The cost of homeless people.

[[DHT]Osiris]

So nobody is allowed to buy investment properties? That seems like a bad idea.

I think it's a fucking great idea. Rich people mass buying/building properties then artificially fixing prices at a level beyond what's reasonable is half the reason we're having a damn rental crisis as it is. I think exponential taxation on additional owned properties would be a stupendous idea.

 

[Chromagnus]

I'm not on board with the anti-growth policies in the greater bay area, where I happen to live. In the suburbs around here, there is plenty of room for growth. In SF, however, I agree with it. SF doesn't need more population density. It would make it a worse place to live, visit and work. The fact that population density isn't as high as many of the most dense cities in the world is in fact part of its appeal.

What needs to happen is that the suburban counties, particularly San Mateo and Santa Clara, ease up on their growth restrictions to lower housing prices. People can live in the burbs and work and/or visit SF. But let's not make SF into Manila or Mumbai.

This is part of the problem and why it's hard to fix this issue. Everyone wants things to stay the same where they live and want other people to fix the problem. You think SF is good the way it is so the suburban cities should build up. I'm sure the suburban cities think they are good the way they are so SF should build up. It's NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think it's a fucking great idea. Rich people mass buying/building properties then artificially fixing prices at a level beyond what's reasonable is half the reason we're having a damn rental crisis as it is. I think exponential taxation on additional owned properties would be a stupendous idea.

I agree. We have a problem with investment properties. I'm just not sure about the solution. Realistically just increasing the taxes on investment properties will just increase the cost of rent as those taxes will simple be passed on. All it really does is increase the risk of investment properties, since the only time that taxation would be a problem is if you can't find a renter to fill the property. Increased risk will hurt small investors much harder than large ones, in effect just making it easier for large investors to get even more properties and control the housing market in an area even more.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree. We have a problem with investment properties. I'm just not sure about the solution. Realistically just increasing the taxes on investment properties will just increase the cost of rent as those taxes will simple be passed on. All it really does is increase the risk of investment properties, since the only time that taxation would be a problem is if you can't find a renter to fill the property. Increased risk will hurt small investors much harder than large ones, in effect just making it easier for large investors to get even more properties and control the housing market in an area even more.

Yeah, hence my idea of govt mandated minimums and maximums of rent payment. If ~80% of your population of renters cannot legally live in your rental property, you'll probably adjust your prices.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not on board with the anti-growth policies in the greater bay area, where I happen to live. In the suburbs around here, there is plenty of room for growth. In SF, however, I agree with it. SF doesn't need more population density. It would make it a worse place to live, visit and work. The fact that population density isn't as high as many of the most dense cities in the world is in fact part of its appeal.

What needs to happen is that the suburban counties, particularly San Mateo and Santa Clara, ease up on their growth restrictions to lower housing prices. People can live in the burbs and work and/or visit SF. But let's not make SF into Manila or Mumbai.

Then you must accept that you are going to keep out the poor right?

I used to live in Fremont so I know SF well. I'm also an excited 49ers fan now that we have football Jesus (lol). My aunt used to live in Half Moon Bay.

SF can get more dense.

 

[K1052]

I'm not on board with the anti-growth policies in the greater bay area, where I happen to live. In the suburbs around here, there is plenty of room for growth. In SF, however, I agree with it. SF doesn't need more population density. It would make it a worse place to live, visit and work. The fact that population density isn't as high as many of the most dense cities in the world is in fact part of its appeal.

What needs to happen is that the suburban counties, particularly San Mateo and Santa Clara, ease up on their growth restrictions to lower housing prices. People can live in the burbs and work and/or visit SF. But let's not make SF into Manila or Mumbai.

The inevitable circular firing squad of SF/bay area towns saying that somebody else should build housing instead of them. If the intent was to never change the metro then don't permit massive office developments that draw employment.

 

[realibrad]

I think it's a fucking great idea. Rich people mass buying/building properties then artificially fixing prices at a level beyond what's reasonable is half the reason we're having a damn rental crisis as it is. I think exponential taxation on additional owned properties would be a stupendous idea.

No.

 

[interchange]

Can't do that. There is a big fight right now because poor people being forced out by high prices is wrong according to the Left which makes up a majority in the Bay. You can't allow only the rich to live in a place.

Keep in mind, this is the same city that protested Google because it was using private buses for its workers instead of letting them use public transit. They were upset because Google and its luxury buses were taking money away from the city transit system hurting the poor.

