Homelessness & housing affordability are deeply interlinked. The more expensive homes get, the more expensive it becomes to acquire/build them to create permanently affordable housing & the more expensive rental/re-housing subsidies become to put people back into private rentals.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I get your point, but there is a redistribution of wealth in the bay area that exists to solve this problem. We just don't want do it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dtdunk
There are many different kinds of wealth inequality that manifest in incomes (like income inequality), wealth in terms of capital/equity ownership within companies, property/real estate wealth, inherited wealth, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dtdunk
Correcting Bezos' wealth inequality for say the impacts of minimum wage work/automation... might be more appropriate than correcting his wealth inequality for property wealth inequality.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dtdunk
Except isn’t his wealth inequity part of what’s driving up the cost of affordable housing, as you just said? Him having less money would literally help bring down the cost of housing even if none of his money went to pay for housing subsidies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Even if we literally confiscated all money and gave everyone an even cut, that wouldn't change the fact that we literally haven't been building enough houses to keep up with demand for decades.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TommSciortino @tonytribby and
A lot of people who don't know any better think that SF has tons of empty apartments just waiting to be redistributed to the needy. I really wish there was. Unfortunately we have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the world! We just need more housing!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It cost ~700k to build a unit of housing. Let’s be conservative and say it cost $1MM. There are 8k homeless. $8B could get them housed. Pretty sure our benevolent billionaire neighbors could build housing for our unshletered if they actually cared.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
For every 50 people that the city of SF takes off the street every week, 150 more become homeless. It’s a revolving door. It’s not a static population.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @dtdunk and
Also, even if we approve more $$ for homelessness (which we should and will do!), we have crap like this: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-ceqa-homeless-shelter-20190515-story.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Californian voters will literally approve a $1B+ bond and then have no way to spend it because people will invoke environmental law or process to prevent permanent supportive housing or shelter beds.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/us/homeless-housing-los-angeles.html …
-
-
Yes people are terrible, and yes it's the tip of iceberg. But what are we supposed to do? Wait for SB50 to *maybe* pass? How many more units of housing could we get built, in our broken system, with $8B donated to low-income housing developers? Its >0
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Problem: I don't like waiting for SB50 to maybe pass. Solution: Wait for rich person to maybe donate 8 billion and then that only fixes a tiny (but worthwhile!) part of the problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.