So What Should We Do About Drug Addicts?

[dismalist]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

[Anselm]

Certain places like San Francisco and Manhattan will always be expensive due to geographic and economic factors.  If the middle class can't afford to live there then it is hopeless for the poor folks. I just picked up an old book by Gore Vidal.  He wrote that in 1970 England had 1800 heroin addicts while the USA had 500,000.  The UK treated it as a medical problem and allowed the addicts to get opiates from a doctor. 

What should we do?  We have countless examples of social experiments from around the world and some workable solution should be known by now.

As an aside, have any of you seen the interviews at the Youtube channel called Soft White Underbelly?  The creator has some fascinating interviews with addicts living on the streets.

[ciao_yall]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

And yet, European and Asian cities are filled with affordable housing, rent control and no homeless people.

[dismalist]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

And yet, European and Asian cities are filled with affordable housing, rent control and no homeless people.

Understand my first sentence above before you disagree with my second.

[quasihumanist]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

You do the counting, and realize that AirBnBs and empty mansions are a drop in the bucket.  They account for a tiny fraction of the need.

NIMBYism is part of the problem, but there are some indications that, in the Bay Area, it (or at least its classic form) is not the real problem.  In places where zoning has been relaxed and the other legal and regulatory hurdles to building more housing have been reduced, there has been very little effort to build much denser housing.  This suggests it's just not (as) profitable.  Indeed, if you look at the real estate market, you'll find that, in many places, a single family home on one lot goes for almost the same price as a duplex or a triplex on a similarly sized lot.  (Certainly, the higher costs of construction for extra units doesn't cover any difference.)

The tech workers want to live in less dense neighborhoods, and they make enough more money than everyone else to buy up all the available land for the lower density they want.  Broad-based inequality at work.

Maybe the tech industry in the Bay Area should be analyzed as a Dutch Disease.

[Kron3007]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

You do the counting, and realize that AirBnBs and empty mansions are a drop in the bucket.  They account for a tiny fraction of the need.

NIMBYism is part of the problem, but there are some indications that, in the Bay Area, it (or at least its classic form) is not the real problem.  In places where zoning has been relaxed and the other legal and regulatory hurdles to building more housing have been reduced, there has been very little effort to build much denser housing.  This suggests it's just not (as) profitable.  Indeed, if you look at the real estate market, you'll find that, in many places, a single family home on one lot goes for almost the same price as a duplex or a triplex on a similarly sized lot.  (Certainly, the higher costs of construction for extra units doesn't cover any difference.)

The tech workers want to live in less dense neighborhoods, and they make enough more money than everyone else to buy up all the available land for the lower density they want.  Broad-based inequality at work.

Maybe the tech industry in the Bay Area should be analyzed as a Dutch Disease.

I think a big part is the commodification of housing.  In Canada, the biggest group of people buying homes now is people who already own at least one house, showing that housing has really shifted to an investment opportunity.  20% of real estate here is now owned by investors. 

When people discuss the supply demand dynamics, they usually imply that housing hasn't kept up with population growth, but that is questionable and I think only explains a small part of what happened.  In reality, the housing/population rates were fairly steady for a while, but housing prices went through the roof in the last few years.  The two trends do not match.

More supply would help, but I think there is a lot the government could be doing to dissinsentivize real estate as an investment that would have more impact and should be done.  It won't, because a lot of people with a lot of money wouldn't want that, but affordable housing is really essential for a functional society...

Back to the dynamics among states, preople like to invest in desirable areas, driving up prices even more. 

[marshwiggle]

The tech workers want to live in less dense neighborhoods, and they make enough more money than everyone else to buy up all the available land for the lower density they want.  Broad-based inequality at work.

Maybe the tech industry in the Bay Area should be analyzed as a Dutch Disease.

I'd like to point out that tech company owners, (with few exceptions like Elon Musk), are progressive, and their employees are largely very progressive, and are in favour of things like "socialism" and "social justice". So these people should be hugley in favour of low cost housing and other social supports in their own neighborhoods (and the higher taxes to finance them).

[marshwiggle]

I think a big part is the commodification of housing.  In Canada, the biggest group of people buying homes now is people who already own at least one house, showing that housing has really shifted to an investment opportunity.  20% of real estate here is now owned by investors. 

But that still leaves open the question of where all of the people come from who those investors can rent to. For those properties to not sit vacant, there need to be people who can pay the carrying costs on those places. Rent is not going to be less than the owners' financing costs. There can't be an infinitely deep pool of wealthy potential tenants that is bigger than the supply of housing. At some point, when everyone of a certain income level is housed, there's not going to be a market for more housing at that price point.

