assumptions: that price of housing and homelessness are positively correlated, that homeless people occupy equal capacity within resources-for-homeless-people, that people have unequal abilities to earn money (for whatever reason).
-
-
For the purposes of this thought experiment, assume that these unequal abilities are based on a factor that cannot be easily addressed, so the only meaningful tasks are to improve resources for homeless people or attempting to reduce the cost of housing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Even if a homelessness support system is at-capacity and accounts for all homelessness, in this model, if the housing prices go up, then more homelessness arises. Therefore unleashing development to increase supply can prevent more marginal earners from falling off.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This applies even if the new housing is exclusively "ritzy" development designed to absorb new purchasers and thus it merely holds prices in a steady state as the new supply absorbs new demand, though in practice there is a delay.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That was my entire thought, that it is not only necessary to reduce homelessness directly, homelessness must be prevented as well on the entry side, and while often homelessness arises through difficult-to-prevent-circumstances,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I have a hunch that the "would have been a normal wage earner, but then a really steep rent hike came in because the demand is so high and the supply is not moving" is not an insignificant story, granted, for reasons mostly motivated by personal experience and not solid data.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @sonyaellenmann and
I see what you’re saying, which is basically flood the market w/ supply so demand can’t be an overwhelming force to jack up prices, and then $ devoted to homelessness services can be properly allocated? That’s essential YIMBYism, right? Unless I’m missing something? It’s early.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RickPaulas @sonyaellenmann and
In the Bay Area, which is land constrained and where property values have doubled every economic cycle since the early 1980s, I’d say the argument is let’s try and not make things worse by building more (of both subsidized & market) to dampen another doubling into the next cycle.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @RickPaulas and
While in the investment world, past performance does not indicate future gains, in the planning world, doing nothing maybe means the median regional home value is $2M in 10 yrs or even $4M in 20.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Also large parts of California may not be safely insurable or inhabitable in 1-2 generations.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.