Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What should we do about homeless people? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
FairWarning
Footballguy
Things like safe needles are a good example of how this is difficult. Rational people on both sides can make points. It's not an easy decision. There are lots more like that.
The other thing is I believe it's not just about money.
It's how that money is applied to solutions.
The other thing is I believe it's not just about money.
It's how that money is applied to solutions.
That gets me too. On Veterans day, on the thing we do downtown, they would ask for the people who've served to stand so we can recognize them. I'm always conflicted on that. I'm glad they recognize them. And I don't think serving in the military means you're set for life. We should care for all citizens. But it also seems extra wrong. Especially since I'd assume some of the folks who served may be dealing with PTSD that may be some of the reason they're there in the first place.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is not an issue that we can just throw up our hands and say “nothing we can do.”
The reason that it is one of the main issues in California right now according to voters on Tuesday, right up there with crime and inflation, is that there are more homeless than ever.
In Venice, (a beach area next to Santa Monica, extremely liberal) they were all over the boardwalk, which has caused a lot of people not to feel safe there- and it’s a huge tourist area. After many businesses complained the police chased them away, but they ended up hanging around outside the library. The.Venice library is a very popular place especially for young families to take their kids, and now it’s surrounded by people living on the ground doing drugs…it’s an untenable situation.
FairWarning
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
This is worth a watch...(the second half of the segment deals specifically with this topic)
https://youtu.be/RMpCGD7b_H4
Last edited by a moderator:
I will say I've never seen the attention for Homelessness so high.
For a long time, the people interested in this were more the "bleeding heart" type like me or people who had a specific connection to it.
But now, I am seeing LOTS more folks like Tim is describing who are taken aback by this.
I think it's driven by them being compassionate. But also, this is now becoming a business problem for many people. I have friends in Austin who are very liberal and would normally be sympathetic to this cause but they run businesses and their opinion now is "We've lost our mind on this".
Which tells me the problem is getting a lot worse.
Homelessness has always been one of those things that's a little tough to measure. But I don't know anyone in any city who doesn't think it's significantly worse than it has been.
For a long time, the people interested in this were more the "bleeding heart" type like me or people who had a specific connection to it.
But now, I am seeing LOTS more folks like Tim is describing who are taken aback by this.
I think it's driven by them being compassionate. But also, this is now becoming a business problem for many people. I have friends in Austin who are very liberal and would normally be sympathetic to this cause but they run businesses and their opinion now is "We've lost our mind on this".
Which tells me the problem is getting a lot worse.
Homelessness has always been one of those things that's a little tough to measure. But I don't know anyone in any city who doesn't think it's significantly worse than it has been.
timschochet
Footballguy
In terms of politics: I don’t think this situation is going to turn California red anytime soon: there are too many issues on which we are solidly on the side of the Democrats.
Even so, if local Republicans decide to make this and crime the central issues, they’re going to win some elections. Rick Caruso (running as a Democrat but a former Republican) has already demonstrated this.
Even so, if local Republicans decide to make this and crime the central issues, they’re going to win some elections. Rick Caruso (running as a Democrat but a former Republican) has already demonstrated this.
FairWarning
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Karen Bass is not a socialist. She is a leftist progressive but that is not the same thing. And it’s important to use proper definitions here. Also she has pledged to deal with this issue (perhaps in response to Caruso.)
FairWarning
Footballguy
opensourcebeer
Footballguy
I can understand and respect that position, however it doesn't do much to address the Supply Side Jesus mentality passed along by guys like Osteen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
because its directly affecting them Joe
I use my buddy's in south TX as an example all the time on illegals ... they come across his property, trash it, through his back yard .... and people in secure area's in cities or far away from border? they don't care .... until it happens in THEIR back yard, and then? it becomes a very important issue
that's human nature - I'm not knocking it .... but when people/voters/cities have been warned what happens with providing drug paraphernalia, encouraging drug use by legalizing/allowing it and essentially encouraging people to live in tents in streets by the laws they've passed/accepted ? I mean I don't know what to say except they have what they wanted - its just now its in THEIR back yard vs someone else's and now, they don't like it
I just got done reading this article and came to this forum looking for a place to post it. This is as good a spot as any, I think:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/how-san-francisco-became-failed-city/661199/
I thought it was a really good read that provides a perspective we non-San Franciscans may not otherwise be exposed to. It's not a sustained argument in favor of any particular set of policy prescriptions, but does a good job of highlighting some facts on the ground in a city with particularly bad problems relating to homelessness and drug use.
Long term, the housing problem can be dealt with only by building more housing units and letting people live in them.
That means: Stop allowing people to interminably delay new housing construction by filing environmental impact forms. Stop prohibiting new housing construction via zoning. Stop prohibiting people from having lots of unrelated roommates.
That means: Stop allowing people to interminably delay new housing construction by filing environmental impact forms. Stop prohibiting new housing construction via zoning. Stop prohibiting people from having lots of unrelated roommates.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Just raw numbers but I’m not sure it’s significantly worse (assuming we trust the numbers). I think like with most things nowadays we are saturated with the information or details.
I think certain cities are worse, some are better and like immigration it’s somewhat used as a wedge issue but I do agree it seems folks on both sides have a decent amount of empathy for the homeless.
timschochet
Footballguy
I live in Huntington Beach. Early this year the city council agreed to accept state funds to build more housing units to deal with this issue. The result was a huge recall effort. Everytime I entered a supermarket there was someone in face wanting me to recall the city council (it was the same folks who wanted me to help recall Gavin Newsom the year before.) The argument I heard was “do you want to turn HB into Santa Monica??”
