliation by the places they are shipped to.
> Unless you can show proof that most of the homeless in SF and LA are locals who fell on hard times
I don't know about LA, but this has been studied for SF, repeatedly, and they are.
Morality and optics of forced relocations aside, because it leads to cycles of retaliation by the places they are shipped to.
> Unless you can show proof that most of the homeless in SF and LA are locals who fell on hard times
I don't know about LA, but this has been studied for SF, repeatedly, and they are.
That is preposterous. I believe all homeless should be provided some sort of shelter, but I absolutely don’t feel they have any entitlement to that shelter being in one of the most expensive zip codes in the country.
My friends who couldn’t afford Santa Monica moved east. Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. They bear horrible commutes but did what they needed to do to afford housing for their families.
Why do we just assume that homeless have some god given right to be housed precisely where they happen to be sleeping. Regular people migrate all the time to accommodate their own economics. Let’s build homeless some cheap housing. And let’s do it somewhere in the middle of no where where land is cheap and building costs are low.
I fail to see how this is controversial if it isn’t controversial for my friends who voluntarily do the same.
My friends who couldn’t afford Santa Monica moved east. Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. They bear horrible commutes but did what they needed to do to afford housing for their families.
Why do we just assume that homeless have some god given right to be housed precisely where they happen to be sleeping. Regular people migrate all the time to accommodate their own economics. Let’s build homeless some cheap housing. And let’s do it somewhere in the middle of no where where land is cheap and building costs are low.
I fail to see how this is controversial if it isn’t controversial for my friends who voluntarily do the same.
I think the question is would you rather have a shared floor bathroom with no kitchen or live on the street. If the room is free, sure I'll take the room, but if the room has a price and I have no income, I might take the street and save the money. I think this comes down to the privileged arguing about what's best for the less fortunate. Our worlds are so different from theirs, even basic communication and understanding is difficult.
I lived for 3 years in a college dorm with no kitchen or bathroom. I even had to have a roommate.
Some of the best times in my life.
For my senior year I moved into an apartment with my own bathroom and kitchen. It turned out to be a step down.
Some of the best times in my life.
For my senior year I moved into an apartment with my own bathroom and kitchen. It turned out to be a step down.
I’m sure if we offered folks without homes the opportunity attend university and live on campus instead, then some would definitely accept the offer!
The army doesn't offer private baths and kitchens, either, for their troops.
This is shameless.
If the other option is living on the street, why not?
The problem is that not everyone has a well-paid IT job, and some people barely make ends meet. These people need a place to live, too, a cheap, non-advanced place, with many corners cut for the sake of it being cheap to build and maintain. It's still much better than living in a tent as your primary residence!
The problem is that not everyone has a well-paid IT job, and some people barely make ends meet. These people need a place to live, too, a cheap, non-advanced place, with many corners cut for the sake of it being cheap to build and maintain. It's still much better than living in a tent as your primary residence!
> If the other option is living on the street, why not?
That's a big "if." Surely not a significant portion of this $800k or the cost of any "luxury" apartment is due to it having a kitchen and bathroom.
That's a big "if." Surely not a significant portion of this $800k or the cost of any "luxury" apartment is due to it having a kitchen and bathroom.
building codes make a "luxury" apartment and an "affordable" apartment approximately the same. the main difference is how much rent can be charged.
The question was, is it luxury?
> If the other option is living on the street, why not?
Those aren't our only choices.
> some people barely make ends meet. These people need a place to live, too, a cheap, non-advanced place, with many corners cut for the sake of it being cheap to build and maintain.
And they also, like other humans, need kitchens and bathrooms. Also, kitchens save a lot of money - cooking is by far the least expensive way to eat.
> If the other option is living on the street, why not?
Those aren't our only choices.
> some people barely make ends meet. These people need a place to live, too, a cheap, non-advanced place, with many corners cut for the sake of it being cheap to build and maintain.
And they also, like other humans, need kitchens and bathrooms. Also, kitchens save a lot of money - cooking is by far the least expensive way to eat.
I agree.
But it's better to have one kitchen for several units ("single rooms"), than none at all, and not even a single room.
Back to the beginning: I don't think that decrepit SRO buildings had to be perpetuated. But I suppose that moving people out of them should have included an offer of some other affordable housing, back in the time they were being removed, I need to find out what has been done.
But it's better to have one kitchen for several units ("single rooms"), than none at all, and not even a single room.
Back to the beginning: I don't think that decrepit SRO buildings had to be perpetuated. But I suppose that moving people out of them should have included an offer of some other affordable housing, back in the time they were being removed, I need to find out what has been done.
> But it's better to have one kitchen for several units ("single rooms"), than none at all, and not even a single room.
I guess, but I wonder if kitchen construction is really holding back affordable housing.
> I suppose that moving people out of them should have included an offer of some other affordable housing, back in the time they were being removed, I need to find out what has been done.
I know that in the mid-20th century, in at least some cities, when the governments cleared African-American neighborhoods for freeways, white developments, etc., there were some promises but mostly people were left high and dry. Also, remember that black people couldn't get loans- direct policy of the Federal government and New Deal - or even decent-paying jobs (or an education to get jobs ...), so they didn't own the properties where they lived (they rented) and wouldn't have received that compensation.
I guess, but I wonder if kitchen construction is really holding back affordable housing.
> I suppose that moving people out of them should have included an offer of some other affordable housing, back in the time they were being removed, I need to find out what has been done.
I know that in the mid-20th century, in at least some cities, when the governments cleared African-American neighborhoods for freeways, white developments, etc., there were some promises but mostly people were left high and dry. Also, remember that black people couldn't get loans- direct policy of the Federal government and New Deal - or even decent-paying jobs (or an education to get jobs ...), so they didn't own the properties where they lived (they rented) and wouldn't have received that compensation.
My apartment in Lausanne had a bathroom and a kitchen, except the kitchen was one stovetop and a sink in a small cabinet next to the door. It was small, still cost me 900 CHF/month (in 2006!), but Lausanne is expensive.
I don't think those would be allowed in most (American) cities either, I don't think 20 sqm is rentable.
I don't think those would be allowed in most (American) cities either, I don't think 20 sqm is rentable.
My first place in London in 2003 was £520 a month, about £875 today. It was a 10 square metre room with a shower in one corner, bed in one corner, small kitchen sink in one corner, and a door in the fourth corner. There was a shared toilet.
Ideally I'd have had a slightly smaller room, but with a private toilet (there was certainly enough space in the footprint for a 2m*1m toilet/sink/shower), but apart form that it was great (given the cost - about half my net income), far better than sharing a house. As a young person needing to be close to a London office but without the luxury of having parents giving me a free room.
Ideally I'd have had a slightly smaller room, but with a private toilet (there was certainly enough space in the footprint for a 2m*1m toilet/sink/shower), but apart form that it was great (given the cost - about half my net income), far better than sharing a house. As a young person needing to be close to a London office but without the luxury of having parents giving me a free room.
> What is luxurious about them?
I'm reminded of a previous thread where I asserted that America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings :-/
I'm reminded of a previous thread where I asserted that America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings :-/
Basically, we’d be better off if the government had done nothing. Seems like that happens a lot.
Incentives for governments to deliver good results are much lower than in the private markets(not non-existent though), which is why governments are so bad at capital allocation. Its almost like the government wants to look like they are doing something, without ever actually following through.
I think you misunderstand the incentives. The elimination of the residential hotels and boarding houses of yesteryear (to be replaced with two-or-three bedroom apartments) was a deliberate exercise in class warfare, and the governments in question were largely delivering what voters wanted.
The remarkable part is the people who still defend the measures as for-the-poor's-own-good.
The remarkable part is the people who still defend the measures as for-the-poor's-own-good.
I very well might, but my particular observation is with government behavior towards most projects, not just the one in this headline.
Well, what should have been done is enforce laws (and pass legislation if necessary) to prevent the SROs from being allowed to decline into slums.
Then you're just back to where you began -- a situation where government is going to need to takeover, because nobody can make a profit selling flophouses to indigent single men if they're required by law to make them as nice as middle-class apartments.
What modern Westerners seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge or accept is that if you require by decree that all accommodations look like middle-class accommodations, then you'll absolutely be able to get rid of all those worse accommodations, but you won't have done anything to address the reasons they existed in the first place.
What modern Westerners seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge or accept is that if you require by decree that all accommodations look like middle-class accommodations, then you'll absolutely be able to get rid of all those worse accommodations, but you won't have done anything to address the reasons they existed in the first place.
> nobody can make a profit selling flophouses to indigent single men if they're required by law to make them as nice as middle-class apartments.
What exactly do you mean when you say "as nice as middle-class apartments"? Are you talking about how nice the carpeting and hardwood flooring is? How nice the building looks from the outside? How likely the roof is to leak or collapse? How safe the electrical wiring and fire suppression systems are?
What exactly do you mean when you say "as nice as middle-class apartments"? Are you talking about how nice the carpeting and hardwood flooring is? How nice the building looks from the outside? How likely the roof is to leak or collapse? How safe the electrical wiring and fire suppression systems are?
What if it's closer to the latter? Like, what if the building doesn't have GFCI outlets in the kitchens? And maybe the roof in one of the bathrooms leaks and there's been a bucket under it for the last few months? And maybe the heat was out for 12 days last month? What then? What if the price of saying, "sorry, that's unacceptable" is that those men sleep on the street, instead?
In the West that's exactly what we've done. We've said, sorry, no, you can't provide housing that looks like that, so the operators of those establishments said, OK, then, I won't. And now those men sleep on the street.
We seem to think that we can demand of proprietors whatever we want and they'll have no choice but to comply. But it's simply not true. At some threshold they'll just shut down. And then I guess we can celebrate the elimination of "substandard" housing and declare ourselves morally cleansed.
In the West that's exactly what we've done. We've said, sorry, no, you can't provide housing that looks like that, so the operators of those establishments said, OK, then, I won't. And now those men sleep on the street.
We seem to think that we can demand of proprietors whatever we want and they'll have no choice but to comply. But it's simply not true. At some threshold they'll just shut down. And then I guess we can celebrate the elimination of "substandard" housing and declare ourselves morally cleansed.
I get what you're saying, but surely there ought to be some limit on how unsafe a rental property can be, right? For one thing, at some point it actually won't even be true that "it's better than sleeping on the street." When the cheap electrical wiring causes a fire that burns down the apartment building and kills a few dozen people, that probably wasn't better than if the victims had slept on the street that particular night. So if your landlord is selling you a nightly probability that you'll be safer than if you had slept on the street, this "better than the street" sound bite sounds a little less appealing. Not to mention that the rentees probably aren't properly informed of these probabilities.
Secondly, I think it's a false dichotomy in practice. I find it very hard to believe that basic safety codes alone cause the difference between SRO-style buildings and "luxury" or even "middle-class" apartments. What percentage of that $800k was spent on the GFCI outlets in the kitchen?
Secondly, I think it's a false dichotomy in practice. I find it very hard to believe that basic safety codes alone cause the difference between SRO-style buildings and "luxury" or even "middle-class" apartments. What percentage of that $800k was spent on the GFCI outlets in the kitchen?
To be clear, I'm not an ideological libertarian. I just happen to think these are genuinely difficult problems and the tradeoffs aren't always obvious. In some cases, we won't like any of the options.
So, yes, I agree with you. Surely there must be some limit. But what's optimal?
So, yes, I agree with you. Surely there must be some limit. But what's optimal?
I don't claim to be able to draw up very specific legal code here, or even that there is some "objectively optimal" answer. I just don't think "it's better than sleeping on the street" is a great mode of argument, because 1) it might not even be true if people were fully informed of the risks associated with every rental unit and 2) even if it is true, society might not be willing to allow landlords to earn unrestricted profit from renting units that are infinitesimally "better than sleeping on the street."
Even if SROs would be slums, they would be better than the street slums of LA. How is a tent city better than a decrepit building?
The tent cannot fall on your head? But I get what you mean.
> The tent cannot fall on your head?
That is a good point.
Tent cities are preferable to poorly built dangerous masonry.
That is a good point.
Tent cities are preferable to poorly built dangerous masonry.
Well they were often considered slums by politicians by who lived there, not by the craftsmanship of the build.
I once saw a very beautiful large building on hackernews. Then one person commented that it was turned into a dozen condos so that it was affordable to everyone (including racial minorities).
The next HN comment immediately talked about how that building is a slum.
You literally cannot see the residents inside. It's impossible to tell. It's the same building but now somehow it was ruining the character of the neighborhood. Strange.
The next HN comment immediately talked about how that building is a slum.
You literally cannot see the residents inside. It's impossible to tell. It's the same building but now somehow it was ruining the character of the neighborhood. Strange.
More like, we'd be better off if voters didn't demand short-term actions with negative long-term effects.
Precisely this. In LA there are constant referendums about homelessness, in CA massive budget increases, and yet, nobody will allow a shelter or multi-family unit to be constructed in their neighborhood, lest their soaring land value peak.
In CA, it's my firm belief that people have a tad too much power over the minutae of government operations. What did we even elect people for if we are going to try to solve everything with referendums and protests?
In CA, it's my firm belief that people have a tad too much power over the minutae of government operations. What did we even elect people for if we are going to try to solve everything with referendums and protests?
For some reason, referendum-soaked Switzerland is governed somehow more sanely.
If you somehow could swap the US population with the Swiss (times 30, of course), I imagine our homeless problems would evaporate within a few years. I believe homelessness represents a social issue in North America, not a political one. I live in New York and I don't think any amount of affordable housing, handouts, or government intervention solve fix the problems of the people I walk past every day, nor will they stop the pipeline of people soon to be in the same position.
Luckily, SB9 and SB10 are massive pushes in the right direction for California, accompanied by incandescent rage of my local NIMBYs.
those bills are for political optics and favor, not to really make a dent in the homelessness issue. they're designed to allow people who already own land to make some extra cash, not to provide housing (less than 2% of CA residential properties can even take advantage of them). what we need are real, significant zoning reforms. things like making every residential zone mixed-use (residential + light commercial), and remove setback requirements, floor area ratio (FAR) restrictions, yard/parking specifications, and height restrictions.
So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?
Sounds more like too much direct democracy, and needs to slide further towards representative.
You mean too little direct democracy. Only a handful of people are actually engaging in local politics and therey are no longer representing the community as a whole. Special interest groups are the opposite of democracy.
Is that your opinion on marijuana policy in California?
Which issues, pray tell, are best governed by local control and which are best governed by top-down, remote decision makers?
Which issues, pray tell, are best governed by local control and which are best governed by top-down, remote decision makers?
The emperor can also be your representative, and so is Putin to russians, and the slightly more complex US system. The slider is democracy to tyranny, just because we dont yet have democracy in most or all countries doesn't change anything here. We just have twisted its meaning to describe some decision power when choosing tyrants. Either all decide equally-democracy , or fewer to very few or one-tyranny.
Feels like a flamebaity false-dichotomy.
Is it really tyrannical to, say, elect officials to act on our behalf and consider long-term impacts and x-order effects?
Because to me that just sounds a little more "republic" and a little less "direct democracy".
Is it really tyrannical to, say, elect officials to act on our behalf and consider long-term impacts and x-order effects?
Because to me that just sounds a little more "republic" and a little less "direct democracy".
Absolutely not. Democracy can be fair and open elections, not crowdsourced legislation.
That's exactly it. One of the reasons that the US (and other representative democracies) have limits on direct voter rule explicitly to prevent a "too democratic" situation yielding "mob rule" outcomes.
