Housing & Homeless Problem

[Josh]

Homelessness is adjacent to “law and order”, basically, whether or not citizens are allowed to expect government to stop people from defecating on the sidewalk.

In California and Oregon, the answer is no, you aren’t allowed to expect that. Leftists keep doubling down on this.

The question is if rank and file Democrats will quit voting for this. So far I don’t see signs of this happening. They just eventually move to a red state, then get busy ruining that place with “rights” for drug addicts and criminals.

[Heirbyadoption]

I actually think the next big civil rights issue in this country isn’t going to be about race or gender but about housing. We are reaching a tipping point in many parts of the country when it comes to housing and homelessness. And it isn’t just the coasts. The solutions are going to take just as much of a re-ordering and re-imagining of our society as other big changes like the invention of the automobile or the end of slavery. I don’t think that is hyperbole. The world we are building now through neglect is simply not sustainable. And no other modern wealthy countries seem to have the same crisis as in the US. At least not that I have observed.

Ken, going back to my original question, do you have any thoughts or speculation on what that might actually look like? Are you thinking land redistribution? More multidwelling units? Etc? Or are you just meaning it might provide a motivation for a shift in voting blocks?

[Ken]

I actually think the next big civil rights issue in this country isn’t going to be about race or gender but about housing. We are reaching a tipping point in many parts of the country when it comes to housing and homelessness. And it isn’t just the coasts. The solutions are going to take just as much of a re-ordering and re-imagining of our society as other big changes like the invention of the automobile or the end of slavery. I don’t think that is hyperbole. The world we are building now through neglect is simply not sustainable. And no other modern wealthy countries seem to have the same crisis as in the US. At least not that I have observed.

Ken, going back to my original question, do you have any thoughts or speculation on what that might actually look like? Are you thinking land redistribution? More multidwelling units? Etc? Or are you just meaning it might provide a motivation for a shift in voting blocks?

I have no idea. I do think in terms of politics that the politicians and parties who convince the voters that they actually have meaningful and effective policies will likely succeed and win elections. I don’t know which party will benefit the most or be able to exploit this issue. It is everywhere not just blue cities on the coasts. The housing crisis may have started on the coasts but it is now reaching into the most red parts of rural America too.

As for policies. So much of this is self-inflicted by NIMBY zoning laws, obstacles to building more housing, endless court battles, and so forth. This crisis has been a long time in the making and it will take a long time to resolve.

Essentially we have two categories of homeless in this country. The first category are the hard-core homeless who are mostly substance abusers or mentally ill and just can’t function in productive society. There isn’t really much you can do about these folks. The homelessness is a symptom of larger problems. About all you can do is regulate and institutionalize them, build more shelters and such. The courts have restricted homeless round-ups when there aren’t adequate alternatives so we basically have to build adequate numbers of shelters or public camping places before we can clean up the streets and parks.

The second category of homeless are the “invisible” homeless who are otherwise generally productive people who have just lost housing due to debt, bad credit, rising rents, personal circumstances (divorce, etc.) and we tend no to see these folks because they are couch-surfing, stealth living in cars and vans, maybe in public campgrounds on the edge of town. This population is really growing. Many already have jobs and are reasonably productive but for whatever reason they lack housing. These are the easiest to help with traditional types of public subsidized housing and social programs.

What happens is that programs to help the homeless tend to help the “invisible” homeless first and don’t make a dent in the visible vagrant population. So the public assumes they are not working when they might be working perfectly fine. They are just helping people who aren’t visibly homeless.

[nett]

I actually think the next big civil rights issue in this country isn’t going to be about race or gender but about housing. We are reaching a tipping point in many parts of the country when it comes to housing and homelessness. And it isn’t just the coasts. The solutions are going to take just as much of a re-ordering and re-imagining of our society as other big changes like the invention of the automobile or the end of slavery. I don’t think that is hyperbole. The world we are building now through neglect is simply not sustainable. And no other modern wealthy countries seem to have the same crisis as in the US. At least not that I have observed.

I agree with Ken here. I'll add that I think the reason the US has such an acute crisis, is that we are a much younger nation than most wealthy countries. The US population exploded in 300 years without sustainable, mature infrastructure to stabilize things. For example, American-style suburbs are really not found any where else in the developed world, except for countries that are trying to be more "American". American suburbs are horrible in every way. They are astronomically expensive in terms of capital cost, ongoing maintenance is so expensive that most suburbs will become insolvent within 50 of their creation. Despite all this cost, suburbs house very few people per ft².

As far as what will happen, I don't actually see a way out. I think the American experiment is coming to a close, and I think an honest history will categorize it as a hubristic failure.

[Josh]

The homeless crisis is almost entirely concentrated in places that are Democratic strongholds. So there is no arena for parties to compete on this.

