Matt Yglesias linked to an old piece of his about homelessness today, and that reminded me of a conversation I had a few days ago. I was telling a friend that homelessness is mainly a reflection of high housing costs, which is why Los Angeles has such a high homeless rate. OK, he said, but what about Irvine? Housing is expensive in Irvine too.
And that's true. But income is also high in Irvine, and it's average rent as a share of average income that's the real driver of homelessness. Here's a chart from a paper written by a team of researchers a couple of years ago:
Needless to say, there are lots of things that affect the homelessness rate. The cost of rent is only part of the story, which is why LA and Irvine are both off the trendline a bit.¹ Nevertheless, the trend is clear: As rent goes up as a percent of income, homelessness goes up. When it passes 32%, homelessness goes up really fast. This is the state of affairs in lots of big cities.
So what's the answer? To a certain extent, there isn't one in the short term. As long as housing costs are high, you're going to be stuck with lots of homeless people. And as we all know, the most common view of homelessness is (a) we should build more shelter (b) somewhere else.
Oddly, though, there is a partial answer, but it's one that's largely ignored. It's called Housing First, and it has two parts. The first part, which everyone understands, is to build permanent housing. The second part, which gets a lot less attention, is to skip all the rules to qualify for this housing. Just let people in, regardless of whether they have drinking problems, or drug problems, or need mental health treatment. Just let them in.²
You see, it turns out that a big part of the problem with getting the homeless into homes is that many of them would rather be in a tent on the street than in an apartment with lots of rules. So skip the rules. Surprisingly, to many people, this doesn't cause a lot of problems.
Another thing is to stop whining about the cost of cheap housing. It's true, for example, that the cost of a trailer or a tiny home or a plexiglass dome is fairly modest, running maybe $10-20,000 apiece. But you have to put it somewhere, and an acre of land in central Los Angeles will run you $5-10 million. Then add in the fact that you need some security, and maybe showers and food depending on your goals, and you're up to $500,000 per shelter. That's outrageous! Maybe, but that's how things are in a big city.
Based on my (limited) experience, I'm all in favor of this. The problem, as always, is that no matter what kind of shelter you're talking about, no one wants a bunch of homeless near their neighborhood. And there's no way to finesse this. All it takes is one person to start a lawsuit and you'll chew up years of time. This is by far the most fundamental problem facing projects to build housing for the homeless, and no one seems to have a serious answer to it. I certainly don't.
¹There's also politics involved. Irvine, for example, has been accused for years of picking up its homeless and dumping them in nearby Santa Ana. This is something that smallish cities can do but bigger cities can't.
²Obviously this doesn't account for everyone. Some homeless people, especially those with families, very much want a normal apartment while they try to get back on their feet. Not only are they willing to follow rules, they prefer a place where everyone else follows some rules too.
At the other end of the spectrum, some people will resist assistance no matter what. That's a very tough nut to crack.
First: please use "people who are homeless" rather than "homeless people." It makes a difference in how you talk about this, and how it's received. A big difference. Please switch and use person-first language for stigmatizing things like homelessness or substance use disorders (or really, all conditions seen as disabling)
Second: the vast, vast majority of people who are homeless don't "prefer to sleep in a tent" or on the street. Almost all people who are homeless are fucked by the system in some way - some small thing knocked them out of housing at some point, and now they're frozen out. It's why Housing First is even a thing to begin with. Housing First isn't a thing for the people who are so symptomatic with their mental health challenges (or any other reason) that they refuse to engage with services. Housing First is a thing for the big swath of the population that is homeless for reasons like evictions, or a single criminal charge from years ago, or bad credit, or simple misfortune (such as having a slumlord and losing the housing when it's condemned). And of course, housing discrimination is in there, too.
Those factors are far and away the biggest factor in homelessness - after the issues of simple poverty/affordability, anyway.
This isn't to say that Housing First isn't beneficial for those people who otherwise refuse to engage in services. Just that how it is implemented today is more about eliminating barriers to housing on the housing provider side of the (rental) housing market, rather than the residents' side.
