Social US homelessness up 12% to highest reported level as rents soar and coronavirus pandemic aid lapses

[SakurabasEar]

You're preaching to the choir here, I don't think a single neighborhood should be zoned exclusively for SFH. That's not to say developers should be allowed to build skyscrapers wherever they want but homeowners should have the option to build/renovate 2-4 units on a given property.

Has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the restrictive housing market. What's funny is that normally this kind of government intervention that leads to inefficiencies and negative externalities is exactly the kind of thing libertarians and free market folks complain about. And yet because in this instance it benefits important constituencies like older homeowners many will lose the courage of their convictions and look the other way as local government strangles housing supply and kneecap the economy.

Has nothing to do with bootstraps, or wilful homelessness?

I understand the housing market is a problem. I even made a thread about it earlier this year. But there are homeless in California, who remain homeless with jobs just to bank money

 

[Islam Imamate]

These two sides will always be at odds because what helps one group, hurts the other. Your wish is to make places less nice so that more people can live there. My wish is to not make places worse even if it means less new people can move there.

Converting single family homes into duplexes and fourplexes hurts the value of neighboring homes.

You can't make an existing neighborhood a better place by creating lower income housing within it. That's what happens when you convert existing homes into affordable but less good multi family properties. It increases the risk of crime and lowers property values of all of the existing residents of the neighborhood. That's the whole reason for the NIMBYism. That's why they push back on it. No one wants their place to become less valuble and less safe. Also, it puts an additional strain on city services. It impacts school, policing, traffic, etc...

The real reason these places are not affordable is because they are overcrowded. Overcrowding is what created the housing scarcity, and you want to fix over crowding by making it where more people can be housed there.

You're just completely wrong across the board. The most in demand and valuable places to live are the densely populated, mixed use areas of the country, they are the economic engines of the nation. Allowing for mixed use, multifamily housing in the suburbs surround these cities, which for many decades only allowed SFH, will increase their property values and make them more desirable places to live while increasing the affordability of the wider metro area which means more people can move there which creates more growth.

NIMBYs are economically handicapping the country when they reduce the ability of the most dynamic cities to grow by limiting the supply of housing. The people who own SFH in these areas don't want the overall pie to grow which would benefit them, they are crabs in a bucket trying to hold everyone else back just so their neighborhoods don't change. There's a reason there is cheap housing in shithole cities across the country, those are shithole cities. The solution isn't to move people to shithole cities, its to build more housing in the cities with growing economies that have most of the opportunity.

As to the point about city services, its laughable because the opposite is true. Multifamily, mixed use developments can much better pay for their own services because they're cheaper to service per resident and generate more tax revenue. Its SFH suburbs that can't pay for their own services because the properties are stretched so far apart that things like roads and sewage become much more expensive and less efficient. They and end up being subsidized by the dense areas of the city that actually generate surplus tax revenue, yet another way in which the country subsidizes homeowners at the expense of everyone else.

Has nothing to do with bootstraps, or wilful homelessness?

I understand the housing market is a problem. I even made a thread about it earlier this year. But there are homeless in California, who remain homeless with jobs just to bank money

In many cases that is because of the housing market. Its so bad in Cali that people with low paying full time jobs can't afford rent and have to couch surf or live out of their car until they can save enough or find someone to split costs with. In a state like West Virginia which is much poorer than Cali and has the highest amount of overdose death per capita you see that the homeless rate is far lower. How come if they're poor drug addicts? Because housing costs are significantly lower. The solution isn't to move people to West Virginia though, its to build more housing and better transit in Cali to absorb all those extra people.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

You're just completely wrong across the board. The most in demand and valuable places to live are the densely populated, mixed use areas of the country, they are the economic engines of the nation. Allowing for mixed use, multifamily housing in the suburbs surround these cities, which for many decades only allowed SFH, will increase their property values and make them more desirable places to live while increasing the affordability of the wider metro area which means more people can move there which creates more growth.