Sounds like a reason to justify tyranny to me. What do you mean mob rule. In a (true) democratic society just a small group can change something the majority disagrees with because they got together? The majority is also together in the same matter isnt it?
Well, the idea recognizes two concepts:
- We don't want the minority enforcing on the majority
- We don't want a plurality or even a majority enforcing on a minority under certain circumstances
So, for instance, even if 300 million Americans think "sfe22 should be stripped of their assets and have it given to us 300 million" that's not going to happen. Yes, that is 'tyrannical' of you to have such power but it is so nonetheless.
- We don't want the minority enforcing on the majority
- We don't want a plurality or even a majority enforcing on a minority under certain circumstances
So, for instance, even if 300 million Americans think "sfe22 should be stripped of their assets and have it given to us 300 million" that's not going to happen. Yes, that is 'tyrannical' of you to have such power but it is so nonetheless.
Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to set an example that still would tell many a lot about this hypothetical america. Would a tyrant really be of any help then, maybe if it was somehow “good” to me, for a limited time but definitely does not justify its existence and cost on freedom and wealth.
Right, and that's your thesis for the world, but America lives under a different thesis, and some individual rights are protected, _even_ if 95% of people disagree.
Who decides what are individual rights? Would they be held up if 95% disagree with it? I mean it might work idk, it would just not be a democracy.
You're right. 95% is a bit much since they'd just amend the constitution and whack me. But it goes up to 66%-1 in the legislature, and I think that would correspond to ~75% in real life, so that's good.
That's the paradox isn't it. Mob rule ends up being tyranny.
Democracy isn't a Boolean value, it's a cluster of loosely related concepts and practices.
Total democracy is mob rule of the majority.
Voters didn’t order the SROs in bunker hill destroyed. Follow the money. Who stood to gain in the time when that SRO was raized into a parking lot then turned into the hotel Bonaventure in downtown LA? It wasn’t voters, it was a handful of politically connected people.
I think you may underrate how much people in the local community hated SROs. It was definitely politically popular at the time to remove them.
And why not allow them now? If you compare the housing market to the job market, the general opinion (in the US) is that there should be very few restrictions for jobs in terms of low salaries and work conditions (and the lack of unions allows that). The same reasonning should allow to have low quality housing but cheap.
But there are no downside for the ones who profit from employing people with very low salaries and very poor work conditions, whereas letting exist cheap housing indeed makes the property value around them go down. So it is really a choice made today not to reduce homelessness.
Yeah, voting whites hated the low income blacks latinos and asians who rented these, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
You can drill-down to a specific SRO building to find a unique story, but the overwhelming trend from 1960-2010 was to eliminate SRO because of health and safety concerns.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
A positive interest rate demands short term actions with immediate effects and disregards negative long term effects. Getting rid of positive interest rates requires eliminating all monopolies. It is a cat and mouse game but it is THE cat and mouse game. If you win you win big.
Collectively we would be better off but many individuals would not be which is the crux of the problem.
SROs have returned as urban co-housing dorms for z-llenials. They consist of a cramped bedroom, sometimes with a private bath. But shared cooking, dining and recreation spaces.
The only thing is they often cost a lot relative to what they are and therefore aren't exactly a viable solution to someone who can't even manage rent with roomates
[deleted]
Where do all these numbers and other claims come from? Without evidence, we're all writing works of fiction - compelling stories, but not reality.
> handed over design and construction of the crossovers to a company that builds snowplows.
Who is analogous to the snowplow building company?
> SROs used to be provided by the private market, largely free to taxpayers!
What do we know about SROs and their outcomes?
> handed over design and construction of the crossovers to a company that builds snowplows.
Who is analogous to the snowplow building company?
> SROs used to be provided by the private market, largely free to taxpayers!
What do we know about SROs and their outcomes?
>What do we know about SROs and their outcomes?
That they housed people who today live in nylon tents with no plumbing/hvac/security.
That they housed people who today live in nylon tents with no plumbing/hvac/security.
What is that based on? And what did SROs provide? Did they provide plumbing, HVAC, and security? I never heard of SROs being known for their a/c and security, and the plumbing didn't have a great reputation.
They provided your own room with a lock on the door and a bed, and a shared bathroom and kitchen, for a price that was substantially lower than any other unit of housing on offer in the area, so yes they provided these things. If these things were lacking, then it was the state of the times in code enforcement and you would expect these things to be lacking in any lower income housing unit during this time as well. That doesn't mean a modern SRO would be filled with any more code violations than your typical low income apartment today since code enforcement has gotten more modern.
Again, what is all that based on? A story without evidence is fiction - a nice story, but not reality.
>The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
It sounds like that "up to" in the title is doing a lot of work if 86% are below $700k. I would also like to throw in the added context that the median home price is roughly $915k[1]. Also be mindful whether we are discussing LA county or LA city. The article is about an LA city program. Housing in LA county will be cheaper and the median there is just under $800k[2]. So all of these projects are under the median cost of housing and the overwhelming majority are at least 25% below median.
This doesn't seem like much of a controversy once you know that context. Housing in LA is simply expensive.
[1] - https://www.redfin.com/city/11203/CA/Los-Angeles/housing-mar...
[2] - https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-04/what-l-a-c...
It sounds like that "up to" in the title is doing a lot of work if 86% are below $700k. I would also like to throw in the added context that the median home price is roughly $915k[1]. Also be mindful whether we are discussing LA county or LA city. The article is about an LA city program. Housing in LA county will be cheaper and the median there is just under $800k[2]. So all of these projects are under the median cost of housing and the overwhelming majority are at least 25% below median.
This doesn't seem like much of a controversy once you know that context. Housing in LA is simply expensive.
[1] - https://www.redfin.com/city/11203/CA/Los-Angeles/housing-mar...
[2] - https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-04/what-l-a-c...
The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit. Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused. We'll see if the paper writes a story on how the cost of housing a homeless person has been cut in half after the units turn over to new tenants after the old ones move into their self-sufficient lives.
> The city isn't spending $837K to house one homeless person, they've spent that on housing the first homeless person in that unit.
Unless they are housing functioning tenants (the easier homeless cases that don't involve mental illness or substance abuse, the ones that can get back on their feet with some help), those units are likely to get damaged quickly and require extensive refurbishment within a year or two. Hopefully they are using discretion in who gets that housing, or it will wind up costing them another $100k every couple of years to keep the unit inhabitable.
Unless they are housing functioning tenants (the easier homeless cases that don't involve mental illness or substance abuse, the ones that can get back on their feet with some help), those units are likely to get damaged quickly and require extensive refurbishment within a year or two. Hopefully they are using discretion in who gets that housing, or it will wind up costing them another $100k every couple of years to keep the unit inhabitable.
An effective homeless program probably has to include rehab, occupational therapy, and related services, yes.
There is a fallacy here: it is not just "one homogenous group of homeless" that you can help with the same turnkey solution. No, there are easy cases (people living out of their cars, still capable of holding down jobs, they just need help) and there are hard cases (people who lost their jobs and housing because they got addicted to drugs or couldn't stop drinking, or fell into mental illness), and probably many cases in between. We should throw lots of resources at easy cases: get them housing, make sure they can continue working or get them work, subsidize their rent but don't just give them a place (because people will value what they have to pay for vs. what they are given).
Hard cases...I'm not sure if many of them are ever going to be normal again. Many people with fentanyl addictions are just really messed up, and there isn't much we can do to solve their addictions. Same to a lesser extent for alcoholism, and mental health problems. Housing first also doesn't work well for them, because their addictions are so strong that they trash housing given to them, sell what they can, and wind up on the streets again because it is the best way to support their addiction.
I think because hard cases are so hard to solve, we should devote almost all of our resources on (a) kids (so they can avoid this fate) and (b) easy homeless cases so we can prevent them from becoming hard cases.
Many homeless advocates seem to want it both ways: that not every homeless is an addict (true), but that we should throw the exact same resources at addicts as we do at people who just couldn't pay rent (false). I don't understand why they do this, it doesn't help their cause (and they don't make progress because their solutions are not well matched to the problems they are solving).
Hard cases...I'm not sure if many of them are ever going to be normal again. Many people with fentanyl addictions are just really messed up, and there isn't much we can do to solve their addictions. Same to a lesser extent for alcoholism, and mental health problems. Housing first also doesn't work well for them, because their addictions are so strong that they trash housing given to them, sell what they can, and wind up on the streets again because it is the best way to support their addiction.
I think because hard cases are so hard to solve, we should devote almost all of our resources on (a) kids (so they can avoid this fate) and (b) easy homeless cases so we can prevent them from becoming hard cases.
Many homeless advocates seem to want it both ways: that not every homeless is an addict (true), but that we should throw the exact same resources at addicts as we do at people who just couldn't pay rent (false). I don't understand why they do this, it doesn't help their cause (and they don't make progress because their solutions are not well matched to the problems they are solving).
> Unless they're planning on these people never improving their situation to the point of moving out and for the unit to be destroyed in the process, the units can be reused.
You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.
You'd be surprised to learn how little planning is done for the next step. Authorities (at least here in SF) are myopically focused on moving people into housing; there is no step 2 after that. That's why we have to keep building more housing, as people are not graduating out of the housing to make room for others.
No, I wouldn't be surprised, that's why I used the word "planning" instead of "assuming" or "leaving them to..." As the saying goes, "Failing to plan is planning to fail."
In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program.
In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.
In SF you have to account for the fact that the city is de facto prohibited from spending money on anything other than piecemeal programs, not to mention the upkeep and staffing to alleviate the deterioration of existing housing options. Every few years somebody manages to convince enough Supervisors that they've found a silver bullet and to give them some money for a meager pilot program to help a hard problem that requires actual money, experts, and priority. Oh, but there's pushback from $300K/yr techbros who have lived in SF for over two years and are sure it's all gone out of control ever since they had to step over a needle once. There are lots of knowledgeable and motivated people working in homeless and drug outreach along with related organizations that have like zero dollars. I'm not one of these experts and experienced people, but I'm pretty sure they should be funded and integrated more into an overall program.
In Sacramento they're preparing to kick people out of their hotel program, but the Sheriff is waiting with bated breath right outside the door: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article258051333.html I half expect them to describe putting the homeless in jail as a savings.
A large part of the cost is ongoing things like 24/7 security, sharps disposal, maintenance, etc. The costs per placement will hopefully go down over time but I don't think they will scale linearly
Uhh, but isn't this how every build is calculated per unit? Its still expensive per unit, which is the whole point. Every unit can be used gain, apartments are never disposable.
I think this is a great point, but may still disagree with it.
To put it another way, we are taking people out of homelessness, and putting them in houses that are more expensive than 30-40% of units on the market. So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent.
The cost to house homeless shouldn't be slightly below median. Realistically, it should be in the 1th percentile.
To put it another way, we are taking people out of homelessness, and putting them in houses that are more expensive than 30-40% of units on the market. So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent.
The cost to house homeless shouldn't be slightly below median. Realistically, it should be in the 1th percentile.
Remember these are new units and those median prices are for all units regardless of age and condition. It is really impractical to build new units in the 1st percentile. Those are almost always going to be old units that are poorly maintained.
You also can't just give this money to homeless people and let them buy or rent their own places because the fundamental problem is a lack of supply. Simply giving them money would increase the cost of homes for everyone else and in turn feed into a cycle of creating more homeless people. The city needs to build new homes to increase the supply.
You also can't just give this money to homeless people and let them buy or rent their own places because the fundamental problem is a lack of supply. Simply giving them money would increase the cost of homes for everyone else and in turn feed into a cycle of creating more homeless people. The city needs to build new homes to increase the supply.
This is that classic "you can't grow old forests" problem.
If someone needed a car to get to work, you would never think of providing them with a brand new one. But we are kind of in that situation with housing.
I think the city could have saved a bunch of money here sourcing existing housing, then putting the savings into funding general new construction. But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units.
If someone needed a car to get to work, you would never think of providing them with a brand new one. But we are kind of in that situation with housing.
I think the city could have saved a bunch of money here sourcing existing housing, then putting the savings into funding general new construction. But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units.
>But a $100 million kickback to a developer to add 1500 units is somehow less politically popular than $1 billion dollars for 1200 units.
Even assuming this is true, there are plenty of reasons this might be a good deal. One is greater control over construction, alignment of incentives (i.e., the developer incentive is to put up the worst pieces of junk they can get away with), long-term ownership if this is to be a long-term program, etc.
Even assuming this is true, there are plenty of reasons this might be a good deal. One is greater control over construction, alignment of incentives (i.e., the developer incentive is to put up the worst pieces of junk they can get away with), long-term ownership if this is to be a long-term program, etc.
> So the members of the program are getting a much worse deal than if they were just given money directly to pay rent.
There are programs like that, including large ones like federal Section 8. It's not simple at all: Landlords will often refuse to rent to Section 8 participants. Also, people who are unhoused often need other services in order to get back on their feet.
There are programs like that, including large ones like federal Section 8. It's not simple at all: Landlords will often refuse to rent to Section 8 participants. Also, people who are unhoused often need other services in order to get back on their feet.
And unfortunately, in certain areas that used to be affordable to low income working class people, the folks that win the lottery for the few Section 8 vouchers can drive up rent, as that flat rate is now considered the floor that landlords can charge.
Hmmm ... Section 8 is not known for paying a lot, afaik, and not a large source of demand. Also, rents have been shooting up while Section 8 has (afaik) not.
But do we have data anywhere? (I don't.)
But do we have data anywhere? (I don't.)
Section 8 pays close to market rate, otherwise the program wouldn't get anywhere. My section 8 unit is tad cheaper than what I could get otherwise. But my rents are always lower than market anyway.
The tradeoff is that the government always pays on time, and there is some motivation for tenants to behave (e.g., noise, nuisance, property upkeep) in order to keep their section 8 voucher in good standing.
The tradeoff is that the government always pays on time, and there is some motivation for tenants to behave (e.g., noise, nuisance, property upkeep) in order to keep their section 8 voucher in good standing.
I thought section 8 housing could only be rented to section 8 participants?
Section 8 isn't restricted to just subsidized housing developments[1]. It can also be used as a subsidy to any private market rental as well, where the landlord is paid the subsidy from the Section 8 program and the tenant is responsible for any rental costs above that (if any).
That said, it's a hassle for landlords. They have a separate contract and commitments with the local housing authority that disburses the subsidy, in addition to the lease with the tenant. And are subject to annual home inspections by that housing authority. And most importantly in a booming market, there are legal caps to how much a tenant's annual income can be dedicated to housing and utilities. Between the income limits to qualify for section 8 and the cap on income that can go to housing, the amount that an individual can actually spend on top of the subsidy is fairly limited and may not bridge the gap to going-rates for private rentals in an area. Between that and the stigma attached to the quality of tenants using section 8, it's common for private landlords in a good market with a standard or better unit to pass on a section 8 applicant and hold out for another tenant with fewer strings attached to the transaction.
[1] https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_se...
That said, it's a hassle for landlords. They have a separate contract and commitments with the local housing authority that disburses the subsidy, in addition to the lease with the tenant. And are subject to annual home inspections by that housing authority. And most importantly in a booming market, there are legal caps to how much a tenant's annual income can be dedicated to housing and utilities. Between the income limits to qualify for section 8 and the cap on income that can go to housing, the amount that an individual can actually spend on top of the subsidy is fairly limited and may not bridge the gap to going-rates for private rentals in an area. Between that and the stigma attached to the quality of tenants using section 8, it's common for private landlords in a good market with a standard or better unit to pass on a section 8 applicant and hold out for another tenant with fewer strings attached to the transaction.