Switching to people who are homeless or houseless as some folks say just shifts the stigma.
It's actually complete and total BS that changing the language does anything about the problem of homelessness. The people who worry about this stuff are deluded and looking for ways to feel superior to the rest of us.
"Homeless people" is fine. Just get them home.
Take your righteousness and shove it, "progressive" racist. LOL
Cordially,
The Latinx
This ignores a huge part of the issue is with mental illness and that now ( due to both liberal and conservative inclinations and motives) are not dealt with except by releasing them to the streets.
Sure there is a subset of homeless that are perfectly sane and stable and just homeless due to bad luck. But that group is easy. If all were that, you could get them housed at a reasonable cost and taxpayers would not object as strongly to them being housed in their neighborhood.
Anyone who actually can see the homeless here in la and is not blind to the facts can see that a huge part of the problem is mental illness. And those are the ones who are the main real problem for causing issues in the community.
And there just is no easy answer to that. I have no magic solution. You could institutionalize all of them at a sizable cost as we used to do (and really should be the case for some). But many are only marginally mentally ill and, while they do cause problems in society, they are not at the point where it is easy to say govt should take away their liberty.
One underlying problem is the deterioration in family and community structure which is a bigger issue than just govt. Years ago , a church might be the center of a community and help to find some role for the oddball eccentric. Who would be known as a person to the community and they would know their eccentricities.
Now with an atomized anonymous social structure in large urban areas, you do not have that sort of support.
this ignores a huge part of the issue is with mental illness and that now
Every single time someone writes about homelessness, we get a comment like the above, and every time I've investigated the claim, I become convinced that, in fact, homelessness is primarily (and indeed overwhelmingly) an economic issue. Full stop.
Of course, "overwhelmingly" doesn't mean "solely" -- but ask yourself how many rich people who suffer mental illness lack permanent shelter? Same with addiction: a non-trivial number of quite affluent Americans are addicts. Very few of them sleep on the streets.
Also, I think the claim Kevin's post is "ignoring" the mental health aspects off the homelessness crisis is off-target, in any event. It seems to me he's quite clearly saying get people housed no matter what (including, obviously, those people who are dealing with mental health problems).
This is how we get Hunter Biden whataboutists.
We just saw one get public housing for four years....
And, kevin, sorry but 500 k per unit for homeless is outrageous even in la. If you have to spend more than a decent middle class residence costs, something is wrong.
Have you looked at LA home prices recently? I do it frequently. Five hundred grand is way below the median for a single family residence (of all kinds, including multi-unit) in LA County (currently that number is about 725K). And sure, the bulk of that is land costs. Which is precisely why bringing new housing online in Los Angeles is expensive.
https://www.noradarealestate.com/blog/los-angeles-real-estate-market/
Yep, and now that so many people are sitting on million-dollar nest-eggs the last thing they want is a low-income housing project on their block.
Fortunately, where I live that shit won't fly. I'm afraid L.A.'s "progressives" are on their own. LOL
The median you cite is for owned homes. That does not take into account those who live in apartment buildings. If you estimated the value of apartments that a large number live in, that would surely be almost all below the median value of homes of $750,000 that you show. I expect bringing the median value of housing that all live in to $500,000 or less.
And then are we talking about housing for one person with the homeless? A lot of the houses in that median or for multiple family members needing two three four etc. Bedrooms.
And big big issue to me is that no way anyone should expect taxpayers to pay taxes to provide housing to homeless gratis that costs anywhere near the median. Of course free housing provided by govt should be well below the median quality of housing.
Anyone who works hard at a job that is reasonably well paying or even minimum wage should expect to be able to have somewhat better quality housing than what a homeless person gets for free.
So start with maybe the lowest 20% of studio apartments in the cheaper part of town. If you cannot afford to build new homeless housing as cheap as that, buy them for the homeless and use any money saved to enable the people who used to live there and work for a living to get something a touch better.