Well I'm not sure it is politically practical anyway. Although if there is a voluntarily-entered program something might be able to fly. Still, I don't like to cross things off the list immediately when first approaching a problem. If you keep your options open and focus on finding the best solutions regardless of practicality, you are usually better prepared to decide on what to do that might actually be implementable. And sometimes pursuing something that seems unlikely to happen actually does materialize.

 

[realibrad]

I agree. We have a problem with investment properties. I'm just not sure about the solution. Realistically just increasing the taxes on investment properties will just increase the cost of rent as those taxes will simple be passed on. All it really does is increase the risk of investment properties, since the only time that taxation would be a problem is if you can't find a renter to fill the property. Increased risk will hurt small investors much harder than large ones, in effect just making it easier for large investors to get even more properties and control the housing market in an area even more.

I disagree its a problem.

Investors buy properties and look to make money in the long run. Non-investors cannot buy properties now and eat the cost upfront many times. The issue is the limited supply. There is no competition. If you allowed for more supply, then investors would have to compete with new properties.

 

[realibrad]

Well I'm not sure it is politically practical anyway. Although if there is a voluntarily-entered program something might be able to fly. Still, I don't like to cross things off the list immediately when first approaching a problem. If you keep your options open and focus on finding the best solutions regardless of practicality, you are usually better prepared to decide on what to do that might actually be implementable. And sometimes pursuing something that seems unlikely to happen actually does materialize.

And sometimes trying to force things to fit what you want causes massive harm.

There is a culture in the Bay area that the poor need to be able to live in expensive cities. Any discussion is shot down. The reason is that inequality is one of the most immoral things as the Left sees it. Sending the poor to poor areas would be exactly that and they would fight against it vehemently.

 

[woolfe9998]

Then you must accept that you are going to keep out the poor right?

I used to live in Fremont so I know SF well. I'm also an excited 49ers fan now that we have football Jesus (lol). My aunt used to live in Half Moon Bay.

SF can get more dense.

Of course SF can get more dense. Many cities in the world are more dense. Doesn't mean we want it that way.

So far as keeping out the poor, that is true of the entire greater bay area. SF is very friendly to the homeless compared to other cities and much more so than any suburb, but it's not a place they're going to find housing if they happen to get a low wage job. If the homeless or working poor want a low wage job and cheaper housing, they have to move inland to places like Stockton or Modesto. Or they could live in the suburban bay area if, as I said, we loosened our anti-growth policies and provided more housing, including section 8 low income housing. But people in the burbs don't want to do that because of NIMBYISM.

There are basically three reasons housing is so expensive in the bay area. First, because of climate and culture, it's a highly desirable place to live. Second, because of anti-growth policies ostensibly fueled by environmentalism which is really a high minded cover for NIMBYISM. And third, because of Prop 13. We could get rid of or modify the last one, but there's obviously nothing we can do about the first, and so far as the second, well, self-interest is a universal condition.

My wife and I have season tickets for the niners. Been a fan since the early 70's when I moved to the bay area as a child. My dad was a fan back in the 1950's when he lived in Seattle and they had no football team then. So it runs deep in my DNA. I'm super excited about this season. Garrapolo is amazing. And they picked up Richard Sherman as well. Could be our first good season since Haurbaugh left.

 

[realibrad]

Of course SF can get more dense. Many cities in the world are more dense. Doesn't mean we want it that way.

So far as keeping out the poor, that is true of the entire greater bay area. SF is very friendly to the homeless compared to other cities and much more so than any suburb, but it's not a place they're going to find housing if they happen to get a low wage job. If the homeless or working poor want a low wage job and cheaper housing, they have to move inland to places like Stockton or Modesto. Or they could live in the suburban bay area if, as I said, we loosened our anti-growth policies and provided more housing, including section 8 low income housing. But people in the burbs don't want to do that because of NIMBYISM.

There are basically three reasons housing is so expensive in the bay area. First, because of climate and culture, it's a highly desirable place to live. Second, because of anti-growth policies ostensibly fueled by environmentalism which is really a high minded cover for NIMBYISM. And third, because of Prop 13. We could get rid of or modify the last one, but there's obviously nothing we can do about the first, and so far as the second, well, self-interest is a universal condition.

SF could get denser and still keep much of its identity. As for commuting from say Modesto (lived there until I was 13), that is around a 3+ hr drive one way. Many do it as my dad did, but it also kills you.

SF ultimately is killing its future.

My wife and I have season tickets for the niners. Been a fan since the early 70's when I moved to the bay area as a child. My dad was a fan back in the 1950's when he lived in Seattle and they had no football team then. So it runs deep in my DNA. I'm super excited about this season. Garrapolo is amazing. And they picked up Richard Sherman as well. Could be our first good season since Haurbaugh left.

