The SC oral arguments happened today. Probably predictably, the “conservative” justices asked why the courts are in a better position to make rules about this than elected people. The “liberals” asked how the city expected people to meet basic human needs if they don’t have money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/22/supreme-court-homelessness-camping-ban-oregon/
so if cities can make it criminal to be homeless and arrest and confine to prison repeat offenders…that’s a very expensive manner of finding housing for the homeless. then they get released and repeat the pattern? seems like we could find a better way to temp house people
If I understand this correctly, the Grant Pass position seems to come down to “be homeless someplace else”.
Actually, I think it’s more about blankets and cardboard than tents. I think they’re allowed to prohibit tents… the case is whether they can prohibit blankets… if I understand correctly, (I might not.)
That is pretty much everyone’s (cities’, counties’, states’, HOAs’) solution. the places with the best efficiency of moving their homeless to the next towns over win (the high home price game).
So the question now is: “why don’t homeless move somewhere else?”
Link led me to unreadable archive. Try again?
My guess is that the US version, with absolutely zero right to healthcare, failed to address the actual problem at all. Just tried to turn it into a construction project using private developers. Our pols like them “job creator” .
But as I said, no material to read at that link.
Yeah, looking at it, that was the “wayback machine”. Oddly, it loaded for me again today.
Here’s the HUD website The Applicability of Housing First Models to Homeless Persons with Serious Mental Illness | HUD USER
I’m not sure about how much new construction went to buildings designed for “permanent supportive housing” for people who had been homeless.
I can easily see that these programs don’t get enough funding for staff. Services for people with severe mental illness and/or substance abuse must be pretty labor intensive.
Like I said, I was primarily interested in the date. “Housing first” has been around in the US for a while. Here is another article that says “Housing First became the guiding principle for homeless programs led by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which created financial incentives for communities that followed that approach”. Two cities tried to fix homelessness, only one succeeded — Caring for COVID's Invisible Victims
The article contrasts Houston and San Diego. I have to wonder if much of the difference is that people with money to build in SD find that the city is hemmed in by mountains, while Houston seems to have buildable land on three sides. That’s from my notion that there is a limited amount of land in the “most desirable” locations.
Yeah, the sheriff should simply escort that homeless guy to the city limit and tell that extremely buff Vietnam veteran to keep walking.
What could possib-lie go wrong?
They should make a movie like that. It would probably do well.
Califor nya-nya, super cool to the homeless
I know it DailyKos so take some of this with a table spoon of salt, but there some very good points made in the article.
This is why using asset appreciation in the CPI is dangerous. Totally different levers and buttons are used to deal with asset and price inflation.
The search for investment assets is undoubtedly driving a chunk of the “price” appreciation. And the fuel is the ever increasing concentration of wealth in a small cohort. They have to do something with the next $200,000,000. And art is so 2000s. It’s so wild that insanely expensive condos are built in world renowned cities as investment properties. Buyers don’t even pretend to live in them.
Thank Reagan.
Not sure how common it is but my county gives a modest discount in property taxes for owner-occupied housing. Seems like you could ratchet up the tax on non-owner-occupied housing even more to make it a less attractive investment. And then really stick it to vacant housing. Especially vacant housing that the owner never lived in. (I have a little more sympathy for owners who simply have trouble finding a buyer and they have to relocate.)
Except the laws are written by the folks who can buy government, not the little people. I don’t know for sure since I’m not a CPA but I’m guessing investment real estate gets all kinds of tax breaks that single family owner occupied homes have no idea even exist and don’t apply to them.
True although the vacant owners are not voters, which can also matter. So like an individual county might be able to do something like that even if the state cannot. Depends whether they’re more loyal to the money or the voters, I guess, and how much the voters understand the problem.
Wouldn’t it be kewl if you could only make $ contributions to elections you had a voting right in.
Good luck on that one.
I can understand that if a mutual fund company buys a house from someone who is an owner-occupant, then rents it, that reduces the supply of houses available for potential owner-occupants and drives up prices for those potential owner-occupants.
However, it also adds to the supply of rental units. I don’t see how that can increase rents.
They start by talking about foreign buyers. I don’t have a problem with banning offshore ownership. But, I did look at their source and noticed that 61% of “foreign” buyers were “recent immigrants or visa holders”. If we aren’t building enough housing for the people who were born here, maybe we shouldn’t be adding new demand through immigration.
(I can’t help being an actuary here. “When my dad bought his home in the 1950s the median price of a single-family house was 2.2 times the median American family income. Today, the Fed says the median house sells for $479,500 while the median American personal income is $41,000.”
I can’t verify the 2.2 – he gives a source, but the source simply pulls the 2.2 out of the air without any support. I can verify that “family income” and “personal income” aren’t the same. Median family income in 2022 was $92,750 according to the Current Population Survey. Current Population Survey Tables for Family Income
The value he has for today’s median house is actually for new construction. Of course I don’t know if that’s true about the 1950s house. I will note that this site gives the average size of a new house going from 1,000 sqft in 1950 to 2,500 today. Home grown: 67 years of US and Canadian house size data » Darrin Qualman
There are plenty of problems with housing. Starts just aren’t any higher than in 1960 New Privately-Owned Housing Units Started: Total Units (HOUST) | FRED | St. Louis Fed and New Privately-Owned Housing Units Started: Single-Family Units (HOUST1F) | FRED | St. Louis Fed
It’s certainly possible that builders are only building for rich buyers because they can’t get land with covenants that allow small houses.
But, I don’t believe that investors buying houses are creating the shortage of starts.
Indy, you’re just too nice. Let’s look at how to exploit the system. Underpinning it all will be the capitalists wet dream, monopoly profits.
Profile neighborhoods, selecting those with the most appeal to your target demographic. Think Whole Foods. No sense putting those up in sites that don’t have the underlying demographics matching your target audience. Same with rentals.
Now buy up rental units in the target area. Also, pick up any owner occupied that fit the criteria. Maybe 3 bedroom 1 car garage…whatever.
There will be turnover in that neighborhood. Maybe 15%. I’m sure it varies a lot, but the data is there for the asking at the county registrar.
In a few years, you will have a measurable market share…especially of housing units in the rental space. It won’t take all that long to have a dominant market presence. Be patient.
Now you can start raising rents. Folks that have kids in school will want to stay.. folks with other sorts of ties to the area will as well. They will pay to not move.
And we are off. Now, with the ability to actually set the rents, it’s a pretty sweet deal. (Mutual funds are a bad choice. Use a hedge fund, or better yet just an LLC in that state.). Now, knowing the expected rental cash flow, buy a few more.
Believe me when I tell you it’s something of a side hustle for realty firms to “manage” the properties. Find new tenements, arrange for maintenance, collect a %of the cash flow (get a slice), and create a second source of revenue. Win-win for them. And the investors just can’t get enough. They buy up the debt at the LLC, they take trailing options on the value of the real estate. Its crazy good.
Unfortunately, it really adds demand, and that affects prices. Nothing shocking in that. For rents, they go up because it’s the plan from the git go. I saw so many start ups after 2008 with this business plan, out there looking for financing (enter the gnome and his band of debt issuers.) it’s really a no brainer. The hardest part is managing the properties. Getting the funding is child’s play.
Interesting. I bet they were closer in 1955 since not as many married women worked.
Also the vacant homes are really contributing to the increased cost of housing.
Where I live the corporations buy up the $300,000 houses, tear them down and put $950,000 houses instead. The schools are good so people will pay that. They can leave the house sit empty for a year while they find a buyer. No problem. They’ll get their money eventually.