And why would you possibly consider
The median you cite is for owned homes. That does not take into account those who live in apartment buildings.
New construction is a very different animal from "all existing housing including 50 year-old apartment buildings." And new construction is exactly what we're talking about if we're discussing bringing new inventory online for the unhoused.
If anything, a half million per (new) unit might well be an underestimate. Just cost out it yourself: what's a typical price for a buildable lot in LA county run for? Millions. Then add in construction costs, lawyers' bills, environmental impact fees, and so on.
There is a new development in Chicago that is required to provide moderate to low income housing. It consists of ca. 58 units, a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms, plus some commercial space. Costs? $30 million. or almost $500K per unit. And this is in a low cost part of the town.
That said, it might be cheaper if the old housing stock could be refurbished and resused. That would require asbestos and lead paint (pipes too?) abatement, so maybe not that much cheaper.
But income is also high in Irvine, and it's average rent as a share of average income that's the real driver of homelessness.
Yes, this is a good, simple explanation.
And lower-income people tend to live in more densely populated areas (ie, urbanized districts) for a number of reasons:
1) Lower-cost housing -- studios, one bedrooms (and rentals in general) tend to be more plentiful in such places;
2) Because less expensive housing is easier to find, urban neighborhoods attract more lower income residents, which in turn means landlords who are in the lower end of the market are going to concentrate their capital there (because that's where their customer base is); so a feedback loop sets in. Also, the older housing stock found in central cities likewise lends itself to a bigger market for low cost rentals;
3) It's more feasible to live without a car in central, urbanized districts (which also attracts lower income people);
4) In general, densely populated areas offer more employment opportunities, which also meansthere are more low wage jobs (ie, the only kind of jobs most low-income people can get). And it's also more feasible to find a job near where one lives (a big factor for the car-less);
So, all of the above tends to mean significant concentrations of low income people in America live in densely populated, highly urban neighborhoods. And low income people, needless to say, are at much higher risk of suffering homelessness than more affluent people.
Why costs are so high:
Permitting fees: The more people you fit into a building, the more you'll get charged for tax-increment financing fees, traffic-impact fees, plumbing fees, etc. The higher the valuation of the project, the higher the base rate of permit fees. A multi-million housing complex can easily accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.
Development standards: 70 square feet is legally the smallest permittable, occupied bedroom space you can have. Tents and make-shift structures are usually half that size. Minimum fixtures per occupants. Maximum occupants triggering wider hallways, doors, and stairs. Mandatory sprinklers, particularly to build with certain materials and building above certain floor thresholds.
Land values: The disappearance of SROs in downtowns is what happens when land values shoot up. If SROs are making way for new, market-rate apartments, how does a developer pencil out a new SRO in downtown? They don't, which is why you don't see unsubsidized SROs in downtowns.
Zoning standards: Low density residential zoning effectively blocks out medium and high density low-cost housing, pushing developers into zones where there's a lot of competition and therefore higher land values. Seeking a variance places all the power into the community to reject it. You don't need 1 parking stall for each resident, but if you want to divert costs away from putting in a parking structure towards more housing, you need a variance and you need the community to accept your homeless shelter.
Yeah and a quite obvious symptom of this in recent years is a very distinct change in homeless living style. Whereas in the past a homeless person typically had their belongings in a shopping cart and spent the day moving from place to place, many homeless people now have a tent and set themselves up for some period of time (sometimes months) in one spot. In other words, they're really not homeless. They're camping on the sidewalks because the cost of housing there is low. Simple economics. No different from the people who drive Escalades; they are taking advantage of the fact there's no cost to having an absurdly sized car when a smaller car will do fine. Tragedy of the commons. In fact I'm going to start calling Escalade drivers the new homeless since they obviously feel they need to carry a living space with them wherever they go.
Kevin, is that home in your neighborhood still vacant? You willing to have your neighborhood duplexes become quads or say four story apartments?