[jimbogumbo]

I'd like to point out that tech company owners, (with few exceptions like Elon Musk), are progressive, and their employees are largely very progressive, and are in favour of things like "socialism" and "social justice". So these people should be hugley in favour of low cost housing and other social supports in their own neighborhoods (and the higher taxes to finance them).

Really? Aside from the obvious fact one of them is running for the Republican nomination as a Trump clone, my daughter works for a seriously red Larry Ellison (Oracle), and Peter Thiel has not exactly hung out with a bunch o progressive tech CEOs. Below is from 2017, but still applies. Almost certainly undercounts.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/10/silicon-valley-right-wing-donald-trump-peter-thiel

[ciao_yall]

I think a big part is the commodification of housing.  In Canada, the biggest group of people buying homes now is people who already own at least one house, showing that housing has really shifted to an investment opportunity.  20% of real estate here is now owned by investors. 

But that still leaves open the question of where all of the people come from who those investors can rent to. For those properties to not sit vacant, there need to be people who can pay the carrying costs on those places. Rent is not going to be less than the owners' financing costs. There can't be an infinitely deep pool of wealthy potential tenants that is bigger than the supply of housing. At some point, when everyone of a certain income level is housed, there's not going to be a market for more housing at that price point.

Some people are perfectly happy to have a home in XYZ that they maintain but only visit a few times a year.

There are a lot of people who are now going to be lifetime renters. Rent keeps going up with the market, and they can't afford to save for a down payment.

[ciao_yall]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

And yet, European and Asian cities are filled with affordable housing, rent control and no homeless people.

Understand my first sentence above before you disagree with my second.

I agree that lack of supply is an issue. Somehow they get things built in other countries. Less NIMBYs, public transportation and services, etc.

I don't agree that rent control is a problem. Rent control keeps places affordable. If housing is considered a public good, then investors will just have to live within the constraints or the government will need to subsidize the cost.

[Kron3007]

I think a big part is the commodification of housing.  In Canada, the biggest group of people buying homes now is people who already own at least one house, showing that housing has really shifted to an investment opportunity.  20% of real estate here is now owned by investors. 

But that still leaves open the question of where all of the people come from who those investors can rent to. For those properties to not sit vacant, there need to be people who can pay the carrying costs on those places. Rent is not going to be less than the owners' financing costs. There can't be an infinitely deep pool of wealthy potential tenants that is bigger than the supply of housing. At some point, when everyone of a certain income level is housed, there's not going to be a market for more housing at that price point.

That's kind of my point, I don't feel the issue has that much to do with the ratio of people to housing (maybe in part), rather that people and corporations are using housing as an investment that drives up prices.  We are just shifting from a country where individuals own homes and accumulate the equity, to one where that is concentrated with the wealthy.

People who would like to buy, and would have been able to a decade ago, are forced to rent and have to pay the market rate.  Some will be forced into homelessness, but many will make it work by making sacrifices in other areas.  Many will never be able to buy, or likely save for retirement, etc.



 

[dismalist]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.

High rents are a symptom of inadequate new supply, not increased new demand. The cause is NIMBYism, us, in other words.

"Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." --Assar Lindbeck

And yet, European and Asian cities are filled with affordable housing, rent control and no homeless people.

Understand my first sentence above before you disagree with my second.

I agree that lack of supply is an issue. Somehow they get things built in other countries. Less NIMBYs, public transportation and services, etc.

I don't agree that rent control is a problem. Rent control keeps places affordable. If housing is considered a public good, then investors will just have to live within the constraints or the government will need to subsidize the cost.

Lack of supply is not an issue, it's the only issue!

Rent control keeps places affordable for those already living in the existing housing stock. Unless a South Bronx 1970's happens, when rent control made it profitable to burn down buildings.

Bronx Burning

To keep housing prices and rents down you need more damned houses! After all, a surge in demand for bubble gum drives up quantity, not price. 

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time. My flat is a private good. You can't consume it at the same time I consume it.

Restrict the return on investment in housing, and presto, you get no additional houses. Try to find a flat in Paris.

Government subsidies for housing? No, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually thought. We need more houses, not more subsidies.

[spork]

[. . .]

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time.

[. . . ]

I'd say that is a non-rival good. A public good is both non-rival and non-excludable.

[dismalist]

[. . .]

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time.

[. . . ]

I'd say that is a non-rival good. A public good is both non-rival and non-excludable.

Yes, Spork. The non-excludable part was added by Musgrave early after the Samuelsonian pure public good was posited.

The addition doesn't help analytically, though: First, you don't want to exclude from a pure public good, for the cost of adding a consumer is zero. Second, excludability is a function of technology. Radio used to be not excludable, now it's excludable.

To get back to the housing scarcity, people get in my way if they inhabit my flat, and I can exclude them by locking the door. A flat is a pure private good no matter how you slice the cake.

Anyway, definitions are not true of false, just more or less useful.