[1] https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_se...
Unless I'm confusing my programs, Section 8 is a voucher that is used to rent market units.
Correct. I have section 8 tenants in one of mine. They pay around fifteen percent of their rent, and the government pays the rest. There are advantages and disadvantages, but we're three years in and they're good tenants. Ten times better than the colleges students I always had in there before.
That's the dirty secret that some don't want to acknowledge: there are plenty of people for whom life has just been unkind to and they aren't slobs just because of their income level. This is doubly true for most poor immigrant families... of all the homes I've been in which were owned by Spanish speaking families, I've rarely ever seen one that wasn't spotless, much less organized. I helped a few neighbors move out of their homes and after we got done moving the furniture, they literally just had to sweep the dust that had accumulated underneath the furniture and they were done with cleaning on move-out.
I think comparing to the median SFH price is a bit apples to oranges. Keep in mind that (as far as I know?) the city isn't building actual houses. Most of these developments are more like college dorms or fancy campgrounds (e.g. a parking lot with a bunch of one room 8x8 shelters and a communal bathroom- granted those "tiny homes" are probably not the ones costing over $700k).
You’re right that SFHs definitely skew the median average up, but as someone who lives in Los Angeles — you would be hard pressed to find a brand new apartment unit in the city for less than $800k. Anecdotally, almost all new-build condos I’ve seen (and I saw a lot, when I was home shopping across many different neighborhoods) are just as expensive, if not more expensive, than old/partially-renovated SFHs (which is what I ended up getting). This is pretty universal real estate rule across all LA neighborhoods, per my realtor: new sfh > new condo >= old sfh > old condo (old meaning it’s in need of at least some non-cosmetic renovation or structural retrofit)
Part of the issue is the zoning code as it is really only makes it possible for developers to build larger/luxury developments. You don’t see many 4plexes getting built because all of the red tape makes it less profitable than building a new SFH on a multi-unit lot (which I’ve unfortunately seen happen when a charming but old 4plex got demolished in place of a new build McMansion). Hopefully sb9 and sb10 change that.
I’m short, I think that at least among new build condos, Los Angeles social housing is still at or below median price per unit. It’s a shame it’s that expensive, but that’s the hole CA dug itself into by not allowing more housing to be built organically.
Part of the issue is the zoning code as it is really only makes it possible for developers to build larger/luxury developments. You don’t see many 4plexes getting built because all of the red tape makes it less profitable than building a new SFH on a multi-unit lot (which I’ve unfortunately seen happen when a charming but old 4plex got demolished in place of a new build McMansion). Hopefully sb9 and sb10 change that.
I’m short, I think that at least among new build condos, Los Angeles social housing is still at or below median price per unit. It’s a shame it’s that expensive, but that’s the hole CA dug itself into by not allowing more housing to be built organically.
The sentence before that quote I pulled was "Most [emphasis mine] of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments." That seems to imply that the 14% above $700k are probably 2 or more bedrooms and are designed for families. The article has no details on the costs per unit for the other 86% that likely include those dorm room style units.
Journalism is left to the comments these days. God forbid a professional journalist actually present factual information in a clear and concise way for people to digest and make decisions for themselves.
the fact that any housing is getting built is frankly a refreshing turn of events.
for people unfamiliar with los angeles, is very much a city of landed gentry. republican legislation designed to curtail rising taxes for elderly residents 40 years ago wound up creating a cloistered elite of land-owners that pay nearly nothing in tax and resist any attempt to create additional housing. They coast on a bubble of six-figure increases in equity per year with little to prevent a ramshackle bungalow in inglewood from fetching a cash-only two million dollar price.
when legislators typically try to address the very same landed gentry's cries for relief from the homeless, they wind up collecting windfall bond measure revenue. as they gain momentum and start striking ground, most communities put up fierce NIMBY opposition and mire whatever initiatives that are approved in court. the city in turn eventually gives up, settles, and uses the remaining funds to quietly continue sanitation and cleanup efforts of camps, occasionally running the homeless away for a day or two.
for the city to bemoan rising costs and slow pace is a bit ironic as well. when LA decided to give up on property taxes it had to find a way to make up the difference. hence a league of esoteric inspections and byzantine permitting started popping up for new homes. it means contractors sit idle and watch the price of lumber skyrocket while your self-licking ice cream cone melts in the sun.
for people unfamiliar with los angeles, is very much a city of landed gentry. republican legislation designed to curtail rising taxes for elderly residents 40 years ago wound up creating a cloistered elite of land-owners that pay nearly nothing in tax and resist any attempt to create additional housing. They coast on a bubble of six-figure increases in equity per year with little to prevent a ramshackle bungalow in inglewood from fetching a cash-only two million dollar price.
when legislators typically try to address the very same landed gentry's cries for relief from the homeless, they wind up collecting windfall bond measure revenue. as they gain momentum and start striking ground, most communities put up fierce NIMBY opposition and mire whatever initiatives that are approved in court. the city in turn eventually gives up, settles, and uses the remaining funds to quietly continue sanitation and cleanup efforts of camps, occasionally running the homeless away for a day or two.
for the city to bemoan rising costs and slow pace is a bit ironic as well. when LA decided to give up on property taxes it had to find a way to make up the difference. hence a league of esoteric inspections and byzantine permitting started popping up for new homes. it means contractors sit idle and watch the price of lumber skyrocket while your self-licking ice cream cone melts in the sun.
I think you're talking about this in pretty black/white terms and the partisan framing doesn't do much. Prop 13 is a double edged sword IMO.
It does have the problem you describe of landed gentry not getting hit with high property taxes, but also it does protect middle class people from getting kicked out of their homes due to the popularity of the area they live in. My parents are the perfect example of this, my dad is a plumber and my mom is a teacher, my entire life they barely broke 100k combined and were BARELY able to give me and my sibling a decent life in LA. If their property taxes had risen with the rate of the area that they bought a house in as we grew up, we would have been unable to continue living there and forced to leave. The same thing goes with my grandparents.
California has very high income tax, which arguably compensates for the low property taxes. This strikes me as more fair, as the high earners are the ones hit with the tax bills rather than my grandma, who made nothing and had no way to pay the tax that comes with a $2M property valuation, despite having worked hard to buy her house when she was younger.
So yeah, you're right in some sense, but its not fair to completely ignore the alternative of lower/middle class people being kicked out of their homes if they didn't have prop 13. The real problem here is the NIMBYism that you describe and restrictive zoning.
ALSO, the landed gentry are sort of limited as well. Yes their primary home (the one they live in) has a limited tax bill, but additional homes they own, they will probably end up renting out, and that rental income will be subject to California's high income tax.
It does have the problem you describe of landed gentry not getting hit with high property taxes, but also it does protect middle class people from getting kicked out of their homes due to the popularity of the area they live in. My parents are the perfect example of this, my dad is a plumber and my mom is a teacher, my entire life they barely broke 100k combined and were BARELY able to give me and my sibling a decent life in LA. If their property taxes had risen with the rate of the area that they bought a house in as we grew up, we would have been unable to continue living there and forced to leave. The same thing goes with my grandparents.
California has very high income tax, which arguably compensates for the low property taxes. This strikes me as more fair, as the high earners are the ones hit with the tax bills rather than my grandma, who made nothing and had no way to pay the tax that comes with a $2M property valuation, despite having worked hard to buy her house when she was younger.
So yeah, you're right in some sense, but its not fair to completely ignore the alternative of lower/middle class people being kicked out of their homes if they didn't have prop 13. The real problem here is the NIMBYism that you describe and restrictive zoning.
ALSO, the landed gentry are sort of limited as well. Yes their primary home (the one they live in) has a limited tax bill, but additional homes they own, they will probably end up renting out, and that rental income will be subject to California's high income tax.
Low income seniors who hit the real estate jackpot can defer taxes indefinitely.
It's called the California Tax Postponement Program and solves exactly the problem you're discussing.
It's called the California Tax Postponement Program and solves exactly the problem you're discussing.
> If their property taxes had risen with the rate of the area that they bought a house in as we grew up, we would have been unable to continue living there and forced to leave. The same thing goes with my grandparents.
We're ensuring stability for the older generation, at the expense of a younger generation who couldn't possibly afford the same neighbourhood they grew up in.
Those with millions in real estate equity can use that equity and financial engineering to defer the property tax increases until their death.
We're ensuring stability for the older generation, at the expense of a younger generation who couldn't possibly afford the same neighbourhood they grew up in.
Those with millions in real estate equity can use that equity and financial engineering to defer the property tax increases until their death.
Prop 19 more or less eliminated the landed gentry problem. Previously children could inherit their parent's primary residence and get their parent's tax base, even if they didn't want to live in the home. Before we bought a house we rented and my landlord was in that position. He already owned his own home in addition to several other properties in SF... yet he inherited his mom's house at a 200k tax basis, a house that would sell for $1.2m. His children could inherit the house from him, keeping the 200k tax base. And their children. And their children. Forever creating a true landed gentry.
Now with Prop 19 children can only keep the lower tax basis if they use the home as their primary residence and it only excludes up to 1m in value.
Now with Prop 19 children can only keep the lower tax basis if they use the home as their primary residence and it only excludes up to 1m in value.
Prop 19 only passed because it did not of course affect the landed gentry. You just register your home as an LLC.
https://www.hollisterlawoffice.com/the-llc-loophole-in-the-a...
https://www.hollisterlawoffice.com/the-llc-loophole-in-the-a...
Prop 13 is bad policy as demonstrated by every single area of the world that gets by without it. Most cities assess property values on a lagging window basis where your value for property taxes is set every few years based on the value from a few years ago. This generally gives you time to prepare for the increase or make whatever financial decisions you need to. One thing to keep in mind is that percentage property tax rates are necessarily set higher when some people pay taxes on values far below market. My region has a 0.63% property tax rate which amounts to about $6,300 a year on a million dollar home. That might be larger than one month of a mortgage payment but it's a reasonable price to pay for all the services the city provides. I live in a city where this includes garbage, mail, police, fire, transportation and sewage infrastructure and a number of other important services. The idea that someone who bought a house in 1963 should pay less than 10% of the taxes that other taxpayers do means that someone or several someone's are footing the remainder of the bill. You pay a substantial price for that as new homes become less affordable with the higher % rates of property tax. It's also not clear that being forced to sell over high property tax bills is a bad thing as it creates new supply on the market. Most people selling a single family home could easily afford to live in a condominium in the same neighborhood without losing touch with the people they care about. Keep in mind the necessary condition for selling is the property has gone up by enough to make the property tax bill unaffordable. This means whomever is selling their home is making a substantial profit and portraying them as low/middle income people who are hard done by is doing a disservice to anyone struggling in the artificial market created by prop 13 and paying the higher base rates associated with it.
>prepare for the increase or make whatever financial decisions you need to
What does this statement actually mean for an individual family? Most working class people cannot just demand more money from their employer. So really it just means "get ready to move out and find a new home", which means uprooting your family, commuting further, finding new schools for your kids to attend, potentially worse ones because its probably a cheaper/poorer neighborhood.
>It's also not clear that being forced to sell over high property tax bills is a bad thing
I just plain old disagree with this; my family would have been forced to move because some rich people would have displaced my working class parents, and it honestly sounds like you consider that a good thing, "well they're poorer so they don't deserve to live in a place where a lot of people want to live" is really what that argument boils down to. Even though they worked hard and saved for many years to afford to buy that place. There are very few condos in the neighborhood I grew up in, and the ones that exist are on the edge of the city in much less desirable areas. I would have had to go to a different (worse) school, lose touch with my friends and generally have much less space than I had as well. Your argument only makes sense if you consider people as wanting to live somewhere purely as a financial enterprise rather than a good safe place to raise a family.
If you eliminated the zoning restrictions and power of the NIMBYs then this would allow for the best of both worlds. We could continue to allow a tax rate for working class people, but also allow the development of more profitable/denser units. As people naturally move around, companies could buy the houses and redevelop them into denser units.
What does this statement actually mean for an individual family? Most working class people cannot just demand more money from their employer. So really it just means "get ready to move out and find a new home", which means uprooting your family, commuting further, finding new schools for your kids to attend, potentially worse ones because its probably a cheaper/poorer neighborhood.
>It's also not clear that being forced to sell over high property tax bills is a bad thing
I just plain old disagree with this; my family would have been forced to move because some rich people would have displaced my working class parents, and it honestly sounds like you consider that a good thing, "well they're poorer so they don't deserve to live in a place where a lot of people want to live" is really what that argument boils down to. Even though they worked hard and saved for many years to afford to buy that place. There are very few condos in the neighborhood I grew up in, and the ones that exist are on the edge of the city in much less desirable areas. I would have had to go to a different (worse) school, lose touch with my friends and generally have much less space than I had as well. Your argument only makes sense if you consider people as wanting to live somewhere purely as a financial enterprise rather than a good safe place to raise a family.
If you eliminated the zoning restrictions and power of the NIMBYs then this would allow for the best of both worlds. We could continue to allow a tax rate for working class people, but also allow the development of more profitable/denser units. As people naturally move around, companies could buy the houses and redevelop them into denser units.
Regarding your last point, I think you're overestimating how much rental income is subject to California's income taxes. For real estate investors expensive areas like most of CA have a reputation for being profitable in a different way than most other places.
Often rent alone isn't profitable in CA if you have to get a mortgage and even if you don't - the rent you would get is a low ROI, so investors rely more on appreciation. For some it's considered a win if the monthly cashflow is around break even, but some investors bet so heavily on appreciation and rely on the low property taxes that they find having a renter isn't worth the risk. They just want to own something that's going up in value $100,000 every year with minimal hassle.
On top of this, when they go to sell, it will often be through a 1031 exchange where they can sell the property and not have to pay taxes on the appreciation right away as long as they quickly buy another-like property within a short period after. Eventually they will have to pay the capital gains if they ever just want to sell and keep the money, but they've spent years with a negative cashflow (especially if they just let the buildings stay empty) which will help out with those capital gains taxes.
Often rent alone isn't profitable in CA if you have to get a mortgage and even if you don't - the rent you would get is a low ROI, so investors rely more on appreciation. For some it's considered a win if the monthly cashflow is around break even, but some investors bet so heavily on appreciation and rely on the low property taxes that they find having a renter isn't worth the risk. They just want to own something that's going up in value $100,000 every year with minimal hassle.
On top of this, when they go to sell, it will often be through a 1031 exchange where they can sell the property and not have to pay taxes on the appreciation right away as long as they quickly buy another-like property within a short period after. Eventually they will have to pay the capital gains if they ever just want to sell and keep the money, but they've spent years with a negative cashflow (especially if they just let the buildings stay empty) which will help out with those capital gains taxes.
always fun to see prop13ers turn themselves into victims over the idea of having to sell their 300% ROI property
It's not about selling the house, it's about being forced to move out of a city / neighborhood they've been in for decades, simply because it got more popular and they can't afford a property tax bill several times higher than their largest mortgage payment ever was.
Welcome to the real world, Californians. When you have an asset you get taxed on its value. You have no right to live somewhere indefinitely.
== "You don't deserve to live there anymore because you're not rich enough."
This is similar to arguing that people shouldn't even be allowed to own land in the first place. We're all just renting from the government and the government should ratchet up the price so that only the richest and most successful people should get to live in the nice desirable areas.
>When you have an asset you get taxed on its value.
I mean, no? We tax different assets in different ways. If you buy a bunch of stocks you don't have to pay tax on it as its value changes month by month or year by year. You only pay when you liquidate it. We can choose how to tax things for different reasons.
