Hacker News Reader

Comment by stale2002 | Hacker News Reader

stale2002

No. The rooted people are the ones causing the problem of homelessness, not solving it.

Solving the homeless problem is dead simple easy. The solution is to build more houses. Every apartment that gets built, is 1 less person being gentrified onto the streets.

The rooted people are the ones preventing developers from building more, because they don't want competition, and they want their housing prices to stay high.

Renters, are the ones getting screwed by this, because they have to pay the high rents that wouldn't exist without the artificially created barriers to entry.

View on HN

Are people really being gentrified onto the streets? You really think high-functioning people are becoming homeless for want of $3000/month income to pay rent? I doubt this very much; if I became unable to pay rent in the most expensive city on the continent, I'd move to a city that costs 20% as much before I moved onto the sidewalk.

Gentrification and land use policies are real problems in SF, but homelessness I think is mostly due to addictions and mental illness, not really the lack of adequate housing.

You're not talking about rooted people in the same way I am...

I'm talking about homeowners, you're talking about landlords who charge rent.

I'm talking about people who actually live in the homes they own and have to deal with homelessness in their neighborhood.

You're talking about landlords who own lots of property in SF but go home to their mansions in Sausalito or Palo Alto.

My point exactly agrees with you. SF needs less landlords and more homeowners.

The home owners are the ones stopping new houses from being built.

Homeowners don't want their property values to go down, and want the city to be locked in time, never changing and never growing. They are the ones stopping new houses from being built.

Are you saying that SF homeowners want homeless people walking their streets? If their intention is to increase property value, as you say, why would they want that?

Seems to me like the people who win the most by limiting housing are the landlords who can collect higher rent through scarce supply.

Long term homeowners probably don't care much about yearly changes in their homes worth.

SF homeowners want their neighborhood to stay locked in time forever and pretend nothing will ever change. They want to protect the "character" of the neighborhood, by preventing all high rises and anything that isn't a single family townhouse.

They'd probably be fine with more housing being built 'somewhere else' for the homeless. But ya know, definitely not in THEIR backyard.

Developers (aka landlords) aren't the ones protesting new building being built. This is because they would love to be able to build more. Even though they would make less money per apartment, there is so much demand for houses, that the massive amount of new development would make up for it.

There is only so many landlords out there. Their vote isn't particularly significant. But there are a LOT of NIMBY homeowners.

I think you have completed misinterpreted my point to fit your preexisting bias.

My point is that homelessness severity in any given area is correlated with renter density.

Whatever homeowners you think are blocking new developments, think about the homelessness in their specific area. Is it severe?

Think about the areas in SF that have the most severe homelessness, how many homeowners do you think live in that area?

On the causes of homelessness... I don't think it's due to scarce housing. Even if there were more housing available, I doubt a homeless person could start paying for it. Getting out of homelessness is a more complex issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com