NIMBYs are economically handicapping the country when they reduce the ability of the most dynamic cities to grow by limiting the supply of housing. The people who own SFH in these areas don't want the overall pie to grow which would benefit them, they are crabs in a bucket trying to hold everyone else back just so their neighborhoods don't change. There's a reason there is cheap housing in shithole cities across the country, those are shithole cities. The solution isn't to move people to shithole cities, its to build more housing in the cities with growing economies that have most of the opportunity.

As to the point about city services, its laughable because the opposite is true. Multifamily, mixed use developments can much better pay for their own services because they're cheaper to service per resident and generate more tax revenue. Its SFH suburbs that can't pay for their own services because the properties are stretched so far apart that things like roads and sewage become much more expensive and less efficient. They end up being subsidized by the dense areas of the city that actually generate surplus tax revenue, yet another way in which the country subsidizes homeowners at the expense of everyone else.

Well, you sound very confident. I still think you are incorrect and are understating the types of difficulties these neighborhoods would face if they converted single family homes to lower cost multifamily housing, but my opinion honestly doesn't really matter because I won't ever live in a major city unless they become safer and have less traffic. I don't have skin in the game. My opinion doesn't really count.

If you are correct though and you know more than the people that currently live in these neighborhoods, then I hope your arguments can convince them to change their minds.

 

[blackheart]

The only way to fix it is to let more illegals in giving them even more free stuff an give more money to Ukraine and Israel. Building more military bases around the world will also help.

I love how all of the things you bring up have absolutely nothing to do with the conditions that create homelessness to begin with.

Yeah man, homeless people come into existence because of aid to Ukraine, or something?

It definitely has nothing to do with economics. Homeless people exist because illegals and Ukraine aid.

 

[Cajun]

I agree that homes prices are relevant but I don't like the framing of homeowners paying taxes as somehow being a punishment. I get this comes off as nitpicking ad petty but part of the reason the housing market is so screwed right now is because of the way the government caters to homeowners.

They did take away the mortgage credit for taxes this past year and again this year. It def hurts if you were counting on it.

 

[avenue94]

It can be argued that from a public policy standpoint that the needs of the many are more inportant than the needs of the few, but no one should blame existing homeowners for wanting to protect their property. It isn't absurd of them to do so.

Why should the value of a house be protected from deprecation. Should we also limit the supply of cars or other nice things just to prop up their long-term value?

 

[avenue94]

You can't make an existing neighborhood a better place by creating lower income housing within it.

This is just bad economics and logic.

It increases the risk of crime and lowers property values of all of the existing residents of the neighborhood

Making housing more affordable doesn't increase crime. Do you have a study on this?

. Also, it puts an additional strain on city services. It impacts school, policing, traffic, etc...

You get more residents paying into the pot, whether its sales tax, property taxes, etc. As your population grows, they pay more, you scale up services. This is basic governance.

The real reason these places are not affordable is because they are overcrowded. Overcrowding is what created the housing scarcity, and you want to fix over crowding by making it where more people can be housed there.

You can build near overcrowded places, and if done prudently, you can even avoid the sprawl of a place like Los Angeles.

Also it's either dishonest or just ignorant to say overcrowding creating housing scarcity. There is ample research showing that the supply of new home construction has not kept pace with population growth. You can look at a place like Japan to see that you can have both high population density and relatively affordable housing.

 

[Blunderbuss]

Well, you sound very confident. I still think you are incorrect and are understating the types of difficulties these neighborhoods would face if they converted single family homes to lower cost multifamily housing, but my opinion honestly doesn't really matter because I won't ever live in a major city unless they become safer and have less traffic. I don't have skin in the game. My opinion doesn't really count.

If you are correct though and you know more than the people that currently live in these neighborhoods, then I hope your arguments can convince them to change their minds.