This is similar to arguing that people shouldn't even be allowed to own land in the first place. We're all just renting from the government and the government should ratchet up the price so that only the richest and most successful people should get to live in the nice desirable areas.
>When you have an asset you get taxed on its value.
I mean, no? We tax different assets in different ways. If you buy a bunch of stocks you don't have to pay tax on it as its value changes month by month or year by year. You only pay when you liquidate it. We can choose how to tax things for different reasons.
If property taxes were level across properties, wouldn't we likely see property values drop, given the presumed higher taxes in the future?
I'd rather see us adopt lower but uniform property tax rates that are revenue-neutral with Prop 13 rates.
Of course I'm only an aspiring property owner so I have a significant bias here.
I'd rather see us adopt lower but uniform property tax rates that are revenue-neutral with Prop 13 rates.
Of course I'm only an aspiring property owner so I have a significant bias here.
> wouldn't we likely see property values drop, given the presumed higher taxes in the future?
Yes. Prop 13 is priced in to the market. Buyers are willing to bid higher because they expect that tax cut.
Yes. Prop 13 is priced in to the market. Buyers are willing to bid higher because they expect that tax cut.
The tax resets when they buy, which also leads to people not wanting to sell because they don’t want to give up their tax cut.
Higher property tax rates lead to lower home values. If you reduce property taxes then the house will get increasingly less affordable because the money saved on taxes is getting priced into the value of the house.
The local government will get the money in a different way so you end up paying twice.
The local government will get the money in a different way so you end up paying twice.
You're right that it does have an effect, however if you look at other areas with a higher property tax, houses are still extremely expensive in desirable areas. It doesn't have as big of an effect as you'd think and it severely penalizes the middle class who are forced to relocate so that the ultra wealthy can take their place.
>The local government will get the money in a different way
This is a feature IMO, the government can get that tax revenue but in a more fair way e.g. income taxes that are skewed higher towards the ultra wealthy rather than just kicking people out of their homes, where they probably do want to live.
>The local government will get the money in a different way
This is a feature IMO, the government can get that tax revenue but in a more fair way e.g. income taxes that are skewed higher towards the ultra wealthy rather than just kicking people out of their homes, where they probably do want to live.
> curtail rising taxes
That, of course, was Proposition 13, a ballot initiative. The fallout was exactly what people predicted.
Prop 13 did two things. It capped property taxes, though there have been a variety of ways of getting around that. The other thing was it capped increases in property taxes.
Not quite Prop 13 but you can't have high increases in property values, and simultaneously have affordable housing.
Imagine, here in the SF Bay Area, 100,000 apartments magically appeared tomorrow morning. I don't think we'd see rents going up 15% a year after that.
That, of course, was Proposition 13, a ballot initiative. The fallout was exactly what people predicted.
Prop 13 did two things. It capped property taxes, though there have been a variety of ways of getting around that. The other thing was it capped increases in property taxes.
Not quite Prop 13 but you can't have high increases in property values, and simultaneously have affordable housing.
Imagine, here in the SF Bay Area, 100,000 apartments magically appeared tomorrow morning. I don't think we'd see rents going up 15% a year after that.
> Not quite Prop 13 but you can't have high increases in property values, and simultaneously have affordable housing.
Sure you can, you just also need to build new housing. The key is that the new housing has to be higher density than the old housing — the value is primarily in the land, not the house.
If a developer could legitimately and easily build a 4-plex where any single-family home exists right now, the prices of SFHs would likely stay high — they are still a luxury, and become more so as they become rarer, raising prices further — while the units in a 4-plex (still housing!) are more affordable.
Everyone wins. Except we can’t do that, because we can’t build denser housing in basically any of California.
Sure you can, you just also need to build new housing. The key is that the new housing has to be higher density than the old housing — the value is primarily in the land, not the house.
If a developer could legitimately and easily build a 4-plex where any single-family home exists right now, the prices of SFHs would likely stay high — they are still a luxury, and become more so as they become rarer, raising prices further — while the units in a 4-plex (still housing!) are more affordable.
Everyone wins. Except we can’t do that, because we can’t build denser housing in basically any of California.
Since SFH owners tend to view living next to a 4-plex as a disaster, it doesn't seem to happen the way you envision. Almost all apartment here in Silicon Valley are built on boulevards, often displacing low end retail. Nice apartment, too bad you have to drive four miles to the nearest dry cleaner.
As of recently, you will be able to build a fourplex on any SFH plot, with the passage of SB9! It's not perfect, but it is a massive step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, for SB9, this is only true for you, not a developer -- it requires that the owner retain one of the units as a primary residence. That will make it much less applicable.
Definitely a step in the right direction though!
Definitely a step in the right direction though!
Homeowners typically go ballistic at any concept for something other than single family homes in their neighborhoods.
Certainly allowing something as modest as allowing say 25% of lots in R-1 areas to be duplexes would go a long way to helping, as would allowing so called granny units (small houses in back yards or as part of garage) would also make quite a difference.
Certainly allowing something as modest as allowing say 25% of lots in R-1 areas to be duplexes would go a long way to helping, as would allowing so called granny units (small houses in back yards or as part of garage) would also make quite a difference.
> Not quite Prop 13 but you can't have high increases in property values, and simultaneously have affordable housing.
If you means test things, it can work better. If you're an artist or a retiree in san francisco, and then someone goes and invents the internet, prices will go way way up around you. If you don't want to force the artists and retirees to learn to code to keep up with housing catering to newcomers, something like prop 13 helps. But then if they do go and learn to code, taking advantage of the new skyrocketing job market, then they don't need prop 13 protections. Prices went up but their income kept pace, so they don't need the protections.
A lot of these kinds of issues seem to come back to lack of means testing or poorly implemented, non-holistic, perverse incentivizing means testing.
If you means test things, it can work better. If you're an artist or a retiree in san francisco, and then someone goes and invents the internet, prices will go way way up around you. If you don't want to force the artists and retirees to learn to code to keep up with housing catering to newcomers, something like prop 13 helps. But then if they do go and learn to code, taking advantage of the new skyrocketing job market, then they don't need prop 13 protections. Prices went up but their income kept pace, so they don't need the protections.
A lot of these kinds of issues seem to come back to lack of means testing or poorly implemented, non-holistic, perverse incentivizing means testing.
Retirees and the disabled have the California Tax Postponement Program to protect them from rising taxes. Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.
Artists? They can cash out for enormous windfall profits if they can't sell enough art.
Artists? They can cash out for enormous windfall profits if they can't sell enough art.
That's if they are property owners.
Renters have little protection in most communities.
Renters have little protection in most communities.
Liberal policies is why Los Angles has been dealing with a homeless crisis for so long. Spending $837,000 to build a single studio to house a single homeless person seems insane to most of the country.
It's nothing to do with liberal policy. It was pure corruption that happened right under the noses of voters. The sales tax ballot measure to fund housing had an innocent-looking line which restricted the contractors eligible for the jobs. The contractors had to have experience building this type of housing.
The problem with this is that there were only two contractors that met the requirement, and as a result they could charge whatever they wanted since it was practically a no-bid contract.
Los Angeles could've spent dramatically less, and housed more people, had they simply purchased housing on the open market with the money. These prices are pure graft.
The problem with this is that there were only two contractors that met the requirement, and as a result they could charge whatever they wanted since it was practically a no-bid contract.
Los Angeles could've spent dramatically less, and housed more people, had they simply purchased housing on the open market with the money. These prices are pure graft.
God. And it was Democrats who pushed for it too IIRC.
Corruption deep on both sides of the aisle.
Corruption deep on both sides of the aisle.
To be fair, the republican party trashed its brand so thoroughly that it essentially doesn't exist in California, so we're under one party rule. There is no other side of the aisle. It's a shame because Schwarzenegger gave the party a winning formula when he was governor, but the party swung so far off the rails that his centrism makes him a bolshevik to the party as it exists now. One party rule isn't good, but we don't have any sane alternatives here.
> It's a shame because Schwarzenegger gave the party a winning formula when he was governor
Yes, but “find a political cypher of a celebrity, run in an irregular election leveraging a crisis created by Republican state and federal policies, and appoint an listen to a lot of establishment Dems as advisers while ignoring Republican Party insiders and donors because you don't need them once you have the dual advantages of celebrity and incumbency and don't care about the party as such” isn't really a structurally-repeatable strategy.
Yes, but “find a political cypher of a celebrity, run in an irregular election leveraging a crisis created by Republican state and federal policies, and appoint an listen to a lot of establishment Dems as advisers while ignoring Republican Party insiders and donors because you don't need them once you have the dual advantages of celebrity and incumbency and don't care about the party as such” isn't really a structurally-repeatable strategy.
Not just any celebrity—Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Man those were some crazy times.
Man those were some crazy times.
> Spending $837,000 to build a single studio to house a single homeless person seems insane
I don't think it was known, in advance, that this would be the resulting cost, assuming that figure is accurate. I don't think any rational person would put forward such a program and that $837,000 to build a single studio house seems insane to everyone, not just non-Californians.
I think the point OP is trying to make is that the skyrocketing cost is partly caused by a certain class of privileged Californian's continuing to fight the effort to build more housing.
I don't think it was known, in advance, that this would be the resulting cost, assuming that figure is accurate. I don't think any rational person would put forward such a program and that $837,000 to build a single studio house seems insane to everyone, not just non-Californians.
I think the point OP is trying to make is that the skyrocketing cost is partly caused by a certain class of privileged Californian's continuing to fight the effort to build more housing.
> $837,000
That's not what is happening. Per the article:
14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
That's not what is happening. Per the article:
14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
This is a meaningless nitpick. Spending "over $700,000" to house an individual is just as insane as spending "up to $837,000". Its embarrassing and ridiculous either way.
It's not meaningless. 86% cost less than 700K.
> Liberal policies
Do you have any evidence of that?
> Spending $837,000 to build a single studio to house a single homeless person seems insane to most of the country.
That's not what is happening, in any meaningful way.
Do you have any evidence of that?
> Spending $837,000 to build a single studio to house a single homeless person seems insane to most of the country.
That's not what is happening, in any meaningful way.
> Do you have any evidence of that?
This is a totally valid question. Wouldn't the overwhelming liberal majority rule in California be evidence in and of itself? I guess there could be liberals in name who enact conservative policy (or maybe little policy at all), but I haven't seen evidence of that.
This is a totally valid question. Wouldn't the overwhelming liberal majority rule in California be evidence in and of itself? I guess there could be liberals in name who enact conservative policy (or maybe little policy at all), but I haven't seen evidence of that.
> Wouldn't the overwhelming liberal majority rule in California be evidence in and of itself?
It's a very good point. I find it very disingenuous to claim republicans are at fault in a blue state like Claifornia. The null hypothesis should be democrats are responsible for the state (good or bad) of California. Anyone, who claims otherwise, should provide evidences for their claim.
It's a very good point. I find it very disingenuous to claim republicans are at fault in a blue state like Claifornia. The null hypothesis should be democrats are responsible for the state (good or bad) of California. Anyone, who claims otherwise, should provide evidences for their claim.
> Wouldn't the overwhelming liberal majority rule in California be evidence in and of itself? I guess there could be liberals in name who enact conservative policy (or maybe little policy at all), but I haven't seen evidence of that.
Good points.
First, what do the outcomes depend on? Policies of California state and local government are only limited factors. They do not create the economy, migration, weather, real estate development, etc. etc. (though they some limited effect on all of them). There are many other powers in the world. The government's power to control events is pretty limited.
Second, do we see any correlation between California government and these outcomes? Homelessness has existed worldwide probably for all time. A fundamental question is, with what is increased homelessness correlated?
Third, we don't know what the outcomes would be without the policy or with other policies. Negative outcomes don't indicate bad decisions - things could be worse. If you are dying of terminal disease, you don't assume the doctor's decisions are the cause, and therefore we'd be better off without healthcare. We are dealing with a difficult problem.
Finally, not all decisions and policies are partisan; people and publics are not politically consistent anwyay, and make policies for all sorts of reasons. And California has had Republican government on and off for a long time, and anything effects of government policy you see now are the outcome of decades of governance.
Good points.
First, what do the outcomes depend on? Policies of California state and local government are only limited factors. They do not create the economy, migration, weather, real estate development, etc. etc. (though they some limited effect on all of them). There are many other powers in the world. The government's power to control events is pretty limited.
Second, do we see any correlation between California government and these outcomes? Homelessness has existed worldwide probably for all time. A fundamental question is, with what is increased homelessness correlated?
Third, we don't know what the outcomes would be without the policy or with other policies. Negative outcomes don't indicate bad decisions - things could be worse. If you are dying of terminal disease, you don't assume the doctor's decisions are the cause, and therefore we'd be better off without healthcare. We are dealing with a difficult problem.
Finally, not all decisions and policies are partisan; people and publics are not politically consistent anwyay, and make policies for all sorts of reasons. And California has had Republican government on and off for a long time, and anything effects of government policy you see now are the outcome of decades of governance.
I think these are good questions.
You can find a nice graphic of homelessness by state here: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1300&fn[]=2...
States like CA and NY seem to have the most growth in homeless population. That might be considered supporting evidence.
"They do not create the economy, migration, weather, real estate development, etc. etc. (though they some limited effect on all of them). There are many other powers in the world. The government's power to control events is pretty limited." I disagree with this statement, look at all the shutdowns as of late. The government seems to have almost unlimited power which court systems are unwilling to check, they can literally shut entire sectors of the economy down and stop home showings, in direct contradiction to your statement. In normal times they hold enormous influence over these sectors with licensing requirements, regulatory schemes, and political corruption. The result is migration, which also as of late has resulted in net outflows in CA, NY, and IL.
You can find a nice graphic of homelessness by state here: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1300&fn[]=2...
States like CA and NY seem to have the most growth in homeless population. That might be considered supporting evidence.
"They do not create the economy, migration, weather, real estate development, etc. etc. (though they some limited effect on all of them). There are many other powers in the world. The government's power to control events is pretty limited." I disagree with this statement, look at all the shutdowns as of late. The government seems to have almost unlimited power which court systems are unwilling to check, they can literally shut entire sectors of the economy down and stop home showings, in direct contradiction to your statement. In normal times they hold enormous influence over these sectors with licensing requirements, regulatory schemes, and political corruption. The result is migration, which also as of late has resulted in net outflows in CA, NY, and IL.
Government power to control Coronavirus is definitely limited, as the outcomes show.
> The result is migration, which also as of late has resulted in net outflows in CA, NY, and IL.
Those outflows began decades before Coronoavirus.
> The result is migration, which also as of late has resulted in net outflows in CA, NY, and IL.
Those outflows began decades before Coronoavirus.
It seems insane because it is insane. Unfortunately, we already started down this path long ago and it will only get worse until catastrophe. I.e China takes over.
[deleted]
Republicans caused all the problems in a city that they haven't controlled since 2001, in a state they haven't controlled since 1987? That really is incredible! I wonder how they accomplished that.
[deleted]
Probably the same way that they're blaming Trump for Russia's aggression during the non-Trump presidencies before and after the Trump one. It's almost like reality doesn't align with their tribal narrative but they can't give it up.
> for people unfamiliar with los angeles, is very much a city of landed gentry. republican legislation designed to curtail rising taxes for elderly residents 40 years ago wound up creating a cloistered elite of land-owners that pay nearly nothing in tax and resist any attempt to create additional housing. They coast on a bubble of six-figure increases in equity per year with little to prevent a ramshackle bungalow in inglewood from fetching a cash-only two million dollar price.
yeah right... this is all 'the republicans' fault. Say what you will about conservatives, but a party that has held majority since the nineties (and more recently a supermajority) has no one but themselves to blame.
