Housing & Homeless Problem

[Josh]

I don’t disagree. I think society has an interest in the government somehow providing a place for them though. Group homes, small basic apartments, things of that nature.

L.A. is spending $700,000 per homeless person to provide 16,000 homeless people with housing.

It would seem government solutions are not the way to go here, unless you want to spend huge amounts of money.

[Josh]

Zoning is a completely separate issue from building codes, sewer/sanitation safety regulations, etc. Zoning is basically nothing more than zones on map that specify minimum lot sizes, minimum square footage, and the number of residences that are allowed per lot. If you up-zone an area from single family to multi-family that doesn't change any other regulations such as building or sanitation codes.

Zoning is about one thing, Ken: crime. People who invest in single family homes don't want to come home to find their windows smashed out, don't want their home to be invaded, or their car windows smashed.

Flooding an area with high density housing with a target of getting people who were formerly homeless in it is not what people who have saved and bought single family homes want.

If you think this is a good thing then I have a question for you: why don't you move to Portland and situate yourself right next to some people living in tents on the sidewalk? After all, no troublesome "zoning" to worry about there.

[mike]

I don’t disagree. I think society has an interest in the government somehow providing a place for them though. Group homes, small basic apartments, things of that nature.

L.A. is spending $700,000 per homeless person to provide 16,000 homeless people with housing.

It would seem government solutions are not the way to go here, unless you want to spend huge amounts of money.

I’m pretty sure the public housing units I’ve seen in Johnstown, PA not far from here don’t cost that per person. Thankfully the rest of the country is not LA.

So what solutions other than government solutions would you propose?

[Ernie]

So what solutions other than government solutions would you propose?

I wish I knew where to read about this but I heard of a southern??? city or county or state in which churches took over the "welfare" situation for awhile. The results were very good. Many welfare recipients felt bad about making churches sacrifice for them and tended to be more inclined to find jobs. (In contrast to spending your week reading up on how to get more money from the government. For many people, this is their "work".)
If anyone knows where I can read about this, please inform me.

I think something similar could be done with the homeless. Governments would not allow them to live anywhere except on properties that churches provided for them. (This assumes that churches would step up and offer a good program.)

Jonas Sauder once told me about a company that decided to hire "losers". Why make money and give to missions? Why not be the mission? So the employer sold the idea to his employees and they began hiring losers. Their first candidate lived hand to mouth and always bought lunch. The rest of the men on his crew took lunch boxes to work. They suggested that the new hire do the same to save some extra cash. The new hire was eager to learn. "How do you make a sandwich", he asked?
They replied, "Well, you buy a loaf of bread, and then go to the deli section and buy some lunch meat. Then you get some mayo and lather that on the bread and then lay the meat on, and then another piece of bread on top. He was game. The next morning he showed up without a lunch. "What happened", the employees asked? "Well, I went and got the things you suggested, but when I got home, I was hungry, and so I ate all the meat."

Reprograming is possible but it is incremental.

[Josh]

I wish I knew where to read about this but I heard of a southern??? city or county or state in which churches took over the "welfare" situation for awhile. The results were very good. Many welfare recipients felt bad about making churches sacrifice for them and tended to be more inclined to find jobs. (In contrast to spending your week reading up on how to get more money from the government. For many people, this is their "work".)
If anyone knows where I can read about this, please inform me.

I think something similar could be done with the homeless. Governments would not allow them to live anywhere except on properties that churches provided for them. (This assumes that churches would step up and offer a good program.)

This is what the government did in mediaeval times; vagrants were assigned over to the local Catholic church and would be put to work by the monasteries.

People often donated land or other assets to the Catholic church as then it couldn't be taxed, so the government had to be careful not to be too onerous with taxation. The Catholic church would then allow vagrants to farm that land to provide their own sustenance, and also the excess was given to the poor. The general system of tithes was 10% - 1/3 would go to the priests, 1/3 for giving to the poor, and 1/3 for the upkeep of church buildings and church lands.

[Ken]

Zoning is a completely separate issue from building codes, sewer/sanitation safety regulations, etc. Zoning is basically nothing more than zones on map that specify minimum lot sizes, minimum square footage, and the number of residences that are allowed per lot. If you up-zone an area from single family to multi-family that doesn't change any other regulations such as building or sanitation codes.

Zoning is about one thing, Ken: crime. People who invest in single family homes don't want to come home to find their windows smashed out, don't want their home to be invaded, or their car windows smashed.