You both have points, but I tend to fall more on your side. When we bought our home nearly 8 years ago, it came with a basement apartment attached. There was already a family living inside of it and the husband was a real piece of work. I just found out he was arrested for identity fraud a couple weeks ago actually. My neighbor to the left had a tenant who was on welfare and definitely had some scams going (according to my elderly neighbor). The house on my right had two apartments, each with drug addicts living in them. The house across the street had a rental (the guy ended up committing suicide, I don't know much about it), and the house on their right had drug dealers living in the basement.

My tenants ended up having to leave after 6 months because the apartment was never city approved, and I ended up just getting rid of the apartment altogether after renting it only one other time (to a nice couple that I knew, but I just am not cut out to be a landlord). Over the course of the next few years, all these shitty people ended up leaving. I don't know if everyone just got tired of renting like I did, maybe their mortgages were paid and they didn't need the hassle anymore, but no tenants exist anymore. The house next to me has been completely empty for a year and a half now (which is sweet!) So now the neighborhood is just my wife and I and a bunch of 70 year old couples. Our neighborhood is cleaner, quieter, more positive now that we are all single family households. I feel bad because I know a ton of lovely Philippino families that are living three to four families to a home, and their landlords are shitty people, but being responsible for other people and their behavior on your street just kinda sucks.

 

[avenue94]

There was already a family living inside of it and the husband was a real piece of work. I just found out he was arrested for identity fraud a couple weeks ago actually. My neighbor to the left had a tenant who was on welfare and definitely had some scams going (according to my elderly neighbor). The house on my right had two apartments, each with drug addicts living in them. The house across the street had a rental (the guy ended up committing suicide, I don't know much about it), and the house on their right had drug dealers living in the basement.

Does occupying an apartment increase one's chances of developing a drug addiction or criminality? This is really bizarre logic. It's not even the fallacy of correlation being causation, but somehow just worse logic.

There is a correlation between some types of crime and poverty, but the solution to this would be literally reducing poverty, not writing off huge chunks of the population because you already got yours and making it harder to escape poverty traps.

 

[Blunderbuss]

Does occupying an apartment increase one's chances of developing a drug addiction or criminality? This is really bizarre logic. It's not even the fallacy of correlation being causation, but somehow just worse logic.

There is a correlation between some types of crime and poverty, but the solution to this would be literally reducing poverty, not writing off huge chunks of the population because you already got yours and making it harder to escape poverty traps.

Not at all. Like I said, I did rent out to a lovely couple after my first experience, but I couldn't cut it as a landlord. My mental health was definitely suffering because I could never shake the fact that I wasn't doing enough as a provider for them, which I don't think is a good trait to have as a landlord. I was more using an anecdote to support his theory, in that the state of our neighborhood did improve once the multi family homes became single family households

 

[avenue94]

Not at all. Like I said, I did rent out to a lovely couple after my first experience, but I couldn't cut it as a landlord. My mental health was definitely suffering because I could never shake the fact that I wasn't doing enough as a provider for them, which I don't think is a good trait to have as a landlord. I was more using an anecdote to support his theory, in that the state of our neighborhood did improve once the multi family homes became single family households

Yeah, I'm saying that's a bizarre way to argue that. Your neighbors can rent their apt to a perfectly productive member or members of society. It's not like a homeowner who has a duplex or something wants to rent to a shitty tenant. It makes no sense to punish all renters when you can punish ones that drive down property priced by being nuisances.

 

[Blunderbuss]

Yeah, I'm saying that's a bizarre way to argue that. Your neighbors can rent their apt to a perfectly productive member or members of society. It's not like a homeowner who has a duplex or something wants to rent to a shitty tenant. It makes no sense to punish all renters when you can punish ones that drive down property priced by being nuisances.

I certainly agree with that. I've not spoken to them about why their units are empty. Maybe because they're all in their 70s, they just don't want any added stress, who knows. It doesn't help that the cost of rent that those around me charte is insane and way above what it should be (in no world should rent of a basement apartment nearly equal the cost of an entire mortgage).