Obviously prop 13 / single family zoning has had an effect on housing, along with taxes, onerous building codes and environmental regulation. However, as long the Homeless Industrial Complex controls the narrative with well-intention voters, and gets to call the shots on where / how to 'address' to problem, the problem of pervasive homelessness is not going to be fixed. We've simply created the wrong set of incentives.
yeah right... this is all 'the republicans' fault. Say what you will about conservatives, but a party that has held majority since the nineties (and more recently a supermajority) has no one but themselves to blame.
Obviously prop 13 / single family zoning has had an effect on housing, along with taxes, onerous building codes and environmental regulation. However, as long the Homeless Industrial Complex controls the narrative with well-intention voters, and gets to call the shots on where / how to 'address' to problem, the problem of pervasive homelessness is not going to be fixed. We've simply created the wrong set of incentives.
Actually this proposition made it "less illegal" to be poor and a homeowner. Now poor people can keep their homes even if, through no fault of their own, property values rise around them. Property taxes in general are a complete sham, what other item do you continually need to pay for after you own it? And why is the amount you need to pay pegged to what other people in the neighborhood around you are doing?
> Property taxes in general are a complete sham, what other item do you continually need to pay for after you own it?
A sham? Unless you argue that most people are buying property under false pretenses, especially given the public nature of property taxes, the expectation would be that those purchasing land do so understanding the existence of on-going financial duties.
As to why land is potentially materially different from other assets:
1. Land is only yours while some party will coerce all other parties to respect your claim. The cost of that infrastructure is on-going.
2. Most land might accrue some small value because of the actions of the land owner, but mostly accrues in value because of externalities from the action of others. Taxing those externalities so that the commons benefits rather than the individual seems at least equally as just as the current model where the wealth generated by collective action is overwhelmingly privatized. Reasonable arguments can be made for deferring that tax until sale or equivalent, rather than on a continuous basis.
3. In terms of being inexorably linked to specific governments, land is much more akin to citizenship and / or residency than fungible widgets. Citizenship and residence also frequently incurs ongoing tax duties.
4. Other scarce asset classes have been controlled in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
A sham? Unless you argue that most people are buying property under false pretenses, especially given the public nature of property taxes, the expectation would be that those purchasing land do so understanding the existence of on-going financial duties.
As to why land is potentially materially different from other assets:
1. Land is only yours while some party will coerce all other parties to respect your claim. The cost of that infrastructure is on-going.
2. Most land might accrue some small value because of the actions of the land owner, but mostly accrues in value because of externalities from the action of others. Taxing those externalities so that the commons benefits rather than the individual seems at least equally as just as the current model where the wealth generated by collective action is overwhelmingly privatized. Reasonable arguments can be made for deferring that tax until sale or equivalent, rather than on a continuous basis.
3. In terms of being inexorably linked to specific governments, land is much more akin to citizenship and / or residency than fungible widgets. Citizenship and residence also frequently incurs ongoing tax duties.
4. Other scarce asset classes have been controlled in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
A sham? Unless you argue that most people are buying property under false pretenses, especially given the public nature of property taxes, the expectation would be that those purchasing land do so understanding the existence of on-going financial duties. <- There is no meaningful alternative to being scammed, the government has a monopoly on said sham, (taxation) and violence to enforce it.
You're right, everyone knows it's a sham, that doesn't make it NOT a sham.
You're right, everyone knows it's a sham, that doesn't make it NOT a sham.
> Property taxes in general are a complete sham, what other item do you continually need to pay for after you own it?
City infrastructure needs constant maintnence, city services need to be constantly funded. And local schools (where most property tax in much of the USA goes) keep going even after your house is built (suffice it to say, areas with the best schools have the highest property taxes).
> And why is the amount you need to pay pegged to what other people in the neighborhood around you are doing?
The more developed your property is, the more city services you consume. And this is ignoring the speculation deterrence that property tax enforces, which is very important also.
City infrastructure needs constant maintnence, city services need to be constantly funded. And local schools (where most property tax in much of the USA goes) keep going even after your house is built (suffice it to say, areas with the best schools have the highest property taxes).
> And why is the amount you need to pay pegged to what other people in the neighborhood around you are doing?
The more developed your property is, the more city services you consume. And this is ignoring the speculation deterrence that property tax enforces, which is very important also.
This is demonstrably false, just because my property is "developed" (I'm not sure what developed vs non-developed means in this context) does not mean I consume more services. Homeowners are under no obligation to consume more city services because their property is nicer.
Value is a proxy for utilization. The alternative is a straight up land tax that would be unfair to those who decide to leave their property undeveloped.
False choice. Another option is no tax.
Oh yes. China doesn’t have a property tax and only a tax on property sales. The result is that apartments are seen as speculative assets and cost way more than they do even in the USA. The results of no tax on property are very predictable.
My municipality charges a yearly excise tax on cars, which is functionally the same as property tax. I have the same philosophical objects to both, but the car tax is pretty low so practically it is not worth getting upset about.
Many don't realize that Prop 13 also protected commercial real estate - the Transamerica Pyramid in SF was the poster child for this until it sold recently
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jun-30-me-prope...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jun-30-me-prope...
I'm finishing construction next month an 1,100 sq/ft single family home in the north bay area; a very high cost-of-living region. We started construction in Sept 2021, after an intentional delay of a couple months to let lumber prices drop after peaking in May-June. My home will be built for about $350k (less land acquisition). I'm acting as contractor and have connections in the industry so very few can build at my cost. BUT, When I see numbers in articles like this ($837k ea), after dealing with pandemic construction pricing myself, it's painfully obvious there is a terrible lack of cost-control. This is not a sustainable solution. And scapegoating on the pandemic is not helpful.
I'm convinced most government agencies cannot manage this type construction in an affordable way, including my home county of Sonoma where we are spending $250k - $350k per homeless person to house them in refurbished hotel rooms (remodeling, not new construction).
I don't know what the solution is, but I have become convinced that local governments cannot build their way out of this. We have to come up with something better.
I'm convinced most government agencies cannot manage this type construction in an affordable way, including my home county of Sonoma where we are spending $250k - $350k per homeless person to house them in refurbished hotel rooms (remodeling, not new construction).
I don't know what the solution is, but I have become convinced that local governments cannot build their way out of this. We have to come up with something better.
The solution is real free markets. Constant government intervention in the housing market, the stock market, education, healthcare, and everything else under the sun has led us to where we are today. It always feels nice for a bit when the government bails you out, but the long term consequences are always much more severe. Prices are information and when all the information is polluted, it becomes very difficult to have a functioning economy. It's the same thing that happens in social media, trolls and bots pollute the information so it's impossible for most people to tell the truth apart from fiction. Unfortunately the regulatory capture is so deep and the problems have gotten so bad that I don't know how this can be solved without an extreme event.
Why would free markets help homeless people? Is there any basis for this, other than claiming that one's favorite solution is the best? Free markets serve those who pay the most, which is good for allocating iPhones, but not for healthcare, basic housing, basic food, education, safety, etc., which should not depend on ability to pay.
> It's the same thing that happens in social media, trolls and bots pollute the information so it's impossible for most people to tell the truth apart from fiction.
Isn't that 'real free market', unregulated?
> It's the same thing that happens in social media, trolls and bots pollute the information so it's impossible for most people to tell the truth apart from fiction.
Isn't that 'real free market', unregulated?
> Free markets serve those who pay the most
As someone who has spent years in a low income situation due to health issues that hasn't been my experience. At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes. There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.
Housing and medical care, on the other hand, are completely unaffordable for a significant fraction of the population without government assistance.
As someone who has spent years in a low income situation due to health issues that hasn't been my experience. At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes. There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.
Housing and medical care, on the other hand, are completely unaffordable for a significant fraction of the population without government assistance.
I am not doubting your experience, but I don't think we can project that to the larger situation.
> At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes.
The data shows otherwise, that many people haven't been able to afford food (think of school lunch programs) and especially quality food. Also, large 'food deserts' exists in poor communities where food is unavailable beyond very expensive small stores.
> There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.
I've thought that, but it turns out that they don't often don't serve low-income people. I've also spent plenty of time in low income areas, and retail options are very slim. I've been in the best grocery store in the neighborhood, where fruit scales were rusty, and it stunk of something rotting. It was packed.
> At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes.
The data shows otherwise, that many people haven't been able to afford food (think of school lunch programs) and especially quality food. Also, large 'food deserts' exists in poor communities where food is unavailable beyond very expensive small stores.
> There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.
I've thought that, but it turns out that they don't often don't serve low-income people. I've also spent plenty of time in low income areas, and retail options are very slim. I've been in the best grocery store in the neighborhood, where fruit scales were rusty, and it stunk of something rotting. It was packed.
Well, I know that I could live spending less than 50% of my monthly income on food. Ignoring other subsidies however my rent would cost over 80% of my monthly income, so if I paid my rent, as people are likely to do first, it's true that I wouldn't have enough money for food.
So what I am saying does not contradict the claim that many people can't afford enough food, since most of their money is going to rent.
So what I am saying does not contradict the claim that many people can't afford enough food, since most of their money is going to rent.
Generally for most goods markets work really well. There's two intrinsic failure cases: externalities and monopolies.
So arguably housing fits into the monopoly bucket, especially if you lean towards a land value tax.
Safety and a monopoly on force most would argue are the domains of government.
But the rest of your examples seem fine to be market based, though the devil is in the detail.
So arguably housing fits into the monopoly bucket, especially if you lean towards a land value tax.
Safety and a monopoly on force most would argue are the domains of government.
But the rest of your examples seem fine to be market based, though the devil is in the detail.
> Generally for most goods markets work really well. There's two intrinsic failure cases: externalities and monopolies.
I agree, but you are omitting two other cases: Equity and availability.
Again, markets are built to serve those who provide the highest profit. That's fine for iPhones, but not for health, safety, education, basic food, and basic shelter. Everyone should have those, regardless of how much profit they provide.
Markets also depend on 'creative destruction', businesses fail and their goods and services go away. That can't happen with healthcare, food, education, safety, and shelter. There are 'food deserts' in poor communities, where people can't get anything but expensive corner-store groceries. We can't have a safety, education, shelter, or healthcare desert (or a food desert).
I agree, but you are omitting two other cases: Equity and availability.
Again, markets are built to serve those who provide the highest profit. That's fine for iPhones, but not for health, safety, education, basic food, and basic shelter. Everyone should have those, regardless of how much profit they provide.
Markets also depend on 'creative destruction', businesses fail and their goods and services go away. That can't happen with healthcare, food, education, safety, and shelter. There are 'food deserts' in poor communities, where people can't get anything but expensive corner-store groceries. We can't have a safety, education, shelter, or healthcare desert (or a food desert).
Markets provide availability of goods, as long as you can accept price variability.
I'll reiterate for safety and land I think these things fail for the reason I mentioned originally.
Healthcare I could certainly see working in a mostly market led way, I'm personally from the UK (So extra heretical to say)
Food is a bad example, as availability is ultra high. Fresh produce is scarce in areas due to low demand. Low demand leads to higher prices.
I'll reiterate for safety and land I think these things fail for the reason I mentioned originally.
Healthcare I could certainly see working in a mostly market led way, I'm personally from the UK (So extra heretical to say)
Food is a bad example, as availability is ultra high. Fresh produce is scarce in areas due to low demand. Low demand leads to higher prices.
> Markets provide availability of goods, as long as you can accept price variability.
Not if the vendor goes out of business.
> Food is a bad example, as availability is ultra high. Fresh produce is scarce in areas due to low demand. Low demand leads to higher prices.
That's not the case, based on the reports I've seen. What have you seen that supports that?
Not if the vendor goes out of business.
> Food is a bad example, as availability is ultra high. Fresh produce is scarce in areas due to low demand. Low demand leads to higher prices.
That's not the case, based on the reports I've seen. What have you seen that supports that?
Unless we are in a monopoly situation there are other vendors for common goods.
If a super market goes out of business there are several others though perhaps further away.
The idea of "Food deserts" is around the poor availability of affordable "nutritious" food. There is plenty of food in these food deserts with many different food providers.
So it's not about general food availability, it's around what food is stocked. Which food are stocked is almost completely determined by supply and demand. We know the supply exists, so if there a lack of stock it's due to demand.
What other explanation is there ? A shadowy cabal making sure the poor can't access certain foods ?
If a super market goes out of business there are several others though perhaps further away.
The idea of "Food deserts" is around the poor availability of affordable "nutritious" food. There is plenty of food in these food deserts with many different food providers.
So it's not about general food availability, it's around what food is stocked. Which food are stocked is almost completely determined by supply and demand. We know the supply exists, so if there a lack of stock it's due to demand.
What other explanation is there ? A shadowy cabal making sure the poor can't access certain foods ?
> The solution is real free markets.
A ludicrous suggestion.
The "free market" optimizes for one single thing: Profit.
Providing housing for homeless people is not profitable, and so a free market would never do it.
> Constant government intervention in the housing market, the stock market, education, healthcare, and everything else under the sun has led us to where we are today.
Health care is in the same boat. If a poor person gets cancer, the free market would gladly let them die. They wouldn't be able to pay for treatment.
Education is similar. If the government didn't provide schools, a considerable portion of children would go uneducated.
A ludicrous suggestion.
The "free market" optimizes for one single thing: Profit.
Providing housing for homeless people is not profitable, and so a free market would never do it.
> Constant government intervention in the housing market, the stock market, education, healthcare, and everything else under the sun has led us to where we are today.
Health care is in the same boat. If a poor person gets cancer, the free market would gladly let them die. They wouldn't be able to pay for treatment.
Education is similar. If the government didn't provide schools, a considerable portion of children would go uneducated.
Optimising for profit can lead to both massive positive and negative effects.
So the obvious question is how you balance those negative effects against the positive. This is where regulations and governments have to step in, though that certain has it's own massive issues.
Health care has a lot of unsolved problems, from my perspective no group is actually doing well (Just varying shades of bad, I'm from the UK). There are so many ailments that can't currently be treated well (Despite having spent decades studying them, though that seems to be a systematic failure of academia)
So the obvious question is how you balance those negative effects against the positive. This is where regulations and governments have to step in, though that certain has it's own massive issues.
Health care has a lot of unsolved problems, from my perspective no group is actually doing well (Just varying shades of bad, I'm from the UK). There are so many ailments that can't currently be treated well (Despite having spent decades studying them, though that seems to be a systematic failure of academia)
Optimizing for profit greatly incentivizes innovation as corporations compete, I'll definitely give you that.
But it also leads to a poorer customer experience (long hold times as call centers are understaffed, cheap and flimsy materials, I could go on...), exploitative dark patterns, rent-seeking, and more.
And then there's the fact that corporations would happily dump toxic waste into rivers to save a few dollars if the EPA didn't exist to stop them. They will gladly burn the atmosphere in order to show growth on their quarterly report.
> So the obvious question is how you balance those negative effects against the positive. This is where regulations and governments have to step in, though that certain has it's own massive issues.
Agreed. Corporations can't be free to do whatever they want, but finding that happy medium of reining them in without stifling them is hard.
It doesn't help that our politicians are for sale. Corruption runs rampant.
But it also leads to a poorer customer experience (long hold times as call centers are understaffed, cheap and flimsy materials, I could go on...), exploitative dark patterns, rent-seeking, and more.
And then there's the fact that corporations would happily dump toxic waste into rivers to save a few dollars if the EPA didn't exist to stop them. They will gladly burn the atmosphere in order to show growth on their quarterly report.
