Hacker News Reader

Comment by eschulz | Hacker News Reader

In my town there used to be a lot of single-room units (there are of course none now), and my understanding is that the primary residents were migrant men working pretty much all day. They'd just crash in the rooms, all their meals and social events would be out in town or at their work place.

I feel as though there would be a different tenant in the modern era. Some would be migrant young men trying to save every dime, but many would be those suffering mental illness, and they'd fill the unit with tons of stuff. Can you imagine how much more stuff Americans have these days than they did back in say 1900? I genuinely think that the volume of stuff/garbage would be a legitimate fire or structural hazard. No landlord would want that. Back in the old days landlords had a lot more ability to force out any tenants they didn't want.

View on HN

Yep the article shows a photo of a neatly kept room, the reality would be a bare mattress on the floor, piles of dirty clothes, trash, and hoarded posessions.

Drug-addicted and mentally ill people do not know how to keep even a moderately organized living space. Our city has tried "housing first" and it's been a disaster. The units are filthy, damaged, and the buildings don't pass minimal standards when the housing department inspects them because the "tenants" and their associates have destroyed them.

I do believe most SROs had a "no visitors" policy so that might help somewhat but there would have to be strictly enforced requirements about not trashing or abusing the property.

One of the last SRO left in Chicago is about 2 blocks from my house. They have extremely strict cleaning requirements and a no visitors policy. It seems to keep the damage to a minimum. I think the biggest issue there is how many of the residents really need aged care but can’t afford it.

Where are you? I think Salt Lake City did "housing first", and I seem to recall that it worked fairly well.

> Yep the article shows a photo of a neatly kept room, the reality would be a bare mattress on the floor, piles of dirty clothes, trash, and hoarded posessions.

This is exactly the kind of fact-free demonization the article described as responsible for the elimination of SROs which caused the explosion in homelessness.

The average drug addict and the average person with mental illness is employed, well-dressed, and financially stable.

The average/median/typical recipient of EBT or welfare or whatever only receives it transitionally for less than a year. Yet at any one time the system is 90% lifers or at least long term users. Because anyone who isn't a lifer is in and out quick. Same problem mental institutions have.

I pulled those numbers out of my ass and you can play with the numbers to change the proportions but the problem still stands. At any one time the system is going to be somewhat saturated with the "problem people".

Now, I don't think that's a problem. If someone thinks they can develop and profitably run SRO housing with a bunch of those people then good for them. But that makes some people feel icky about it.

I think it’s clear the context is homeless people. The people you’re talking about have a place to live.

Those aren’t the ones who housing-first advocates are building units for. The theory is the crazy people on the street will suddenly be not-crazy when they get an apartment

The vast majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons, like the loss of a job or household income, and the largest growing population of unhoused people are entire families.

Proposed housing units are literally for them.

The ones built in my town were for the “chronically homeless” these are people who are likely addicted, mentally ill, or very antisocial. They have burned every bridge they may have had and even their family has written them off. You can’t give someone like that an apartment and expect they will take care of it without extremely close supervision.

The lack of the ability to sleep securely and the lack of a place to store your possessions are enough to drive someone crazy. Sure, some people might be homeless because they're incurably insane, but plenty of people are insane because of homelessness.

Well, two things.

First, I'm challenging the statement:

> Drug-addicted and mentally ill people do not know how to keep even a moderately organized living space.

Which is nonsense and a damaging stereotype. Drug addicts and mentally ill people exist in all areas of life and many are successful - more so than you or I.

Secondly, I'm challenging you on:

> The theory is the crazy people on the street will suddenly be not-crazy when they get an apartment

Because in fact there is now a great body of evidence that shows that housing-first, that is providing housing with no pre-conditions, is in fact extremely effectively at treating both uncontrolled addiction and untreated mental illness.

All cows are brown.

Dirt is brown.

Therefore, dirt is a cow.

Yep, this is exactly what would happen. Anyone who has worked in industries adjacent to these types of people knows how it is.

At this price point, you're essentially only going to be renting to people who are currently homeless, which is great from a societal standpoint. However, you can't ignore the fact that substantial portions of the homeless community, and therefore your potential tenants, are either drug addicts and mentally ill people.

1 out of every 10 of those people will cause more property destruction than could ever be recouped in rent from the other 9. It just doesn't work for private landlords.

I bet those landlords could build housing that was sufficiently resistant to property destruction, which those renters would be happy to pay for at a sufficient rate - everyone would be happy. But it's the myth of consensual housing: isn't there someone you forgot to ask? The housing regulations would (and do) absolutely forbid anything that fit this niche.

I don't think it would be hard to carefully interview and vet each potential tenant. However, I don't even know if that would be legal nowadays.

Of course it’s legal to interview tenants in the States, a landlord should simply avoid violating the Fair Housing Act in a particularly flagrant manner while doing so. (E.g., they should avoid documenting in writing that they’re refusing to rent on the basis of familial status! This parenthesis possibly based on a true story.)

Give it another couple years and I’m sure the courts will dismantle the FHA. Then landlords will have to find something else to complain about.

Maybe but that’s pure speculation.

You're right. The town has speculated it to be the case and doesn't want housing for situations like this. Real estate investors also speculate it, and they'd prefer to cater to those with more disposable income.

Single-room units would bring down the cost of housing for everyone, but those with influence and money have decided that we don't want it in our community.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com