Now to the fun part. Its kinda getting crazy right now with Jimmy G. If he is anything less than the greatest of all time, people are going to be disappointed. But man, that quick release just fits so well. Sherman is pretty damn talented and smart, and working with Sherman will help them both.

I miss the Harbaugh days. He turned that team around and they ruined it and drove him out.

But damn am I excited for the start of the season. I'm going to lose a lot of sleep being in FL watching games at night.

 

[hal2kilo]

So I went to school and got a degree, worked my ass off for my family, bought a house and cars and boat, and pay my mortgage and bills etc...

But you guys propose to house the bum on every street corner AND give them cash as a bonus?!? Don’t you people realize that if you just give them money and homes then suddenly EVERYONE will claim they are homeless?!?

No, rescue missions are the best we can do. It's silly to just throw money at them. They will go and buy drugs and whores on the next block and turn the home you just purchased for them into the neighborhood crack house.

If you have no pride as human being sure.

 

[realibrad]

If you have no pride as human being sure.

Scat porn is a thing. Some have no pride.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can't do that. There is a big fight right now because poor people being forced out by high prices is wrong according to the Left which makes up a majority in the Bay. You can't allow only the rich to live in a place.

Keep in mind, this is the same city that protested Google because it was using private buses for its workers instead of letting them use public transit. They were upset because Google and its luxury buses were taking money away from the city transit system hurting the poor.

That's not why-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_tech_bus_protests

 

[Paladin3]

Thats not the point of my post. You said they cant bus people out of the city, and they absolutely can.

They can't bus the homeless out who don't want to go...and I believe that is the majority of them. The homeless often migrate to cities that are more friendly to the homeless, easy to score drugs in, and with weather that facilitates being out of doors.

In a free society where due process under the law is a right, you can't force someone to be a productive member of society. If they commit crimes you can lock them up. If someone is a danger to themselves or others we can put them the hospital on a mental health eval, but once they see a doctor, start taking their meds and stabilize, they can check themselves right out and head back to the streets.

Set up all the work camps for homeless you want, give them jobs, hand them each a pile of cash, and they are still free to do what they want unless they are violating the law.

If we want to take the biggest, easiest bite out of the homeless population I think we need to offer meaningful drug treatment that views drug and alcohol addiction as the health problem it is. But, still, how do you forcibly detox someone who refuses to stay clean? Our free society is not set up to treat adults like children, even if they act like one and it would be the compassionate thing to do.

Handing a mentally ill or drug addicted homeless person a basic income or free housing will only facilitate more problems. Those who just enjoy the freedom of being "out of doors," or the street life and the drugs that often go with it, will not be helped with freebies alone.

IMHO, drug and alcohol addiction is the largest single problem our nation faces. Meaningful inroads in care on that front would help get lots of folks off of the streets.

 

[realibrad]

That's not why-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_tech_bus_protests

You tell me I'm wrong, and then post a link that supports what I said.

Here is some more to support what I said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/30/business/la-fi-google-bus-20140330

Yet critics are questioning whether this ad hoc system is the best way to solve the region's transportation woes. Some argue the private mass transit system is taking money away from public transportation while enabling municipalities in Silicon Valley to greenlight major tech expansions without building housing.

You have a habit of jumping into things when you see me talking and say something stupid. Let this go.

 

[Vic]

Why not transport the homeless to other places in the country where housing is much cheaper and labor is needed? Keeping them in high cost areas is just setting people up to fail. It's much, much harder to buy a house or rent in New Jersey, NYC, or California. Move them to places with much lower housing cost and set up labor programs, put them to work and help them get back on their feet.

Because those cheaper places already give the homeless one-way bus tickets to the more expensive places.

 

[realibrad]

They can't bus the homeless out who don't want to go...and I believe that is the majority of them. The homeless often migrate to cities that are more friendly to the homeless, easy to score drugs in, and with weather that facilitates being out of doors.

In a free society where due process under the law is a right, you can't force someone to be a productive member of society. If they commit crimes you can lock them up. If someone is a danger to themselves or others we can put them the hospital on a mental health eval, but once they see a doctor, start taking their meds and stabilize, they can check themselves right out and head back to the streets.

Set up all the work camps for homeless you want, give them jobs, hand them each a pile of cash, and they are still free to do what they want unless they are violating the law.

If we want to take the biggest, easiest bite out of the homeless population I think we need to offer meaningful drug treatment that views drug and alcohol addiction as the health problem it is. But, still, how do you forcibly detox someone who refuses to stay clean? Our free society is not set up to treat adults like children, even if they act like one and it would be the compassionate thing to do.