> So the obvious question is how you balance those negative effects against the positive. This is where regulations and governments have to step in, though that certain has it's own massive issues.
Agreed. Corporations can't be free to do whatever they want, but finding that happy medium of reining them in without stifling them is hard.
It doesn't help that our politicians are for sale. Corruption runs rampant.
The problem is the government bidding system is completely borked. Especially in a state like California.
The government would do better if it only acted as a buyer. "We will pay for any new units that are constructed that meet these qualifications" and let the thousands of independent developers and contractors do what they do.
The government would do better if it only acted as a buyer. "We will pay for any new units that are constructed that meet these qualifications" and let the thousands of independent developers and contractors do what they do.
Are your subcontractors fully insured? Do they fully pay workers compensation? Are their employees legally authorized to work in the US? There is a quite substantial price premium in the market now for contractors that follow the law, and government projects are forced to follow the law.
I work full-time as a subcontractor on commercial projects in the SF bay area and am fairly familiar with the costs associated with insurance, workers comp etc. We utilize union labor to install our projects. And you are right, it does cost a lot to follow the laws. But those costs are not nearly high enough to explain how 400-600 sq/ft units are being built for between $1,100-$1,400 a square foot.
My guess is much of the cost bloat is "administrative" and has nothing to do with real construction costs.
So you are saving ~30% right? Plus the land at probably <250k means $600k max net cost. I imagine the area you live in has $800k-$1m houses.
About right, might be saving closer to 35%.
Land cost was $500k in 2018, but its 3 acres, had existing utilities, and I can re-build another existing structure on the property what was red-tagged and will be 2 bed 2 bath, ~1800sq/ft primary dwelling. The one currently under construction is technically the accessory dwelling unit, but it really is a stand-alone house.
With just the new ADU, we will be in ~$850k but appraised value is expected to be $1-1.3m. When we spend another $350-$400k re-building the primary dwelling, it will probably be worth $1.6-$2m with ability to rent one unit.
The metric I care most about is my sq/ft build cost which will be around $300/ft. This is incredibly low for a custom home which ranges in the $400-650 ft range for a decent quality custom and $1000+ ft for higher-end residences.
The sqft size of units in LA is not mentioned, but based on the video, they are between 400-600 ft. $837k / 600 sqft = $1395 ft. Wayyyyyyy too high for "affordable" housing.
Land cost was $500k in 2018, but its 3 acres, had existing utilities, and I can re-build another existing structure on the property what was red-tagged and will be 2 bed 2 bath, ~1800sq/ft primary dwelling. The one currently under construction is technically the accessory dwelling unit, but it really is a stand-alone house.
With just the new ADU, we will be in ~$850k but appraised value is expected to be $1-1.3m. When we spend another $350-$400k re-building the primary dwelling, it will probably be worth $1.6-$2m with ability to rent one unit.
The metric I care most about is my sq/ft build cost which will be around $300/ft. This is incredibly low for a custom home which ranges in the $400-650 ft range for a decent quality custom and $1000+ ft for higher-end residences.
The sqft size of units in LA is not mentioned, but based on the video, they are between 400-600 ft. $837k / 600 sqft = $1395 ft. Wayyyyyyy too high for "affordable" housing.
> My home will be built for about $350k (less land acquisition).
How in the world? I got multiple bids in Seattle to add a 200sqft dormer, 125k was the lowest bid I got.
A single bathroom around here costs a minimum of 15K to build, just to get people out to install the basics.
How in the world? I got multiple bids in Seattle to add a 200sqft dormer, 125k was the lowest bid I got.
A single bathroom around here costs a minimum of 15K to build, just to get people out to install the basics.
I would like to publish a series of posts on my build process, including cost breakdowns, because I know there is interest after seeing some similar posts (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30193899)
Without knowing much about your project, a dormer add can get expensive because you are modifying the structural envelope of the home. although the new sq footage may be small, the building process is involved and risk is high because your modifying roof-lines, bearing walls etc. A dormer addition is not simple.
Without knowing much about your project, a dormer add can get expensive because you are modifying the structural envelope of the home. although the new sq footage may be small, the building process is involved and risk is high because your modifying roof-lines, bearing walls etc. A dormer addition is not simple.
Now build that in downtown LA explicitly for housing homeless folks, and let us know how your permitting process goes.
L.A. is fighting against CEQA, Prop 13, and its own bureaucracy and process: https://seliger.com/2017/08/30/l-digs-hole-slowly-economics-....
If we're actually going to do something substantial about homelessness, we need to focus on abundance, not scarcity, and supply-side progressivism: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/opinion/supply-side-progr...
If we're actually going to do something substantial about homelessness, we need to focus on abundance, not scarcity, and supply-side progressivism: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/opinion/supply-side-progr...
" fighting against CEQA" this is like identifying the color of the shirt that a security guard is wearing, and declaring it to be the problem. CEQA was enacted because, under the banner of "free markets" .. unbelievable, extreme, vast, sustained chemical pollution was laid out into the open air, soil and water, for profit, again and again and again.. Ordinary people literally cannot believe things that have been done in California and elsewhere, for short-term profits
And today CEQA exists for nimbys to stall housing and infrastructure while polluters remain unaccountable.
$837,000 is just the cost of the unit.
If you are housing actual homeless, you MUST offer supportive services on-site or have some other types of supervision or these units are going to be trashed.
You MUST budget for a lot of ongoing costs.
I'd say $800K+ per unit + maybe $100K+/year for supportive services / maintenance etc?
One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else?
If you are housing actual homeless, you MUST offer supportive services on-site or have some other types of supervision or these units are going to be trashed.
You MUST budget for a lot of ongoing costs.
I'd say $800K+ per unit + maybe $100K+/year for supportive services / maintenance etc?
One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else?
It's not the cost of the unit, per the article:
14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
OK, so units may cost $837K. Is that all inclusive of all necessary services (maintenance, supportive services, utilities etc for the life of the unit)? Or are those going to be extra.
I ask because the housing department housing in SF is mind boggling expensive just to operate even after they did the build piece especially if you do all in costs vs revenue (ie, tax base is low -> govt owned often exempt and service needs are high from maintenance, policing, health response etc).
I ask because the housing department housing in SF is mind boggling expensive just to operate even after they did the build piece especially if you do all in costs vs revenue (ie, tax base is low -> govt owned often exempt and service needs are high from maintenance, policing, health response etc).
> OK, so units may cost $837K.
That's not what it says: It say only 14% cost 700K+ (i.e., 86% cost less than 700K), and one project might cost 837K. In other words, the 837K are a small number of outliers (unless it's a really big project, of course) and based on a projection.
> Is that all inclusive of all necessary services
Yes, I agree that should also be considered, and I think those services are essential. However, it's important to keep down construction costs too.
That's not what it says: It say only 14% cost 700K+ (i.e., 86% cost less than 700K), and one project might cost 837K. In other words, the 837K are a small number of outliers (unless it's a really big project, of course) and based on a projection.
> Is that all inclusive of all necessary services
Yes, I agree that should also be considered, and I think those services are essential. However, it's important to keep down construction costs too.
I think the high cost has a lot to do with the fact that we've moved well beyond the preventative phase of care.
We are paying extra to correct years of bad zoning and healthcare policies. This is the price of bad city planning and expensive non-universal healthcare.
I wonder if UBI would be more cost efficient, especially for people who are not yet homeless but in danger of becoming homeless.
Still, I think getting people housing is the right general approach.
We are paying extra to correct years of bad zoning and healthcare policies. This is the price of bad city planning and expensive non-universal healthcare.
I wonder if UBI would be more cost efficient, especially for people who are not yet homeless but in danger of becoming homeless.
Still, I think getting people housing is the right general approach.
> One question is, would that 800K + $100K/year go further somewhere else?
Where is that money going now? Who gets this money now and why would they give it up?
Where is that money going now? Who gets this money now and why would they give it up?
Before it went into people's pockets, so they could care for their families and improve their life conditions.
Exactly.
Government stole it from tax payers to then act as a poorly run pseudo-charity, which is actually just a way for them to skim cream like mobsters while pretending to "do good." The foolish lap this up and immediately get defensive at anyone who proposes that, maybe, just maybe, politicians are lying to them and using their good nature against them. Maybe.
So, we get a consistently declining standard of living for everyone, decaying urban centers, and increasing numbers of homeless people, or, the truth: real lives that need real help being used as political chess pieces by a cadre of narcissists who are master manipulators.
Government stole it from tax payers to then act as a poorly run pseudo-charity, which is actually just a way for them to skim cream like mobsters while pretending to "do good." The foolish lap this up and immediately get defensive at anyone who proposes that, maybe, just maybe, politicians are lying to them and using their good nature against them. Maybe.
So, we get a consistently declining standard of living for everyone, decaying urban centers, and increasing numbers of homeless people, or, the truth: real lives that need real help being used as political chess pieces by a cadre of narcissists who are master manipulators.
> Government stole it from tax payers
Actually, we agreed that it was a good idea and organized our government to carry it out, and we broadly support it.
> The foolish
Commenters and citizens who disagree with you are "foolish"? People can't possibly disagree with you for legitimate reasons? Is your opinion the standard by which we measure legitimacy? Lucky I met you!
> decaying urban centers
Urban centers have been doing well overall, absent the pandemic, though certainly, as with everywhere, there are problems.
Actually, we agreed that it was a good idea and organized our government to carry it out, and we broadly support it.
> The foolish
Commenters and citizens who disagree with you are "foolish"? People can't possibly disagree with you for legitimate reasons? Is your opinion the standard by which we measure legitimacy? Lucky I met you!
> decaying urban centers
Urban centers have been doing well overall, absent the pandemic, though certainly, as with everywhere, there are problems.
It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency. Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens. There is no way that small rooms in dense housing buildings should cost more than single family homes. There is either grift involved or homeless housing is WAY over regulated/zoned.
> It's the wrong way since there is no independent entity monitoring these programs for efficiency.
Which programs do you mean? There are many watchdog agencies in and outside government, including the press, and including right here right now.
> Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens
A broad statement, but what is it based on? There are honest and dishonest people in government, just like the people on my block.
Which programs do you mean? There are many watchdog agencies in and outside government, including the press, and including right here right now.
> Government officials by and large don't care how much they spend and don't question when stuff like this happens
A broad statement, but what is it based on? There are honest and dishonest people in government, just like the people on my block.
Are their life conditions improved by having homeless people all over the place?
There's a price to pay for living in an organized civil society, because people have learned the hard way that having an organized, civil society is better for their families and life conditions.
There's a price to pay for living in an organized civil society, because people have learned the hard way that having an organized, civil society is better for their families and life conditions.
It's an economic solution. And quite simply, money goes further and could be used for more services elsewhere. It just feels icky to relocate folks that are already down. NIMBY at it's worse. But, done right, could absolutely be a better situation for all.
That is a balancing equation, not an absolute.
Realistically, that money was going to police, to harass this person for sleeping on the street. This is, obviously, also expensive.
On the other hand, unless whoever ends up in the unit never has a family, stays in the unit the rest of their life, and the unit only lasts a single person's lifetime, it isn't going to house only one person.
Yep you can't just put a psychotic person in an apartment and walk away. Homeless people have issues that made them end up on the street.
They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.
40000 * 837000 = 33.48 billion dollars. This solution, as implemented, can not possibly solve the problem, ever. The upkeep on the housing alone would be a billion dollars a year!
Its because they don't actually want to house the unhoused. They want to make it seem like this impossible challenge to provide affordable housing that doesn't cost the average person in LA $1M+
San Francisco had a similar problem in recent years, where trying to build housing for the unhoused was running a cost of about a million a pop.
It's perhaps possible that this isn't a deliberate display of incompetence, but a set of systemic problems that make housing in California very expensive to build.
It's perhaps possible that this isn't a deliberate display of incompetence, but a set of systemic problems that make housing in California very expensive to build.
They can choose anywhere to build, the government controls zoning, and they're making apartments. Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems?
Though the article doesn't actually say anything about average costs or cost per type of unit, and since this is a professional news outlet they don't link their sources...
Though the article doesn't actually say anything about average costs or cost per type of unit, and since this is a professional news outlet they don't link their sources...
> Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems?
You would think so! Unfortunately, this is not the case. In SF, some of the systemic issues are planning processes voted into the city charter decades ago, so the city doesn't get to bypass them. Some of the larger issues, such as land price and CEQA, are state-wide issues that cities can't avoid.
You would think so! Unfortunately, this is not the case. In SF, some of the systemic issues are planning processes voted into the city charter decades ago, so the city doesn't get to bypass them. Some of the larger issues, such as land price and CEQA, are state-wide issues that cities can't avoid.
The people control zoning, and thus, where things are built.
Also, it's worth noting that building a house isn't a hole that you throw money into, it's an asset that appreciates.
That is definitely not a universal truth. Anyone who has rented out a house knows just how expensive a bad tenant is.
I have had a few friends who were in that position because they had to move but couldnt sell their houses (2008-2014 era roughly). They would have been better off taking the loss on leaving it empty after taking out loans to undo the damage done.
I have had a few friends who were in that position because they had to move but couldnt sell their houses (2008-2014 era roughly). They would have been better off taking the loss on leaving it empty after taking out loans to undo the damage done.
Not if it gets trashed by the residents.
In a world where housing prices grow in an unbounded, absolutely detached from reality manner, it is.
It's actually the land which goes up in value. Houses go down in value, like a new car.
Sometimes this is masked, by regular maintenance, retrofits, and repairs. But if left to pot, a house is eventually worthless, then even a cost, for the new owner has to tear it down and rebuild.
Land appreciates. A house costs.
Sometimes this is masked, by regular maintenance, retrofits, and repairs. But if left to pot, a house is eventually worthless, then even a cost, for the new owner has to tear it down and rebuild.
Land appreciates. A house costs.
Depends on the house, but houses can get more valuable much faster than the minimal maintenance costs associated with them. That’s less common in earthquake zones, but scarcity can easily drive up prices because “they don’t make them like they used to” or something interesting happened in the location etc.
It is the homeless industrial complex. A massive grift.
837000 is the maximum, not the average, so your math is just made up BS.
It sounds to the reader just like it is in reality: overspending on real estate.
That’s a ridiculous sum of money for one unit of housing any way you look at it.
I’m glad they’re housing the homeless, but are you telling me that there’s no way to build this cheaper?
That’s a ridiculous sum of money for one unit of housing any way you look at it.
I’m glad they’re housing the homeless, but are you telling me that there’s no way to build this cheaper?
On one hand: The program “is producing more units than promised, at a lower cost than expected,” Garcetti wrote.
But I have trouble thinking that’s an efficient use of funds.
But I have trouble thinking that’s an efficient use of funds.
That's still a mighty expensive unit.
LA also does spend money just booking rooms at for profit hotels for homeless people vs constructing shelters at cost too, so not everything they are doing is totally productive and efficient.
Oh yes, my home city.
I left LA for numerous reasons, absolutely unaffordable housing was one of them. Most people are doing extremely poorly in Los Angeles.
It's the only city where you both have to pay an insane amount of rent, and own a car. The bare minimum survive in LA is probably around 80 k. But the median income there is only around 70k.
Of the people I was meeting, almost no one had a job or any real interest in working. Very bad things tend to happen if you're around people like that.
I moved to Chicago after being disenchanted with LA, and I met an amazing partner with a great career . I only meet people in real life after a particularly scary app experience. Like I said, bad things happen if you're around people who don't work. Not that you need to make too much in Chicago to live.