 

[Telford90]

Democrats introduce bills to ban hedge funds from single-family housing market - HousingWire

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced bills in both chambers targeting institutional investor activity in single-family housing.

www.housingwire.com

This is good policy. Hopefully it gets up and they start expanding it till eventually all ownership is limited.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

Why should the value of a house be protected from deprecation. Should we also limit the supply of cars or other nice things just to prop up their long-term value?

People purchase homes inside of neighborhoods with restrictions specifically to insulate themselves from depreciation. It's why some neighborhoods prohibit you from having junk cars that don't run sitting in your driveway or building rinky dink homemade sheds for example. Changing restrictions in such a way as to intentionaly depreciate the homes of people already living in the neighborhood would be immoral IMO. People purchased into these neighborhoods in good faith that the neighborhood association would protect their home values or at least not intentionally do anything that would depreciate their home values.

For neighborhoods that already don't have restrictions then it's just a buyer beware kind of thing and I dont have a strong oppinon on someone choosing to convert their single family home into a multi family property and/or some type of rental. For every comment that I have made in this thread I am specifically referring to to neighborhoods that currently prohibit turning single family homes into multifamily properties and whether or not that should be changed to allow this.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

This is just bad economics and logic.

Making housing more affordable doesn't increase crime. Do you have a study on this?

You get more residents paying into the pot, whether its sales tax, property taxes, etc. As your population grows, they pay more, you scale up services. This is basic governance.

You can build near overcrowded places, and if done prudently, you can even avoid the sprawl of a place like Los Angeles.

Also it's either dishonest or just ignorant to say overcrowding creating housing scarcity. There is ample research showing that the supply of new home construction has not kept pace with population growth. You can look at a place like Japan to see that you can have both high population density and relatively affordable housing.

Taking a middle class neighborhood and intentionally making it where lower income people can live there increases the probability of negative consequences like crime. Particularly if single family homes are converted to multifamily rentals with rent control. There is a correlation between lower income and crime. You aren't guaranteeing crime will go up by doing that, but you are increasing the probability of crime going up by doing that. There are more renters living in multifamily units that have criminal convictions than there are single family home owners.

You are saying that more residents equal more tax revenue which will offset the strain on services but that isn't necessarily true. It depends on the income of the invidual and the number of dependents. A husband and wife with middle or upper middle class jobs that allow them to afford to purchase a single family home and have one or two children would potentially bring in more tax revenue and be less of a strain on resources than two sets of single parents renting out a duplex with lower income and more dependents. People who own rather than rent tend to be wealthier, more stable, and in less need of assistance.

In theory you can increase housing in crowded places with very careful planning that reduces the likelihood of as many issues like increased crime, lowering the quailty of schools, or creating traffic woes, but show me where that has actually successfullly happened in cities of over 1 million people and then compare thar to the number of cities of over 1 million people where this has not successfully happened. There is a much higher likelihood of increasing crime, education, and traffic issues when you keep adding more people to crowded places.

The reason why there is a housing scarcity in major cities is because more people are attempting to live in major cities than there currently is housing. I think we both agree on that. You think the answer is building more houses. I think the better answer would be finding somewhere else for the surplus population to live rather than see how many people we can fit there given the already mentioned risks. I also think building more homes is a temporary solution, it's just kicking the can down the road. Even if you increased housing by say 20 percent, eventually you would still run of housing because so many people desire to live in big cities due to jobs and things to see and do. Instead of only trying to increase growth in existing massive cities we should be trying to develop new economic centers.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Democrats introduce bills to ban hedge funds from single-family housing market - HousingWire

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced bills in both chambers targeting institutional investor activity in single-family housing.

www.housingwire.com

This is good policy. Hopefully it gets up and they start expanding it till eventually all ownership is limited.

Tbh this is not good policy nor will it make a difference. Hedge funds account for a relatively small part of the market. The real problem is what we see ITT, NIMBYism from the average homeowner. This is what strangles housing supply and has created the housing crisis but no one ever wants to point the finger at the average homeowner because of the bad optics so they have to engage in mental gymnastics to find a way to blame corporations somehow.