Handing a mentally ill or drug addicted homeless person a basic income or free housing will only facilitate more problems. Those who just enjoy the freedom of being "out of doors," or the street life and the drugs that often go with it, will not be helped with freebies alone.

IMHO, drug and alcohol addiction is the largest single problem our nation faces. Meaningful inroads in care on that front would help get lots of folks off of the streets.

If you want to take the biggest bite out of chronic homelessness, then you need mental health along with it.

There is plenty for the government to do here and it will end up costing everyone less than just leaving them be.

 

[Vic]

To a point. SF has already built out and can only build up, but they wont allow it.

So what do you do when you can only build up and down?

Who is this "they" who won't allow it except for the property owners? And if rising property prices don't encourage them to build up, what is your proposal to change that?

 

[realibrad]

Who is this "they" who won't allow it except for the property owners? And if rising property prices don't encourage them to build up, what is your proposal to change that?

They are the people that enact and enforce the laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage

Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments. Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth. At the same time, there has been rapid economic growth of the high tech industry in San Francisco and nearby Silicon Valley, which has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The resultant high demand for housing, combined with the lack of supply, (caused by severe restrictions on the building of new housing units) have caused dramatic increases in rents and extremely high housing prices. For example, from 2012 to 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area added 373,000 new jobs, but permitted only 58,000 new housing units.

 

[Vic]

lmao. This is the mind-numbingly brainless P&N statement of the day right here. "Dude .... but then, like .... everyone will just WANT to be homeless!" Straight out of a conversation between two sixteen year old stoners sitting in the basement of their rich parents' house.

He sounds like every other right wing idiot who 1) automatically assumes everyone has had the same opportunities he has, while 2) it's somehow super awesome to be poor and homeless and living on the streets because who wants to work, right?

 

[Vic]

They are the people that enact and enforce the laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage

Those people who enact and enforce the laws are made up primarily of the people who own the property, ie the people that live and work there and vote.
So I ask again, how do you propose forcing them to build up if they won't do it on their own?

 

[realibrad]

Those people who enact and enforce the laws are made up primarily of the people who own the property, ie the people that live and work there and vote.
So I ask again, how do you propose forcing them to build up if they won't do it on their own?

The people generally want more density. Its a small wealthy section of the people that keep out density. But, its not about forcing anyone beyond not letting the few decide what gets done in the city.

The problem is that your question is flawed. Its not that the builders don't want to build up, its that a select few with power made it illegal to build up. Remove the barrier that allowed the few to decide against what the majority want and it will happen.

That said, its actually starting to happen now with the new mayor. She is looking to add 5,000 units per year. It should still be a lot more though.

 

[Cerb]

lmao. This is the mind-numbingly brainless P&N statement of the day right here. "Dude .... but then, like .... everyone will just WANT to be homeless!" Straight out of a conversation between two sixteen year old stoners sitting in the basement of their rich parents' house.

You're being naive. It's more like straight out of sound economics. Many will live with a family member or buddy, pay them rent in cash, wear ratty clothes, and scam charities and the government. But, the others won't change. If you give them money and housing, they will still live in squalor, likely ruining the housing projects you just started giving them space in. You may then also attract more of them from all around, that could use a handout.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Not everyone wants to work for a living, or even lead a life of purpose, and many are raised specifically not to (like children of welfare queens). Not that finding the right carrots to put on the right sticks is easy, but just doing the easy thing that makes you feel like you helped is usually not the right thing to do. Just giving people stuff never works out like you want it to, unless what you want is their dependence. Even if such leeches are a minority, they are never a tiny one, and will ruin it for everyone else, if they are not taken into account.

OTOH, rehabilitation can work, and for the same reasons: it's subsidizing positive changes in thoughts and habits. But, that generally requires that the homeless not be out of sight and out of mind (NIMBYs on #bothsides), and requires long-term commitments. Communities that can get their regular families, charitable organizations, and local governments on the same page about that, tend to be quite rare.

Given that I was homeless for a few months I'm heavily biased toward social programs that will actually prevent people from ending up being homeless and help those who do off the street. I consider the saying that homeless people choose to be homeless to be a bunch of nonsense.

Chronically homeless often choose to be, but it's not like they had things going well for them, and just decided that freedom on the city streets would be better. They've likely been abused by cops, abused by criminals that hang around near shelters and the like, had bad experiences with trying to live at shelters, and on and on, and are probably long-time drug addicts. They can require years of help to rebuild trust in society, if not themselves.