A two bedroom in Chicago will run you from 1300 to 1600. You don't need a car since it has one of the best public transit systems in America, and a monthly Metro passes about a hundred bucks.
So let's say you want to split a two-bedroom with a friend, for your transportation and housing. Housing you're only spending about $1,000 a month.
Compared to LA where that same two bedroom cost $2,600, and you need to own a car. Most people just run out and finance something. So once you make your payments and your insurance, and your maintenance and your gas, you're easily spending between $700 to $900 on transportation alone.
Base cost of living in Chicago, 1k + a few hundred for food , utilities and fun. In LA your taking 2100$ + that same few hundred.
Plus I got a pretty significant raise when I moved to Chicago! No rational person should stay in Los Angeles !
'But my family's here.' Most of my family ended up leaving because they just can't afford to it anymore. Why be the last person off of a sinking ship.
The time to fix California's affordable housing crisis was decades ago before Prop 13 was passed. Too late now
I left LA for numerous reasons, absolutely unaffordable housing was one of them. Most people are doing extremely poorly in Los Angeles.
It's the only city where you both have to pay an insane amount of rent, and own a car. The bare minimum survive in LA is probably around 80 k. But the median income there is only around 70k.
Of the people I was meeting, almost no one had a job or any real interest in working. Very bad things tend to happen if you're around people like that.
I moved to Chicago after being disenchanted with LA, and I met an amazing partner with a great career . I only meet people in real life after a particularly scary app experience. Like I said, bad things happen if you're around people who don't work. Not that you need to make too much in Chicago to live.
A two bedroom in Chicago will run you from 1300 to 1600. You don't need a car since it has one of the best public transit systems in America, and a monthly Metro passes about a hundred bucks.
So let's say you want to split a two-bedroom with a friend, for your transportation and housing. Housing you're only spending about $1,000 a month.
Compared to LA where that same two bedroom cost $2,600, and you need to own a car. Most people just run out and finance something. So once you make your payments and your insurance, and your maintenance and your gas, you're easily spending between $700 to $900 on transportation alone.
Base cost of living in Chicago, 1k + a few hundred for food , utilities and fun. In LA your taking 2100$ + that same few hundred.
Plus I got a pretty significant raise when I moved to Chicago! No rational person should stay in Los Angeles !
'But my family's here.' Most of my family ended up leaving because they just can't afford to it anymore. Why be the last person off of a sinking ship.
The time to fix California's affordable housing crisis was decades ago before Prop 13 was passed. Too late now
LA isn't even better than most other cities. You'd think it would be considering how many people have come here and how much it costs, but it's possibly one of the most mediocre cities in existence. Countries with much smaller economies (yet longer histories) than LA manage to have better looking skyscrapers and scenery, along with roads that aren't crumbling to the same degree. There's some great things in LA, but there's great things elsewhere and people are happy in other parts of the world. Somehow there are still some "angelinos" getting high on their own supply over "la la land". Literally no one comes to visit anymore unless LA happens to be on the way to something.
It's sad because this used to be the place to be (one of them, I mean). At least that's what we wanted to believe.
I'm still in LA because I happen to be paying a ridiculously low monthly rent for a 4 bedroom house in an area where I have friends and family (yeah... I know). As soon as that rent shoots up, LA will have to be in my rear view mirror. Probably California all together.
Some are probably gonna downvote me, but guess what, I got highly downvoted back in ~2015 when I was pointing out the decline of San Francisco; now it's issues are commonly accepted. You can't explain away the need for poop patrols, the garbage overflowing in the streets, or the fentanyl zombies. Eventually people won't be able to deny that LA is suffering serious socio-economic issues, just as how few will apologize for SF anymore.
Believe it or not, I want these places to succeed. That's why I openly criticize them. Cities in California are my home.
It's sad because this used to be the place to be (one of them, I mean). At least that's what we wanted to believe.
I'm still in LA because I happen to be paying a ridiculously low monthly rent for a 4 bedroom house in an area where I have friends and family (yeah... I know). As soon as that rent shoots up, LA will have to be in my rear view mirror. Probably California all together.
Some are probably gonna downvote me, but guess what, I got highly downvoted back in ~2015 when I was pointing out the decline of San Francisco; now it's issues are commonly accepted. You can't explain away the need for poop patrols, the garbage overflowing in the streets, or the fentanyl zombies. Eventually people won't be able to deny that LA is suffering serious socio-economic issues, just as how few will apologize for SF anymore.
Believe it or not, I want these places to succeed. That's why I openly criticize them. Cities in California are my home.
I live in Denver, and the situation is much the same. Rampant crime, rapidly ballooning prices, and a public transit system so awful (in city limits; commuter rail is OK if you need to get between the suburbs and the city center) that you need a car.
What's especially weird is that this city is so flat, the weather is so decent, and the distances are so small, you could easily make Denver a paradise for walking and biking. But instead we just keep doubling down on cars for getting around the city, street parking, and unsustainable car suburbs.
What's especially weird is that this city is so flat, the weather is so decent, and the distances are so small, you could easily make Denver a paradise for walking and biking. But instead we just keep doubling down on cars for getting around the city, street parking, and unsustainable car suburbs.
Coastal California will never have affordable housing. The demand is way too high relative to supply, so people will trip over themselves to compete with each other for it, pushing prices to the limit.
There may have been a possibility prior to the 90s before it was widely known about and the world’s population was much smaller, but it has been a few decades since it has been obvious that demand for coastal California is insatiable, and obviously the people living there are not going to want to share it with everyone in the world that wants to live there.
There may have been a possibility prior to the 90s before it was widely known about and the world’s population was much smaller, but it has been a few decades since it has been obvious that demand for coastal California is insatiable, and obviously the people living there are not going to want to share it with everyone in the world that wants to live there.
> Of the people I was meeting, almost no one had a job or any real interest in working. Very bad things tend to happen if you're around people like that.
Can you say more about this?
Can you say more about this?
This is such sloppy journalism:
> one project under development expected to hit as much as $837,000 for each housing unit,
How typical is that? where is it? how long is it expected to last? what other features does it have? Does that include one-time architecting costs that make future developments cheaper?
> HHH project includes 8,091 housing units — most with connected services for mental health and substance abuse treatment
so how much of the $800k goes to the mental health etc services? the paper apparently read the audit, but doesn't bother going into any detail about this.
How typical is that? where is it? how long is it expected to last? what other features does it have? Does that include one-time architecting costs that make future developments cheaper?
> HHH project includes 8,091 housing units — most with connected services for mental health and substance abuse treatment
so how much of the $800k goes to the mental health etc services? the paper apparently read the audit, but doesn't bother going into any detail about this.
> so how much of the $800k goes to the mental health etc services?
Is it clear that any of it is meant for those services, or could they all be extra costs above and beyond it?
Is it clear that any of it is meant for those services, or could they all be extra costs above and beyond it?
Do you realize that you could give that homeless person a first class ticket to Detroit? Put them up in a hotel until an abandoned house could be totally rebuilt for them. Pay their electricity, water, heating costs and taxes for the next ten years and still save California taxpayers $600,000!
Yes but would they want to go?
But why should others have to pay for locating homeless people where they _want_ to go. It's giving money to them. It's an offer.
It's not like you _must_ go there, but to expect tax payers to build homes where it's far too expensive to build...
It's like sending the same people to a fancy restaurant. In what way does it make sense?
To me, government intervention caused this, so maybe they should just peel back their building restrictions?
It's not like you _must_ go there, but to expect tax payers to build homes where it's far too expensive to build...
It's like sending the same people to a fancy restaurant. In what way does it make sense?
To me, government intervention caused this, so maybe they should just peel back their building restrictions?
[deleted]
You could give them a ticket to Detroit, but they will wind up in LA quickly because they sold the house California bought them, but a bunch of drugs, and the weather is better for being homeless in LA than Detroit.
Do you realize that forced relocation is a crime against humanity?
Is there any way to fix incentives with government contracts, so that the product that is purchased is the lowest price for the highest quality? In the free market, there are generally incentives for that because companies have a brand, and if you deliver poor quality, consumers eventually catch on, your brand suffers, and you lose business to your competitors. How does this work in the government? Where is the disincentive to keep contractors from delivering the shoddiest product for the government check? This mechanism seems totally absent.
I'm not sure this is true for urban multi-unit housing. A whole lot of shoddy work gets sold at a high price simply because the location is attractive. Single-family and luxury builds are more held to this dynamic.
But the mechanism would be the contract itself. It comes with requirements. Make high quality and low cost among the requirements. Actually hold the contractors to them. Require open competition for the bids.
So why does this not work? I'm in defense contracting, not building, but at least in that realm, there isn't meaningful competition and no credible bill comes in low for a variety of reasons, but the biggest I can think of is the security and compliance requirements are so high that they represent a minimum regulatory hurdle very few contractors can clear, no matter how good and/or cheap their work might be, and when smaller operations emerge that do a good job and threaten the entrenched incumbents, the existing oligopoly just buys them.
What can be done about that is the FTC not approving so many mergers and acquisitions on the part of giant contractors, and automating and/or streamlining some of the security hurdles. I don't think removing them is an option, since critical defense systems will be under constant attack by nation state actors and need to hold up under conditions of persistent warfare.
But the mechanism would be the contract itself. It comes with requirements. Make high quality and low cost among the requirements. Actually hold the contractors to them. Require open competition for the bids.
So why does this not work? I'm in defense contracting, not building, but at least in that realm, there isn't meaningful competition and no credible bill comes in low for a variety of reasons, but the biggest I can think of is the security and compliance requirements are so high that they represent a minimum regulatory hurdle very few contractors can clear, no matter how good and/or cheap their work might be, and when smaller operations emerge that do a good job and threaten the entrenched incumbents, the existing oligopoly just buys them.
What can be done about that is the FTC not approving so many mergers and acquisitions on the part of giant contractors, and automating and/or streamlining some of the security hurdles. I don't think removing them is an option, since critical defense systems will be under constant attack by nation state actors and need to hold up under conditions of persistent warfare.
That mechanism is totally absent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
That is precisely why these things happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
That is precisely why these things happen.
Not really, and this is in the nature of government programs. Management has no personal incentive to control costs or quality, and many incentives that tend to work against those controls.
The primary measure of success in the last two generations in the United States has been an ability to combine plausible incompetence and graft, while remaining protected under a banner of nouveau political theory. Los Angeles has a tremendous pool of talent in this regard, perhaps some of the best in the world. Areas which are very obviously less afflicted include areas of 'Los Angeles County' outside of --and quite distinct from--the very broken "City of Los Angeles," and adjacent counties, such as Orange, Ventura, and Kern, all of which are wildly superior in the physical realization of governance.
Wildly superior in the physical realization of governance? Please. The reason why you don’t see homeless in these places is their policy is to use their police to force these people into LA. Go to venice and note how the tents stop immediately at the border with santa monica, and no its not because everyone who sets up in santa monica gets put into a shelter.
Be careful trying to spin this as a negative thing. A lot of people would actually be quite happy with their police force moving homeless people out of their town, regardless of where they end up.
I have seen events unfold at the School Board level which stretch the imagination -- a combination of poker face, herd mentality, deniability and secrets keeping, and unending, years long funding cycles. BUT "the primary measure of success in the last two generations" is just snark, since there has been lots of success in other ways. The problems here are bad though, since some kind of natural selection has resulted in people and processess that are very hard to get rid of, even while flatly and objectively failing in plain view.
In the same way that Silicon Valley was enabled by Cold War defense spending, perhaps the entertainment industry created the LA Charitable Griftocracy.
A conservation think tank issued a report saying Denver spends about $400,000 per year per unhoused person.
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/the-economic-footprint-of...
But drilling down finds 10% of that is direct budgeted other other 90% indirect like the cost of police sweeps, mental health, etc.
https://commonsenseinstituteco.org/the-economic-footprint-of...
But drilling down finds 10% of that is direct budgeted other other 90% indirect like the cost of police sweeps, mental health, etc.
Still at 40k per, that is certainly more than enough to buy a years worth of rent for an individual in Denver.
I'll cut them a deal. LA can send me a check for merely $500,000; and I'll agree to never camp out on their streets. I also expect some sort of formal recognition for helping them meet their targets of reducing homelessness.
We get it, your socioeconomic status makes you confident that you'll never be affected by this problem, and you have no interest in improving the world for the people who are.
Funneling nearly a million bucks per homelessperson-head into the pockets of politically connected developers is not "improving the world", unless you happen to be one of the developers. The quanta of utility that they get from this will be much larger than any homeless person who gets a dwelling out of it, especially since they most likely need medical and supervised psychiatric treatment more.
My ability to see that LA is not actually looking for a solution, leads me to want to capture some of the cash they are foolishly setting fire to in order to prolong their problem.
Also, my socioeconomic status is such that I could really use a half-mil, tbh.
My ability to see that LA is not actually looking for a solution, leads me to want to capture some of the cash they are foolishly setting fire to in order to prolong their problem.
Also, my socioeconomic status is such that I could really use a half-mil, tbh.
There are a lot of places in the country where you can live very comfortably for years on 500k.
The idea that the only solution to homelessness in LA is to build $500-800k units is plain pure foolishness.
The idea that the only solution to homelessness in LA is to build $500-800k units is plain pure foolishness.
Sure, assuming that you start out with solid physical and mental health. Guess what homelessness does to a person's physical and mental health?
This article is a perfect example of how word tenses can be used to manipulate and misrepresent information.
The title says that the city "is spending" an amount, which suggests that this is a routine cost, leaving the reader of the headline to fill in the blanks 'oh, is spending annually?'.
But the tense in the article itself is different:
> Most of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments. The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
"Is spending" != 'expected to spend'.
The former has the unstated implication that this is a recurring cost, or at least that this is a cost the city is in the process of spending, whereas the article explains that this is only a projected cost.
The title says that the city "is spending" an amount, which suggests that this is a routine cost, leaving the reader of the headline to fill in the blanks 'oh, is spending annually?'.
But the tense in the article itself is different:
> Most of the units are studios or one-bedroom apartments. The audit found 14% of the units build exceeded $700,000 each, and one project in pre-development is estimated to cost almost $837,000 per unit.
"Is spending" != 'expected to spend'.
The former has the unstated implication that this is a recurring cost, or at least that this is a cost the city is in the process of spending, whereas the article explains that this is only a projected cost.
My ex used to do some auditing at LA city. Usually these contractors are vehicles to give tons of money to well connected friends of the city council or mayor for services like “consulting” and “management”. They also have large amounts of middle management. In one case social workers couldn’t handle the number of required visits per week (I think they each had 30 clients or more). The solution was to hire more consultants and project managers to analyze the situation instead of hiring people to reduce the workload to reasonable levels.
Like all government housing projects, they'll turn into slums within a decade, and then be razed as urban blight.
It never says how many people are housed in a single "unit." The number could be very misleading.
Australia has that beat.
We're spending around $4m (USD 2.87m) per person to house refugees in Nauru offshore detention. Because reasons.
Persionally, I'd rather let the formally recognised refugees come to Australia and pay them each $100k a year for a savings of 3.9m/year/person. Bargain!
We're spending around $4m (USD 2.87m) per person to house refugees in Nauru offshore detention. Because reasons.
Persionally, I'd rather let the formally recognised refugees come to Australia and pay them each $100k a year for a savings of 3.9m/year/person. Bargain!
The scope of the expanding problem can be seen in the city budget: When Garcetti took office in 2013, the city was spending about $10 million treating homelessness. The budget he signed last year included about $1 billion.
Someone is making a lot of money...