 

[Telford90]

Tbh this is not good policy nor will it make a difference. Hedge funds account for a relatively small part of the market. The real problem is what we see ITT, NIMBYism from the average homeowner. This is what strangles housing supply and has created the housing crisis but no one ever wants to point the finger at the average homeowner because of the bad optics so they have to engage in mental gymnastics to find a way to blame corporations somehow.

Can you quickly explain NIMBYism? FYI I'd limit everyone to ownership of a singular residential property if that gives context to why I like this policy.

 

[avenue94]

Changing restrictions in such a way as to intentionaly depreciate the homes of people already living in the neighborhood would be immoral IMO.

It wouldn't inherently depreciate the value of existing homes. That's up to the market at that point. Plenty of countries are perfectly fine with multifamily housing. A homebuyer is buying a parcel of land and a dwelling, not a snapshot of time that is supposed to never change. That's how you end up with slums and housing shortages, when you make it harder for people to buy and sell homes and move naturally.

People purchased into these neighborhoods in good faith that the neighborhood association would protect their home values or at least not intentionally do anything that would depreciate their home values.

This also the same logic that led to white flight, housing covenants, and housing disparities between different populations. Cities and neighborhoods change throughout time, that's normal. Fighting that is incredibly damaging to society.

For every comment that I have made in this thread I am specifically referring to to neighborhoods that currently prohibit turning single family homes into multifamily properties and whether or not that should be changed to allow this.

Again, why should a home be protected from depreciation when cars are not? You're essentially asking for a homeowner subsidy to protect them from competition on the market.

Taking a middle class neighborhood and intentionally making it where lower income people can live there increases the probability of negative consequences like crime.

Are you arguing that criminality is bred into low income people? Because the correlation (and an imperfect one I'll add) is between poverty and crime. IE if you remove poverty, you would logically break that correlation. What's your evidence that renting an apartment makes you more liable to commit crimes?

A husband and wife with middle or upper middle class jobs that allow them to afford to purchase a single family home and have one or two children would potentially bring in more tax revenue and be less of a strain on resources than two sets of single parents renting out a duplex with lower income and more dependents.

1. This is just bad math and ignores sales tax and other tax methods.
2. It's incredibly shortsighted because this situation makes it less likely those several single parents move up the income ladder and gain wealth. In other words, you're cannibalizing your future tax base.

In theory you can increase housing in crowded places with very careful planning that reduces the likelihood of as many issues like increased crime, lowering the quailty of schools, or creating traffic woes, but show me where that has actually successfullly happened in cities of over 1 million people and then compare thar to the number of cities of over 1 million people where this has not successfully happened. There is a much higher likelihood of increasing crime, education, and traffic issues when you keep adding more people to crowded places.

Tokyo.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Can you quickly explain NIMBYism? FYI I'd limit everyone to ownership of a singular residential property if that gives context to why I like this policy.

NIMBY stands for "Not In My Backyard" and in this context refers to homeowners who do what they can to block new housing developments near them. In practice what this means is that for most of the last 50 years or so most of the land around major metros were zoned exclusively for single family homes which can't provide enough housing stock for growing demand. So the core problem isn't that corporations are buying up housing, its the lack of housing supply that comes from all sorts of red tape like onerous zoning restrictions and the abuse of environmental laws by NIMBYs.

 

[Telford90]

NIMBY stands for "Not In My Backyard" and in this context refers to homeowners who do what they can to block new housing developments near them. In practice what this means is that for most of the last 50 years or so most of the land around major metros were zoned exclusively for single family homes which can't provide enough housing stock for growing demand. So the core problem isn't that corporations are buying up housing, its the lack of housing supply that comes from all sorts of red tape like onerous zoning restrictions and the abuse of environmental laws by NIMBYs.

Ah yep that makes sense thanks.