So why should politicians take the political risk to do what you’re asking if they’re going to be punished for it?
At any given local level, NIMBYism may always be politically popular. Current homeowners will want to protect the value of their homes. I think realistic solutions will have to come from state or federal legislation (restricting what localities can do to prevent new housing).
Last edited by a moderator:
Stoneworker
Footballguy
It's not a "housing supply problem."
The fundamental problem is that a certain segment of the population <insert whatever excuse/valid reason> does not have the ability to willfully produce anything of sufficient value that results in them being compensated adequately to provide shelter for themselves.
timschochet
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I think that Democratic led states (not Republican ones) will be willing to apportion funds for housing. As I wrote, we’ve already seen this in California. But as to legislation forcing localities to accept them….politically I can’t see that happening.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
I have no problem with this and think it’s a better way to go about treating drug users. I’d rather give them the safe space to do their drugs and use it as an opportunity to encourage treatment. Hell, I’d even give them the drugs for free if it means they aren’t committing criminal acts on the streets to obtain them.
I’m also a big proponent of ending the war on drugs and legalizing it all.
In historical terms, housing seems to be on the expensive side right now, which indicates a supply problem.
For a population of any given size, the number of people who are housed will be strongly correlated with the number of housing units in existence. If you have a million people and only a hundred houses, a lot of people will be homeless no matter how productive or well compensated they are. The upper limit to how many people can be housed, and therefore the lower limit to homelessness, will strongly depend on housing supply.
There is an excellent market solution to this: if you have a million people but only a hundred homes, allow highly productive, well compensated people to use their income to build homes to live in. When we make that illegal (or overly difficult), some of the consequences will include higher housing prices and higher rates of homelessness.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Subsidized housing would potentially help the minority (20-25% from my sources) of homeless who actually have jobs.
What about the vast majority (75-80%) that don't have an income?
Stoneworker
Footballguy
You are correct and I'm not looking to debate the specific issue of low-income/subsidized housing for gainfully employed persons.
However, IMO that is a categorically different problem vs. homelessness, where according to my (limited) research 75-80% don't have jobs.
Restricting supply while subsidizing demand is incoherent. https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/restrict-supply-subsidize-demand/
We need to quit restricting supply.
dgreen
Footballguy
Oh, I wasn't referring to subsidized housing. I was building off of Maurile's free market argument. And he did present it as a long-term solution, which I think makes sense. But, yes, people also need wages. I think lightening up on laws that restrict new housing is a good way to deal some chunk of this problem down the road. It certainly won't fix things for everyone, like those with zero income.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's partially because it's hard to afford housing when you don't have a job. But it's also partially because it's hard to maintain a job when you are sleeping on the sidewalk. A vicious circle.
timschochet
Footballguy
Home builders would like nothing better. Except that they don’t want to build low income housing, much less homeless shelters. They want to build new homes that are going to make them a profit.
dgreen
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
All new housing increases the amount of low-income housing. There are good empirical studies on this. When you build fancy high-end housing, all other housing (including at the low end) becomes cheaper, which pushes some medium-income housing into low-income housing.
timschochet
Footballguy
Even now, with interest rates nearly doubled in the last few months, home prices in my area aren’t dropping. Every house that goes on sale gets ten offers above asking price before there’s even an open house. It’s insane.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Whatever is the excuse/valid reason, if 75-80% of homeless don't have an income then there won't be adequate demand to stimulate private homebuilding.
So then you need a market intervention for taxpayers to supply free public housing with charity/welfare.
And if that free public housing is of same quality and terms as anyone who even pays a dime for it, then from a social equity/fairness standpoint you need to provide to everyone.
dgreen
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure California is below average in housing starts per capita in a country that, on average, does a pretty poor job of building new homes.
timschochet
Footballguy
No I trust that what you’re saying is correct. But it does seem like a slow process. Almost a trickle down theory, right? And housing prices in California keep going up.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s never going to be the same quality. Look at the results from the last time society made a major effort to deal with this: the housing projects in the big cities.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Again. My post dealt strictly with defining the fundamental problem statement. And it is not housing costs.
It is dignified work resulting in a steady income stream for 75-80% of the homeless populations.
Focus on that first and then migrate to housing costs/supply.
It is dignified work resulting in a steady income stream for 75-80% of the homeless populations.
Focus on that first and then migrate to housing costs/supply.
dgreen
Footballguy
Probably because there isn't much supply. I just checked quickly and Huntington Beach has about 77,000 households and there's currently about 250 listed on Zillow.
timschochet
Footballguy
Right. Exactly.
But what happens when there is talk of more housing here? I already told you: recall efforts.
dgreen
Footballguy
Yeah, building houses would be a slow process. (It probably could be less slow if certain laws were changed.) But, if we imagine an unrealistic scenario where we snap our fingers and all of a sudden there a million new homes on the market in Southern California, it's pretty undeniable that prices would drop. When adding to the supply takes time, other variables change too that might lessen the impact we'd hope for.
Last edited by a moderator:
dgreen
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
Just to add a few more - stop requiring minimum lot sizes, stop requiring minimum parking requirements, stop taking forever (in some cities) to get through permitting, stop requiring compatibility setbacks. Just to name a few.
Density is the key.
dgreen
Footballguy
How much income would be needed, though, to get them into a home? Obviously that varies by location, but most places have become pretty expensive.
Similar threads
