The cost of homeless people.

[Zorba]

Their fair share of growth? How did you come to that idea?

I didn't mean it in the literal sense. Just that some cities/metros are growing far faster than others and that is creating the large unbalance in demand vs supply. So places like the Bay Area, DFW and SoCal are growing like crazy, while smaller metros like Wichita or Cincinnati aren't seeing much growth. Of course that is in part because people want to live there, but the biggest thing is that companies continue to set up shop in those metros and of course those metros continue to encourage the growth.

 

[Zorba]

Our cities can effectively hold a LOT more people if we let them. Instead a minority of locals has been allowed to trigger a housing crisis by restricting supply.

Yeah, but you can't do it over night, regardless of NIMBY. Infrastructure as become much more expensive and with much more demand the larger a metro grows. I also doubt that it is just a minority of locals that don't want the classic San Fran neighborhood bulldozed for high rise condo buildings.

 

[K1052]

I also doubt that it is just a minority of locals that don't want the classic San Fran neighborhood bulldozed for highrise condo buildings.

Hyperbolic junk. You could increase density by letting people turn single and two story buildings along major routes with transit into three and four story buildings. The city in fact has proposed such things in the past and the response is nuts from the usual activists. I lived in the city...there is muuuuuuuuch that could be added on to or torn down/replaced without bulldozing the victorians.

 

[realibrad]

I didn't mean it in the literal sense. Just that some cities/metros are growing far faster than others and that is creating the large unbalance in demand vs supply. So places like the Bay Area, DFW and SoCal are growing like crazy, while smaller metros like Wichita or Cincinnati aren't seeing much growth. Of course that is in part because people want to live there, but the biggest thing is that companies continue to set up shop in those metros and of course those metros continue to encourage the growth.

Your point seemed to be that places like the Bay Area cannot hold more people effectively, but that would go against many other examples of cities being more dense and being just fine. There is plenty of growth left in the Bay and demand is not at the point where supply cannot meet it. The reason there is a balance is because the people in power do not want more growth.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm part of that 46% that want to leave. It's simply to crowded here. The roads are becoming impassable, and some city's have deferred maintenance to the point that many of their streets can't be repaired, they have to be replaced. They also keep talking about repealing prop 13. That would cost me $13,000 a year.

Repealing prop 13 would be a great start. Regardless I suspect a large part of the 46% of people want to leave San Francisco want out because the housing is simply too expensive. The Bay Area and California in general is reaping what they have sown with decades and decades of restrictive housing policy. They haven’t built enough houses for most of anyone here’s lifetime and this is what you get.

I see the same nonsense in Brooklyn. Every time someone wants to build an apartment building or whatever the anti-gentrification people come out of the woodwork to try and stop it. They don’t seem to realize that exactly their efforts to stop more housing from being built is why housing is so expensive.

NYC and California are some of the most desirable places on earth to live, and that means they need housing policy to accommodate that.

 

[fskimospy]

Your point seemed to be that places like the Bay Area cannot hold more people effectively, but that would go against many other examples of cities being more dense and being just fine. There is plenty of growth left in the Bay and demand is not at the point where supply cannot meet it. The reason there is a balance is because the people in power do not want more growth.

‘The infrastructure can’t handle it’ is usually the fallback position people use after ‘building more houses will making housing more expensive’ is shown to be nonsense.

If the infrastructure can’t handle it then use the additional tax money from the influx of new people to your new housing to upgrade it. No city’s infrastructure could handle being a city when it started.

 

[Greenman]

Repealing prop 13 would be a great start. Regardless I suspect a large part of the 46% of people want to leave San Francisco want out because the housing is simply too expensive. The Bay Area and California in general is reaping what they have sown with decades and decades of restrictive housing policy. They haven’t built enough houses for most of anyone here’s lifetime and this is what you get.

I see the same nonsense in Brooklyn. Every time someone wants to build an apartment building or whatever the anti-gentrification people come out of the woodwork to try and stop it. They don’t seem to realize that exactly their efforts to stop more housing from being built is why housing is so expensive.

NYC and California are some of the most desirable places on earth to live, and that means they need housing policy to accommodate that.

Or not, and just keep the cost of entry high.

 

[fskimospy]

Or not, and just keep the cost of entry high.

What is to be gained by that?

I personally think zoning should be abolished entirely. If you look at the history it was captured almost immediately by incumbent property owners in order to increase their own wealth.

 

[Greenman]

What is to be gained by that?

I personally think zoning should be abolished entirely. If you look at the history it was captured almost immediately by incumbent property owners in order to increase their own wealth.

Absolute insanity. City's would grow like a cancer, then wither and die as everyone that could afford to evacuated.

 

[Jhhnn]

Absolute insanity. City's would grow like a cancer, then wither and die as everyone that could afford to evacuated.

Houston!

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...rom-Houston-s-lack-of-zoning-laws-9171688.php

 

[Hugo Drax]

So about 80K per homeless. shit If I had no job I would take 80K a year and live under a bridge for 10 years and save up 800K. okay so why not just put 80K in a bank account and buy the homeless a cheap house in some state where homes can be purchased for 100-150K or less?

seems like the money is being squandered if they are actually spending 80K per homeless and in the end they get squat, the problem is not fixed yet somehow the 80K per homeless evaporated and nothing tangible has come from this money. I find it hard to believe they cant use that money to build somewhere out in the state a large housing complex for all of them and just bus them to live in that location.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolute insanity. City's would grow like a cancer, then wither and die as everyone that could afford to evacuated.

New York is basically your nightmare realized yet it is one of the most desirable places on the planet. How do you explain this?

