Something to consider when pushing housing density.

[Zorba]

Or we could just build housing of all different types instead of accepting mass outdoor encampments or trying to do some building by building central planning. (Though, we should also have more public restrooms).

The lowest rung of housing used to be the single-room occupancy, but cities have effectively outlawed those. Thus, if you can't afford a studio or find a roommate situation, you're out on the street.

Say you lift every zoning type law in San Diego or Seattle, who is going to develop dorms for homeless people? I'm guessing around the same time the ultra cheap electricity starts flowing into California from deregulation.

ETA: Read your next post, are there actually laws preventing old hotels from doing weekly rentals? There are a ton around here that advertise pretty low rates, but we still have homeless.

 

[Zorba]

@fskimospy I know you and I have discussed historical areas before and I think we both agreed they are mostly stupid and should go away.

But in San Antonio they have height restrictions around the Alamo so no building can cast a shadow on the Alamo. Obviously there is no doubting that the Alamo is a real historical site. So what are your feelings about these types of restrictions very near a true historical place? There are still pretty tall buildings nearby, just none that would cast a shadow over the main building.

 

[Brainonska511]

Say you lift every zoning type law in San Diego or Seattle, who is going to develop dorms for homeless people? I'm guessing around the same time the ultra cheap electricity starts flowing into California from deregulation.

ETA: Read your next post, are there actually laws preventing old hotels from doing weekly rentals? There are a ton around here that advertise pretty low rates, but we still have homeless.

Single-room occupancy have largely been zoned out of existence, and many places have maximum consecutive day limits, to either avoid being investigated as an illegal SRO or to avoid someone becoming a tenant under the law. And in some places, like NYC, building new hotels is extremely difficult because of the permitting laws put in place, so now you also don't get the turnover of old hotels --> SRO.

SROs, and cheap housing like that, wouldn't just be useful for homeless people, or people on the edge. It could be a way for someone to move to a new city, figure out where they want to live, and save as they start a new career, or offer cheap, no-frills housing for those that want to spend their money elsewhere.


Anyway, we should also be building more shelters and make it possible for people to not have to resort to living in tents or cars.

 

[fskimospy]

The idea that our new plan is to make our tent cities better instead of just building more houses is so depressing.

Actually no, not building more houses, simply no longer banning their building.

 

[fskimospy]

@fskimospy I know you and I have discussed historical areas before and I think we both agreed they are mostly stupid and should go away.

But in San Antonio they have height restrictions around the Alamo so no building can cast a shadow on the Alamo. Obviously there is no doubting that the Alamo is a real historical site. So what are your feelings about these types of restrictions very near a true historical place? There are still pretty tall buildings nearby, just none that would cast a shadow over the main building.

I’m against them as well. While I’m not really sure why anyone cares if there’s a shadow on the Alamo if they do think that’s important than they or the public can buy the necessary land and develop it in a way that ensures that doesn’t happen.

 

[K1052]

@fskimospy I know you and I have discussed historical areas before and I think we both agreed they are mostly stupid and should go away.

But in San Antonio they have height restrictions around the Alamo so no building can cast a shadow on the Alamo. Obviously there is no doubting that the Alamo is a real historical site. So what are your feelings about these types of restrictions very near a true historical place? There are still pretty tall buildings nearby, just none that would cast a shadow over the main building.

The Alamo is sure historical but I'm always amazed by the number of actual Texans who have no idea what the Texians were fighting for beyond "freedom".

"The freedom to do what?" I ask. Either they don't know or they do and get all red in the face.

 

[Zorba]

The idea that our new plan is to make our tent cities better instead of just building more houses is so depressing.

Actually no, not building more houses, simply no longer banning their building.

So are you going to call in the army to force developers to build cheap housing for current homeless? Or to build so much housing, the market collapses? I don't think developers will do either on their own free will.

We can attempt to make the current suffering better now while we figure out how to collapse housing prices.

 

[fskimospy]

So are you going to call in the army to force developers to build cheap housing for current homeless? Or to build so much housing, the market collapses? I don't think developers will do either on their own free will.

Developers constantly try to create new housing and are blocked from doing so. Also the idea that we're going to house the homeless in newly built housing stock that seems highly unlikely - it's like saying if someone doesn't have a car we need Toyota to build a new cheap one for them. We don't - if they build lots of new cars people sell their old, less nice cars, and the poorer people buy those. Same deal here.