Flooding an area with high density housing with a target of getting people who were formerly homeless in it is not what people who have saved and bought single family homes want.

If you think this is a good thing then I have a question for you: why don't you move to Portland and situate yourself right next to some people living in tents on the sidewalk? After all, no troublesome "zoning" to worry about there.

The area we live in isn't single family zoned. There are multi-story apartments going up all over the place in every direction and I support it and think there should be more of it. Probably at least 10 new multi-story apartment complexes have been built in the past year or two within a mile of our house. No homeless folks off the street are moving in. It's mostly just people and families who can't afford or don't want to buy and live in a 3,000 sf home with a yard because they are single. I would 100x rather see increased density in my neighborhood than more forest and farmland on the edge of town bulldozed down to put in more low density sprawl. Which is the other alternative.

[Josh]

As we've seen in Jackson, MS, multi-story apartment buildings aren't sustainable - unless you like living without running water.

[Ken]

So is there a housing crisis or not?

In these rural areas, there isn't zoning - you can build basically any building you want.

So if lack of zoning is so great, why are people leaving these areas for cities with strict zoning?

[moving this over from the Jackson water thread to where it belongs]

So which is it Josh? Is regulation good or bad?

You seem to love regulation when it comes to zoning and and other housing-associated regulations on the housing threads. But you complain about regulation when it comes to food safety on the Amos Miller thread. Are you an anarchist when it comes to food safety but an "ultra-NIMBY shelter rich property owners by any means necessary" when it comes to housing regulations?

No one here including me is suggesting that people should randomly choose to violate zoning regulations just because they disagree with them. All that would lead to is grief and the high likelihood that whatever you build gets torn back down on top of a blizzard of fines. What we are suggesting is that zoning regulations in most major cities and many small ones are exacerbating the housing crisis. This has been well documented. And that cities should explore changing those regulations as a means to increase the supply of affordable housing. So that it isn't just the ultra-wealthy who can afford to live in cities where the bulk of jobs are.

This is the same exact process we are suggesting that Amos Miller follow over on the food safety thread. If he has fundamental disagreements with the food safety regulations as they are written, he should seek out other like-minded farmers and work to implement the changes he believes in. What he is actually doing with his willful violation of food safety regulations is the same exact thing as someone who throws up an apartment building in a neighborhood zoned for single family simply because he dislikes zoning regulations. And with just about as much success. Although I think Amos Miller has been shown far more tolerance and patience by the FDA or USDA than any developer would ever be shown if they willfully violated zoning or building permit regulations.

[Josh]

Yes, I agree Miller should have found a way to operate whilst staying out of the government’s spotlight.

But back to my point: most of America isn’t even zoned. There are so many places you can literally build whatever you want. Thus, that is not the cause of homelessness.

[Ken]

Yes, I agree Miller should have found a way to operate whilst staying out of the government’s spotlight.

But back to my point: most of America isn’t even zoned. There are so many places you can literally build whatever you want. Thus, that is not the cause of homelessness.

That is an absurd argument. Most of America is also unpopulated and for very good reasons.

That has nothing to do with the very real regulatory barriers that exist which prevent construction of more housing in the places where 90% of the population actually lives.

You like to beat up on San Francisco. How about doing the following calculations:

1. What has the job growth been for the greater San Francisco area for the past 20 years (including Silicon Valley, East Bay, etc.)
2. How many new housing units have been built during that same time period?
3. What happens to the cost of housing when you increase demand more than you increase supply?

Hint. The ratio is about 6 to 1 in terms of the number of new jobs versus new housing for the greater San Francisco area over the past two decades.

And then ask

1. Why has housing growth in that region not kept up with population and job growth? (The reasons are complex but zoning and other associated regulations play a large part).
2. What happens to people when they can no longer afford the high price of housing?
3. Are we living in a just society if hard-working people cannot afford to house their families and it is their own government that is partly at fault?

And ask what is YOUR answer. Should they just pack up and move to rural western Nebraska where there is plenty of cheap housing and no zoning but they have no roots, employment prospects, or available services like local grocery stores, schools, etc.?

Or, to put it in Amos Miller type terms. If I own a vacant lot in San Francisco. Why shouldn't I be able to build quality housing for people who desperately need it? Why should adjacent wealthy land owners have veto power over what I do with my property through zoning laws?