 

[Zorba]

Hyperbolic junk. You could increase density by letting people turn single and two story buildings along major routes with transit into three and four story buildings. The city in fact has proposed such things in the past and the response is nuts from the usual activists. I lived in the city...there is muuuuuuuuch that could be added on to or torn down/replaced without bulldozing the victorians.

I'm not that tuned into the Bay Area. But people comparing it's density to Manhattan aren't taking about adding low density/low rise apartments only along major roads.

 

[Zorba]

Your point seemed to be that places like the Bay Area cannot hold more people effectively, but that would go against many other examples of cities being more dense and being just fine. There is plenty of growth left in the Bay and demand is not at the point where supply cannot meet it. The reason there is a balance is because the people in power do not want more growth.

Of course it could be more dense, but its not like NYC is an example of affordable living, which is what we're talking about here.

 

[Zorba]

Houston!

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...rom-Houston-s-lack-of-zoning-laws-9171688.php

Houston is what happens with no zoning laws. Endless sprawl characterized by low quality development that doesn't retain tenants or value and floods once a decade. And absolutely no density or public transportation.

 

[realibrad]

Of course it could be more dense, but its not like NYC is an example of affordable living, which is what we're talking about here.

But the reason is because NYC allows more density whereas SF does not. When you allow for density you allow for more housing, and when you allow for more housing you get competing prices, and when you get competition you get lower prices.

 

[Jhhnn]

But the reason is because NYC allows more density whereas SF does not. When you allow for density you allow for more housing, and when you allow for more housing you get competing prices, and when you get competition you get lower prices.

So what? Homeless & jobless people won't be able to pay the rent, anyway.

 

[paperfist]

Didn't Seattle just try to tax business to pay for homeless problems?

 

[realibrad]

So what? Homeless & jobless people won't be able to pay the rent, anyway.

You are by far the dumbest person on this forum that I see.

First, what I just said was how to lower this price of housing. It was not the solution to homeless people.

Second, if you want my solutions to chronic homelesness read through this thread. You might be surprised that it involves the government helping. Gasp!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Too many Americans have become calloused towards people of lesser means through no fault of their own and I believe that we have a moral obligation to assist them with meeting their basic needs. With that said I think that we should do more to provide them with basic housing and food. Clearly this thinking is resisted by the right who want to oppress the already oppressed among us.

I'm sorry, please remind us of when your last contribution to the homeless problem was?

Oh, what's that? You want to fight the problem with a tax increase on the "wealthy"*? Why am I not surprised...


*wealthy = one step above my income level.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm sorry, please remind us of when your last contribution to the homeless problem was?

Oh, what's that? You want to fight the problem with a tax increase on the "wealthy"*? Why am I not surprised...


*wealthy = one step above my income level.

Heh. Your defense of the ultra wealthy is quite touching. It's obvious that the top .1% can pay a lot more in taxes rather painlessly. They make a minimum of ~$2M in taxable income per year & it goes up vertically from there. Their share of national income is nearly as large as the bottom 50% combined. They own the GOP. The only sacrifice any of them offer at the altar of greed is the rest of us.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

There is just something mentally wrong when you just live your entire life under the notion of "this person has it better than me, therefore they have to pay more than me!" It is jealousy to the core and downright pathetic that you can't accept the fact that someone made more money than you, but for some reason they should pay a higher percentage than you. It's yet another form of keeping up with the Jones'.

Once again, if it's all for the betterment of mankind, why aren't you throwing your money up? It's because you're full of shit as far as caring for anyone or anything. Just admit it.

 

[Jhhnn]

.

There is just something mentally wrong when you just live your entire life under the notion of "this person has it better than me, therefore they have to pay more than me!" It is jealousy to the core and downright pathetic that you can't accept the fact that someone made more money than you, but for some reason they should pay a higher percentage than you. It's yet another form of keeping up with the Jones'.

Once again, if it's all for the betterment of mankind, why aren't you throwing your money up? It's because you're full of shit as far as caring for anyone or anything. Just admit it.

If I made upward of $2M/yr I'd just pay whatever taxes were demanded of me because I'd realize just how lucky I'd be to be in that position. That's right- mostly lucky, not superior, due to a variety of factors beginning with the accident of birth. I'd understand that it's a privilege to live in a society where that's possible.

A few years of that & I'd know I'd never want for anything unless I was extremely greedy & lusted for power over my fellow men.

 

[nickqt]

There is just something mentally wrong when you just live your entire life under the notion of "this person has it better than me, therefore they have to pay more than me!" It is jealousy to the core and downright pathetic that you can't accept the fact that someone made more money than you, but for some reason they should pay a higher percentage than you. It's yet another form of keeping up with the Jones'.

Once again, if it's all for the betterment of mankind, why aren't you throwing your money up? It's because you're full of shit as far as caring for anyone or anything. Just admit it.

First, just because you make more money than someone else doesn't always mean you pay a higher percentage of your income, or even a higher total amount, than someone who makes less.

Second, society gets to decide tax rates, and how much individuals and corporations pay in taxes. If you don't like it, go live in International Waters, or Somalia.

Third, the richest people on the planet have much more incentive for government fiat currency to maintain value than someone with no money. And they also have much more incentive for the current government to continue existing to back contracts, and real property holdings. If the dollar disappeared along with federal and state governments tomorrow, all your bank accounts become worthless, and all your real property goes to whomever holds it at the moment.

Societies create taxes to pay for particular entitlements that the society thinks are just. After a long enough time, those entitlements become rights.

You can hem and haw about taxes and how it's stealing, but that's what you get when you agree to live in that society. You can attempt to change it, or you can move elsewhere.

 

[Lanyap]

Didn't Seattle just try to tax business to pay for homeless problems?

Yes and it failed. Big tech businesses did not want to pay a head tax. The Seattle council/commission got in trouble for private meetings.