Developers are not the issue - excessive regulation is the issue.

As far as building so much housing that the market collapses we are so many millions of homes away from this we can deal with that problem when we come to it.

We can attempt to make the current suffering better now while we figure out how to collapse housing prices.

No need to collapse housing prices - just stop them from increasing beyond the rate of inflation.

As far as making the current suffering better we should build publicly subsidized houses, open up SROs, etc. using additional tax dollars and efficiencies that come from housing reform.

 

[hal2kilo]

@fskimospy I know you and I have discussed historical areas before and I think we both agreed they are mostly stupid and should go away.

But in San Antonio they have height restrictions around the Alamo so no building can cast a shadow on the Alamo. Obviously there is no doubting that the Alamo is a real historical site. So what are your feelings about these types of restrictions very near a true historical place? There are still pretty tall buildings nearby, just none that would cast a shadow over the main building.

I grew up in a county right across the river where most of the monuments in Washington, D.C. are. Up until somewhere in the early to mid 70's, Arlington allowed no buildings to be more the 14 or 17 stories tall (can't exactly remember) so as not to overshadow (not literally) the Washington skyline. I'm not sure how much higher it was changed to since I haven't lived there since I was 18. Everything good happened after I left. Liquor by the drink at restaurants for one.

 

[Zorba]

Developers constantly try to create new housing and are blocked from doing so. Also the idea that we're going to house the homeless in newly built housing stock that seems highly unlikely - it's like saying if someone doesn't have a car we need Toyota to build a new cheap one for them. We don't - if they build lots of new cars people sell their old, less nice cars, and the poorer people buy those. Same deal here.

Developers are not the issue - excessive regulation is the issue.

As far as building so much housing that the market collapses we are so many millions of homes away from this we can deal with that problem when we come to it.

No need to collapse housing prices - just stop them from increasing beyond the rate of inflation.

As far as making the current suffering better we should build publicly subsidized houses, open up SROs, etc. using additional tax dollars and efficiencies that come from housing reform.

People can't afford the current prices, so if you held prices in line with inflation people still couldn't afford them. Where are all the SROs for homeless going to come from if they aren't built? Either you have to build housing for the homeless or errode current housing values to the point the homeless could afford it.

There is new multifamily housing all over DFW and the prices have still skyrocketed. Do you have any evidence that the price increases there are due solely to government regulations?

 

[fskimospy]

People can't afford the current prices, so if you held prices in line with inflation people still couldn't afford them. Where are all the SROs for homeless going to come from if they aren't built? Either you have to build housing for the homeless or errode current housing values to the point the homeless could afford it.

I really meant below inflation. Regardless, no need to have a housing crash.

As far as new SRO’s, just stop banning them and we can convert old hotels and such.

This is not complicated. At every juncture just think how you can slash pointless regulations like single family and parking minimums.

There is new multifamily housing all over DFW and the prices have still skyrocketed. Do you have any evidence that the price increases there are due solely to government regulations?

There’s also been a huge influx of people! I really think you DRASTICALLY underestimate the extent of construction required.

It’s not solely due to government regulation, that’s just the biggest single contributor.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember when you said OKC has almost no restrictions and then it turns out multi family housing is banned in 75% of it? And that’s before we even get to the other things like parking minimums.

 

[fskimospy]

The Dallas metro area increased by about 100,000 people year over year. The average American household is 2.5 people so just to keep pace with population growth you need about 40,000 new housing units.

I looked up new permits in the area and saw 383/100,000, which would mean about 25,000 units.

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

So in the place with ‘new multi family everywhere’ they fell behind by a further 15,000 units. Guess skyrocketing prices make sense.

 

[MrSquished]

Developers are not the issue - excessive regulation is the issue.

Imagine thinking developers are not part of any housing problem. As if many of them are not just driven by pure greed, it's only the system forcing themselves to be, and if regulations got out of their way, they'd all magically become more reasonable people. What a load of horseshit.

Sure, developers can be hamstrung by regulations as I have always agreed with, but to give them a pass like, oh just deregulate them and it will all work out is just poppycock nonsense. what stupidity is this. Moonbeam, you have competition.