The question is if Democratic candidates will decide to do anything about it. The wealthiest cities (NYC, SF, LA) have all the homelessness, so it’s not a matter of money. It’s also not a matter of lack of government programs and spending and taxation. NYS and Cali have high taxes.

[Josh]

As for policies. So much of this is self-inflicted by NIMBY zoning laws, obstacles to building more housing, endless court battles, and so forth. This crisis has been a long time in the making and it will take a long time to resolve.

Most of America has no zoning laws. And most zoning laws are so that people aren’t stuck living next to a strip club, not to aggravate homelessness.

Most of America (by square mile) allows you to build whatever structure you want.

[barnhart]

It's easier for me to see housing as a human right than other things that are called rights. I don't know how to fix these thorny problems but I agree with Ken if trends continue, we will eventually think of it as an emergency.

Any solution that captures my eye would have to address funding. As long as housing bears the burden of wealth creating investment opportunities, it will not serve the function of housing well. At least not for poor people, it will likely serve the connected and enfranchised quite well.

[Soloist]

Oregon has some zoning laws prohibiting multiple dwellings. The one legal exception I heard of was hardship dwellings and there was a fellow south who had some good 10-30 trailers for people with hard times. I really appreciated that fellow not for personal use, but for others I knew.

Oregon in the Salem with a very quick look is charging about 2000+ for a three bed which is what I would have to have to rent (due to occupancy laws) and a 1 bed was starting at 1000 roughly. Thats ignoring safety or any options too. Most rental agencies want to see three times income from the rent prices so 6000 for a family and 3000 for a single fellow. Obviously there are other options but you have to spend a fair bit of effort to find them.

Out in Florida the 3 bedroom starts at 1400 in the poor area's with the median price being 1600+ and they are going very quickly.

One issue we ran into in the past with rentals was they would make excuses to keep your deposit 90% of the time. The other aspect we saw was they wanted first and last month rent and a double security deposit due to renting from a (Mennonite) private landlord. That particular place would have been wanting 5500 prior to move in.

Oregon the minimum wage is going up to 15 and assuming you were working full time that would be roughly 2600 a month.... Too short to rent a 1 bed, obviously too little to rent and the argument is well how can someone expect to live on minimum wage? Okay fair enough argument. How much does someone need to make to have a 1 bed assuming 3 times income then? 17-18 an hour.
How much does someone need to raise a family?
Buying is pretty bad in Oregon too, I know a single nurse who laughs about being able to afford something and he is well paid.

Going back to the homeless, what job can a druggy do? what job can a lazy person do? what job can a mentally unwell person do? what job can a "free spirit" person do?
Answer that question and then ask if they can afford anywhere to live. Now why they can't afford anywhere is a much more complex problem that would have to be fixed to fix the homeless.

We had a very hard time finding housing in Florida, but we have an option now that just needs a lot of fixing prior to living. Our system is built on debt and it is very hard for a person to be economically stable and raise a family without generosity or debt.
Debt = control and has repeatedly resulted in many economic problems resulting in the government giving more money to the rich. The most recent bail out of college students will likely be expected to be repeated by future leaders and generally no one will be more fiscally prudent from it other then the lenders perhaps being worried to loan money to a student.

[Josh]

It's easier for me to see housing as a human right than other things that are called rights. I don't know how to fix these thorny problems but I agree with Ken if trends continue, we will eventually think of it as an emergency.

Exactly who is responsible to provide this "human right"?

I personally do not wish to be forced to invite unrepentant drug addicts, alcoholics, and violent mentally ill into my home. The homeless population basically consists of people who want to be drug addicts or who don't want treat their mental illness. (I would gladly invite any in who are repentant and wish to leave behind them a life of drug abuse, drink, and selfishenss.)

Any solution that captures my eye would have to address funding. As long as housing bears the burden of wealth creating investment opportunities, it will not serve the function of housing well. At least not for poor people, it will likely serve the connected and enfranchised quite well.

Ah, yes, the bogeyman of "funding", which means hard-working citizens will get their pockets emptied out for projects like in L.A., where they are spending $700k+ per unit of housing for homeless.

Homelessness is not a money or funding problem. It's actually an industry, with certain wealthy people very interested in keeping things the way they are.

[Josh]

One issue we ran into in the past with rentals was they would make excuses to keep your deposit 90% of the time. The other aspect we saw was they wanted first and last month rent and a double security deposit due to renting from a (Mennonite) private landlord. That particular place would have been wanting 5500 prior to move in.

In certain parts of Ohio you can buy a piece of land for $5500, and you won't be subject to any of the zoning laws or NIMBYs that people like Ken keep telling us we need to worry about.

The question remains why people seem to insist on trying to live in places where it's very expensive.