You speak of the correlation between housing cost as percentage of income. And how much of that cost is driven by popularity of place? If I recall correctly you have in the past pointed out that if people were willing to live in places other that the popular spots their rent/whatnot would be much better.
"Just let people in, regardless of whether they have drinking problems, or drug problems, or need mental health treatment."
...And there's your catch-22. The main source of NIMBY-ism around this problem is that most people don't want a bunch of drug use and/or drug-dealing and related activities on their streets (e.g. two drunk/high guys getting in a fight and one pulls a knife). If developers can't guarantee neighbors that a particular housing complex is going to be strictly substance-free, it's never going to happen. But, as Kevin pointed out, that's also precisely why a lot of homeless people don't like the housing they're offered.
If they don't like it, someone needs to remind them that beggars can't be choosers.
This post is a little misguided because it confuses two different types of homelessness. There's the general homelessness problem, which is enormous and largely caused by poverty. Then there's people living in street encampments, which is largely caused by people being a problem.
Irvine has little of the first because anyone in Irvine is likely to be either middle classish or related to/friends with someone who is, and can easily find a place to live pretty quickly after a short disruption. Irvine has none of the second because it viciously enforces its anti-camping laws.
I've never understood why Housing First is even a thing. It's very easy to find plenty of homeless people to fill up any rules-based long term housing. There's plenty of homeless families and low-income workers who just need a place to sleep and won't cause any trouble. We should just build housing with normal anti-nuisance rules and let 'er rip. Few people have problems with that sort of housing.
That doesn't stop homeless encampments, which is the only thing people really care about. You need Irvine's vicious enforcement of camping laws to get there. But I can't think of a reason people should have a right to live on the streets just because they don't want to or can't follow normal, reasonable rules that apply to the general population. If it's the first, tough luck - you can't support the lifestyle you want. If it's the second, we should provide treatment.
This is not a hard problem, but the "progressives" who have welcomed every addict, every hobo, and every criminal prefer chaos on the streets. If you stone-cold racists actually gave a shit, you would do this:
1. Build steel pole buildings on vacant land. No shortage of it.
2. "In by 9 p.m., out by 9 a.m., and if you expect to eat then you'd better sign up for cleaning duty."
3. You will be searched for drugs, alcohol, and weapons. You will also be fingerprinted, and if you have warrants you will go to jail.
4. If you have a pet, it will be transferred to a shelter.
5. Buses will troll encampments. Refuse to get on the bus, and you can stand there and watch all of your possessions go into the garbage truck.
Do those things, and just watch the "homeless" numbers decline by 90%. It won't happen, because the racist "progressives" prefer chaos.
^ By the way, this is how the California camps for the Okie migrants from the Dust Bowl worked, back when Democrats weren't as throughly fucked up as you have become. And you wonder why millions of people fart in your direction? LOL
You're an idiot. Your suggested rules are highly problematic.
CATO
40% crazy
30% addicted
20% transient
10% out of luck
Given that most "progessives" are in the first two categories, they should take their brethren into their own homes. Not that they actually give a shit. LOL
The old Alberta solution to homelessness- $20 and a Greyhound ticket to Vancouver.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did two things:
Eliminated racial/nationality quotas (GOOD)
Allowed much higher rates of legal immigration (BAD)
Due to mass immigration over 50 years, California's population is now 40 million. Without it, California would be about 25 million. (The United States would be 250 million instead of 330 million).
Libertarians and businesses and Republicans and owners of real estate have always favored immigration. They know who benefits. Regular folks? Not so much, which is why unions have been traditionally hostile to inflows of people eager to work for little money.
Alas, the nation has been convinced that immigration is an unalloyed good. Nonsense stories about "How person X came in from country Y and started a company" is anecdote, not data.
If immigration is not halted, California will double in population in another 50 years to 80 million. You think housing is a problem now? Just wait. Then Yglesias, who wrote the ridiculous One Billion Americans, will say everyone should live in 30 story high-rises. Do you want to see that?