Someone is making a lot of money...
Haha, this is normal among so-called progressive circles. They subscribe universally to the "if it's not good enough, it's better to have nothing". So you can't provide crappy housing, it's better for people to be on the street. You can't provide crappy jobs, it's better for people to have no jobs. You can't provide crappy healthcare, it's better for people to die.
The secondary aspect of this is that these people will fight tooth and nail to ensure that crappy things don't exist but will put up some token "We should have X" to get the good thing built. Progressives...
The secondary aspect of this is that these people will fight tooth and nail to ensure that crappy things don't exist but will put up some token "We should have X" to get the good thing built. Progressives...
This headline seems misleading. First, these are one-time costs, but most reporting on programs like these are annual costs. Second, this conflates a lot of numbers. Most are one bedroom (which could house a small family, as sleeping on a couch is more comfortable than a car), but the most expensive is $837,000. There's nothing even stated that the most expensive one-bedroom is $837,000). In fact, 86% are under $700,000 to build. In fact, they plan to hit 10,000 units in the next 5 years, with it seems about half of those coming from the first $1.2 billion allocation.
Homeless-care services like this are the equivalent of dealing with tech debt. Every homeless person incurs gigantic recurring costs, and to make them no longer homeless requires even larger temporary costs. All of this could have been avoided by solving for the tech debt that leads to homelessness, but there's apparently no real appetite for investing resources into that.
So now we have to pay down our tech debt. As you can see from the reaction to programs like this, we're more likely to simply sink escalating maintenance costs into the existing system instead.
So now we have to pay down our tech debt. As you can see from the reaction to programs like this, we're more likely to simply sink escalating maintenance costs into the existing system instead.
The sad part is how long such spending has gone on across the state.
They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies.
Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The option of shooting-up and camping on the streets clearly has not worked in any way -- show me the data for how that helps anybody.
They're homeless because they're mentally ill, not because of the tautological nonsense of "they're homeless because they haven't a home". The mental illness is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies.
Instead of the singular focus on establishing state-paid housing, _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless is far overdue. The option of shooting-up and camping on the streets clearly has not worked in any way -- show me the data for how that helps anybody.
Not sure why you're being down voted, this is the most honest statement about so called "homelessness" in the united states. It is affordable housing advocates essentially leveraging the mentally ill while completely ignoring their plight.
But if you ask anyone who works to house the unhoused, the affordability of homes is the problem. If you don't have shelter to rely on, how can you possibly treat your mental illness in a safe environment. I actually think it is truly both. IT's the lack of available mental health treatment and the lack of affordable housing. Neither can be fixed with the perverse incentives of the current system we have.
If the goal really was to get as many people off the streets as possible, why don’t our builds look more like the dorms at ucla with shared facilities instead of private apartments with a kitchen built and bathroom built into every unit? Follow the money and see that this is a cash cow for certain developers and nothing more.
With the exception of treatment facilities/hospitals and housing as a basic necessity for all, housing really shouldn't be a central part of the discussion when it comes to people living on the streets, housing (or lack thereof) is not their problem.
Almost all people you see on the streets end up there after burning all bridges in their personal lives because of their illness. You may not be aware of this but there are in fact a lot of options in existence for housing such people, it doesn't work because they are ill and without treatment (forceful), it is hopeless trying to help them.
Almost all people you see on the streets end up there after burning all bridges in their personal lives because of their illness. You may not be aware of this but there are in fact a lot of options in existence for housing such people, it doesn't work because they are ill and without treatment (forceful), it is hopeless trying to help them.
America can build houses but free mental health care for all? It took Democrats 50 years to get the paltry affordable care act through.
> They're homeless because they're mentally ill
Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them.
> _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless
That is hard to implement in a free country.
Some but not all. There are many disparate causes of homelessness and mental illness is just one of them.
> _requiring_ treatment for the chronically homeless
That is hard to implement in a free country.
"That is hard to implement in a free country"
The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.
The past 2 years proves that entirely untrue.
> Requiring medical treatments
> Free country
That choice is a radio button, not a checkbox. Can't have both.
> Free country
That choice is a radio button, not a checkbox. Can't have both.
[deleted]
Huh? How?
We required everyone to get COVID treatment. (Especially in california)
Not only was it not "required," nearly 30% of the state of California remains short of full vaccination and restrictions are dropping daily.
You can demand an end to "mandates" and public health emergencies, but you must then applaud when those things end.
You can demand an end to "mandates" and public health emergencies, but you must then applaud when those things end.
Not technically required, but required for many workplaces. I do applaud an end to mandates even though I support vaccination and am vaccinated and boosted. And therein lies the problem.
yeah communism is bad because it expects people to be fed and housed on state expenses while capitalism throws freeloaders off the wagon.
sure its such a difficult proposition to implement in a free country. i mean i am in india and every poor household gets basically free rations every month, free healthcare in government hospitals and now even a medical insurance for treatments in private run hospitals at no cost. sure that costs a shit tonne of money but what else to do with the tax collections? spending on weapons is one but other than that, yeah.
i have to ask, why is construction costs so outrageous in the US? here, labor costs ~$6-8/day, on an average the cost of construction per Sqft is around inr 2000-3500 or $25-$44 /sqft. there are resources that say usa average costs around $100-$200.
that is a lot confusing because the article mentions $837000/150=5580 sqft. is that a good size home for homeless?
sure its such a difficult proposition to implement in a free country. i mean i am in india and every poor household gets basically free rations every month, free healthcare in government hospitals and now even a medical insurance for treatments in private run hospitals at no cost. sure that costs a shit tonne of money but what else to do with the tax collections? spending on weapons is one but other than that, yeah.
i have to ask, why is construction costs so outrageous in the US? here, labor costs ~$6-8/day, on an average the cost of construction per Sqft is around inr 2000-3500 or $25-$44 /sqft. there are resources that say usa average costs around $100-$200.
that is a lot confusing because the article mentions $837000/150=5580 sqft. is that a good size home for homeless?
Unskilled labor starts at $15/hr. A loaf of fresh bread is $5.
> communism
Who said anything about communism? I was talking about forcing people to undergo mental health treatment against their will simply because they can't afford a place to live.
Who said anything about communism? I was talking about forcing people to undergo mental health treatment against their will simply because they can't afford a place to live.
i was talking about "Free country". i feel sympathy for mental health treatment, that is why i said in india, medical treatment is essentially free now for rich and poor alike which is kinda big deal when it comes to increasing the overall health of communities. if you have less people who are sick, only because they did not have money for procedures otherwise, that is great.
They're homeless because housing costs are absurd in California. There are mentally ill people all across the country, but few places have a housing crisis anything like that in California. Only a quarter of the homeless in California suffer from severe mental illness[1].
1. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-08-07/men...
1. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-08-07/men...
California attracts homeless people because of its relatively temperate climate, lax policies on camps, and pays more than other states (recent interview guy said he was getting 800 cash plus 200 food stamps a month).
Back in June or July 2021, the governor invited the homeless to come to California with promises of free housing during a press tour.
Back in June or July 2021, the governor invited the homeless to come to California with promises of free housing during a press tour.
Treatment would IMO, include housing while under treatment, and some sort of halfway-housing afterwards.
Is there an "afterwards?"
I don't know if there are "one time" or "one shot" solutions. Certainly there are some unhoused that can be helped by that but I'm under the impression that most have issues that go substantially beyond a one time check or a pill or a one time treatment.
I don't know if there are "one time" or "one shot" solutions. Certainly there are some unhoused that can be helped by that but I'm under the impression that most have issues that go substantially beyond a one time check or a pill or a one time treatment.
Yes, exactly right. That is where they can learn and establish structure in their life, and build a foundation. These were once referred to as Independent Living Skills. Once taught and established, then they can hopefully translate that into a healthier life on their own.
Requiring treatment as a prerequisite for housing is the status quo, and it has not been working.
This is not a story about government waste, it's a story about the high cost of building housing. If you want this price to be lower, lower the general cost of housing. The median sale price in Los Angeles is about 1 million dollars, and new construction sells for more. New construction at $837k is a comparative deal. Also, if you read the report, a significant part of the cost is intragovernmental transfers, i.e. they are charging themselves all the usual impact fees for water and sewer and whatnot.
It is government waste though given the context. It would be one thing if this was the price for public housing, complete public housing that functions like a private apartment. It's not. It's for homeless shelters. These should be spartan builds, meant to maximize units for the cost. To me, the modern example of the idyllic homeless shelter is your average university dorm: 4 people sharing a bedroom, and an entire floor sharing bathroom and kitchen facilities. Historically, this is how the lowest rung of urban housing has always been developed from ancient Rome right up until the 1950s when whites used race and class to destroy urban fabric and declare SROs (really any neighborhood with poor people) slums, fit for conversion to surface parking for white collar office workers. It makes no sense to be building these shelters in this style of a private apartment with 1 bathroom and kitchen per unit. It just drives up the costs and increases developer profit, and gives a few people their own kitchen while keeping a lot of people cooking in a nylon tent over an open fire compared to the alternative of sparing these costly amenities from each and every unit, and offering them communally instead.
It’s definitely both. LA taxpayers set aside some 1 billion dollars to address homelessness and instead of coming up with a viable solution the city chose to build 20-50 units at a time at the tune of 500-800k each to address a problem that exists orders of magnitude greater than that solution (~1000x). The number of homeless in Los Angeles is in the range of 60-70k if not more.
Well it is both.
This pisses me off a LOT.
I'm currently owner building a house. It's going to end up costing 100k and I'm doing this paycheck to paycheck.
Doing it because I can't afford a house. I'm too old to have a 30 year mortgage.
Is LA willing to send me 1/8 of that cost to house my wife and I? And we'll do it ourselves.
Can the homeless build their own houses? Are these people just going to be getting hand-outs forever?
Why don't they just give Habitat money? This is insanity. I hope the LA administrators that started this mess are fired beyond fired.
I'm currently owner building a house. It's going to end up costing 100k and I'm doing this paycheck to paycheck.
Doing it because I can't afford a house. I'm too old to have a 30 year mortgage.
Is LA willing to send me 1/8 of that cost to house my wife and I? And we'll do it ourselves.
Can the homeless build their own houses? Are these people just going to be getting hand-outs forever?
Why don't they just give Habitat money? This is insanity. I hope the LA administrators that started this mess are fired beyond fired.
This is what I see: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Sl9RD.png
(/s)
How many years will the houses last? Is this land cost+improvements?
What is the average cost? 800,000 per unit is high. But that appears to be the upper end of the bell curve.
What is the average cost? 800,000 per unit is high. But that appears to be the upper end of the bell curve.
Please understand the connection between anti discrimination policy and expensive housing. It is illegal to discriminate in housing except via higher prices. So that's where all the pressure winds up for people to avoid the externalities of poor neighborhoods. I grew up on welfare and then became middle class via STEM and got to see both sides of it.
The title (which comes directly from the article) is surely clickbaity at best. It is not the case that there is one homeless person, whom LA is spending $837k to house; it is the case (so says the article, anyway) that LA has a massively overspending project whose amortised cost works out to "up to" (what a weasel word) $837k/person.
For the european fellows: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is...
Homelessness, like healthcare reaches a point of diminishing marginal returns where the problem just gets worse when more money is spent on it. If there was a hard upper limit on spending and then the government just had to get creative on doing things efficiently, things would work out better.
Reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWU6dJ8tub4 (Milton Friedman's 4 Ways to Spend Money)
I appreciate the need to help homeless folks, but I don't understand why they need to be housed in California. Why can't we build housing for them somewhere else, where it's cheaper?
The rust belt has spare houses and apartments. Why the hell can't we allocate better? We can't stuff everybody into CA, dammit!
I can't understand why California politicians aspire to spread their ideas nationally. There is so much grift and lack of results.
(I apologise in advance for my apparent ignorance on this) but are we sure we properly actually understand why people are homeless?
Is there a proportion of homelessness that is to some extent - although I hesitate to use this word - "voluntary"? Is there really nowhere else to go other than to sleep on the streets?
Is there a proportion of homelessness that is to some extent - although I hesitate to use this word - "voluntary"? Is there really nowhere else to go other than to sleep on the streets?
Smells like a payola to a certain people in trusted position.
CA tax money is the biggest racket in the world.
I do not understand the cost breakdown.
So a developer wants to build a hundred basic units (350 square feet/30 square metres) in a block and the cost is costing eighty million dollars?
We can do much better. Where are the factories building the prefabricated units to build apartments from?
I have a friend from East Germany who's parents grew up in the Stalinist apartments. They solved this exact problem in the early 1950s. What is wrong with LA?
And not to pick on LA. This is a problem throughout the West as far as I can tell. What is wrong with us? Why can we not efficiently build housing?
So a developer wants to build a hundred basic units (350 square feet/30 square metres) in a block and the cost is costing eighty million dollars?
We can do much better. Where are the factories building the prefabricated units to build apartments from?
I have a friend from East Germany who's parents grew up in the Stalinist apartments. They solved this exact problem in the early 1950s. What is wrong with LA?
And not to pick on LA. This is a problem throughout the West as far as I can tell. What is wrong with us? Why can we not efficiently build housing?
Sustainable!
Part of the problem is that due to the mild climate, LA inherits a large part of the homeless population of the whole country. They come from all 50 states to the west coast. So this isn't entirely a problem of LA's making, even though they have to bear the costs.
Nothing is a mild climate when you are homeless. Its going to be 39* tonight on the streets of LA. If all you have is a nylon tent and no blanket you are probably going to join the ranks of homeless who have died from hypothermia this year in LA, which outnumbers the people who have died from hypothermia in NYC because they actually build homeless shelters in NYC. Six months from now the problem will be flipped and you will be contending with heat stroke as the pavement heats up to 95*, and the city generally lacks widespread cooling centers. Honestly a bigger reason why homeless is so overt here is because its not criminalized. You can smoke crack or shoot up meth openly and police in LA don't care, but try even smoking a joint in Baton Rouge or wherever else and you will be sent to jail.
Where's the link to sign up? I'm ready to check out of the rat race.
Okay, start by becoming homeless.
Step 1, get on hard drugs
ICON’s 15.5-foot-tall 3D printers can build the exterior and interior wall system for a single-story house in a week. The method cuts 30% off traditional construction costs and has been proven to produce homes for as little as $10,000. Compare that to a recent effort in Los Angeles to build 117 pre-fab tiny homes for the unhoused for $5.1 million. Compared to the LA efforts’ approximate cost of $43,590 per home, ICON could print homes at a 4x cheaper rate. - we wrote this for a story back in October. ( https://news.youexec.com/briefs/texas-startup-will-build-100... ) The fact that it costs them $800,000 in some cases is just ridiculous.
The $800k isn't being paid to the folks doing the actual construction. It isn't dominated by materials cost either.
There are a lot of hands to be filled as money goes from the "house the homeless" fund to the actual projects.
There are a lot of hands to be filled as money goes from the "house the homeless" fund to the actual projects.
For the 1.2 billion dollars they are spending, if all of the apartments were built to the spec of a roadside motel room (~350 sq ft - or more than double the average SRO), they should realistically be able to build over 10,000 units for that kind of money (that's including California's exorbitant cost per square foot).
It would be like if the government banned motorcycles, and then said "okay, instead we'll make you a nice, compact crossover", and then handed over design and construction of the crossovers to a company that builds snowplows.
What's frustrating is that SROs used to be provided by the private market, largely free to taxpayers! How much better a use of government money it would have been to just improve the situation in SROs than to quietly let them shutter and hope the poverty they represented just disappeared with them.