Owners holding vacant units is not a significant cause of the housing shortage. Overly restrictive zoning and subjective reviews exploited by NIMBYs explains almost all of it.
"Overly restrictive zoning and subjective reviews exploited by NIMBYs explains almost all of it."
You seem to be ignoring the main part of my statement - distribution and preferences matter. "NIMBYs" can't be a retort to that when NIMBY is by definition local - there are many other areas to build in across the country.
"Owners holding vacant units is not a significant cause of the housing shortage."
It may not be the biggest cause, but it is "significant". It is more pronounced in some markets and sectors (apartments).
"Yes, we could all sleep in tents and live off the land if we truly wanted to."
Great strawman.
"Tell me where I could move where housing hasn't doubled in price in the last 5 years AND has employment for a family."
In the vast majority of country housing cost has gone up but has not doubled in the past 5 years. Many medium sized cities and suburbs have employment to support a family while not being outrageously priced. You can even find lists made by various organizations for the most affordable cities. Also, if you care to read the context in this thread, I do acknowledge that a part of the problem is people wanting/needing to live in the same place.
Those studies are so often flawed will pieces. Houses begging sold or between tenants are counted as vacant. Vacancies in rural Pennsylvania and Kentucky don't matter much for the homeless in Oakland.
What do you even do with that information? Ship the homeless around the country?
Other studies should that the higher the vacancy rate the lower the homeless rate and the cheaper housing is. So we can just allow people to build where people want to live and solve both problems.
If you do the right "step-up" programs and purchasable housing becomes extremely cheap around the country, it will solve itself. There are a lot of homeless people in Oakland that if found out they can buy a house in Kentucky and afford it with a restaurant dish-cleaning job, they would move. Stop treating the homeless as "shippable containers" they have agency.
I think you missed the thread - we're making it nearly impossible for someone to own a rental, it would flood the market with purchasable homes - cratering home prices potentially making the medium drop from $400k to $100k (at least for a certain class of homes), create programs for homeless people to get loans - some kind of step-up, combined with a job, and the homeless would suddenly be home owners and become people contributing to the world again.
I don't think I missed the thread. Crating home prices is basically recreating half of the 20008 financial crisis when people are underwater and unable to move, nor have any financial flexibility. Giving homeless people a program to help them out of homelessness and into some form of housing can be good, but jumping them up to homeowners seems a giant leap. If you get them into a stable job and apartment, they aren't homeless anymore. If they're stable, they'll eventually qualify for a loan like everyone else.
I believe that if you offered homeless people in Oakland a job and a house in Kentucky that they could pay off in 10 years while working as a dish washer, you would have very few takers.
I would also suggest that the town that has the dishwashing job in Kentucky - that business is likely to close in 5 years and there won't be any more unskilled jobs in the town and they'll be out of a job and unable to pay the mortgage, get foreclosed and be homeless again -- they know that story.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't - homeless in California is known while a homeless in Kentucky is something else with even fewer opportunities out.
Plus that town in Kentucky is likely already dealing with a homelessness epidemic of their own before you start bussing people in from out of state.
Also ignoring that many people who live in California would face non-trivial threats to their health and livelihood if they were move to a regressive Bible Belt state. That is not a theoretical concern, but one born out by numerous tragedies.
"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't - homeless in California is known while a homeless in Kentucky is something else with even fewer opportunities out."
Sounds like when homeless people or people on various assistance sometimes turn down opportunities because they're afraid (sometimes rightfully do) that it will ruin one of their other assistance. How do you help people who don't want to be helped?
The dish washer jobs pays less than minimum wage under the table, beacuse the government flew desperate people from the poorest part of the planet to town to compete with the existing dishwashers.
> The Center for Immigration Studies found last year from January 2023 to December 2023, at least 320,000 illegal immigrants were allowed to fly into the U.S. from their home country through a controversial program of the Biden administration using the Customs and Border Patrol app, the CBP One app that was created to let migrants apply for parole into the US.
> The Parole program allows for two-year periods of legal status during which adults are eligible for work authorization.
The humanitarian parole program was created to allow 30,000 Cuban/Haitian/Nicaraguan/Venezuelan nationals in per month on a two year work visa as long as they have a US sponsor that will financially support them and pass background checks.
In return, Mexico is allowing the US to expel 30,000 illegal migrants per month from those countries to Mexico rather than their home countries.
It reduced illegal border crossings by people from those countries by more than were admitted through the program, so housing requirements should be reduced overall.
The parole process has reduced the number of aliens from those countries entering the US and government spending and lets us do background checks, capture biometrics and cap how long they're allowed to be here.
There's a reason why the court tossed Texas' lawsuits against it this week. They couldn't find injury.
I agree. It's government policy at this point to bring in as many people as possible for some reason. My guess is to drive down wages, some others have guessed that it's due to a belief that global conflict is rising and the native population is unwilling to fight.
This perspective seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Bribery isn't illegal for Congress, it's just called lobbying. Insider trading isn't illegal either.
Loose immigration policy and the lack of border enforcement obviously exerts downward pressure on wages for low skill workers. It also bids up rents since illegal immigrants are willing to pile into a 1 bedroom apartment. The elite own businesses and real estate, both of which benefit from illegal immigration reducing wages and increasing demand for rent. If you take a minute to think about the incentives, then see the effects in the world around you, it's pretty obvious what's going on.
This is wrong. Homelessness scales with affordability, not mental illness or addiction rates. This is why San Fransisco and LA have the highest rates in the country. Noah Smith writes about this at length, the data is very clear.
Homelessness in San Francisco doesn't kill you from the elements in January or July. A homeless person in Minneapolis or Chicago in January may die from the elements on an excessively cold night. A homeless person in Arizona in July can also die from it being too hot.
It's rarely ever too hot or too cold in costal California cities.
> Homelessness in San Francisco doesn't kill you from the elements in January or July.
This would be equally true of other large cities in the southern half (including July for many), and none of them have anywhere near the same rate. Notwithstanding, northern cities have indoor shelters and if the cold mattered that much, the rates would be quite small, but they're not. In expensive cities like NY, homelessness rates are high.
> Between the lines: The county is also trying to address other health factors that put people at increased risk for heat illness or death, including drug use and unsheltered homelessness, by embedding social workers at cooling centers to help with finding housing and harm-reduction strategies, Sunenshine says.
> More than half of last year's heat deaths were people experiencing homelessness and two-thirds involved substance use, she said.
> Green was among the 334 people in Texas who died from heat in 2023, according to data compiled by the Texas Department of State Health Services between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30.
> The heat killed more Texans in 2023 than any other year on record, according to the figures, which are not yet final. The state’s heat-related death records began in 1989.
> Heat-related deaths are typically associated with a secondary factor such as mobility problems, mental illness, drug and alcohol use or homelessness that prevents people from escaping extreme heat, Dwyer said. That’s one reason why elderly people have a higher risk of heat-related death, she said.
California has 4.2 heat related deaths per million. (all of California - including Fresno).
Arizona has 71.9 heat related deaths per million.
Texas is 6.7.
San Francisco had the third lowest ER room encounters for heat related emergencies at 5.1 per 100,000 residents (it was behind Marin and Santa Clara).
While hot weather in San Francisco should not be ignored, it is no where near the mortality rate that is seen in other southern cities.
---
You cannot have the same rates of unhoused people (note: using unhoused here because a person who is homeless living in a hotel room is homeless, but not unhoused) in northern cities because you will die in Minneapolis in the winter if you don't have a place to stay.
San Francisco has 887 homeless people per 100k residents. Boston has 657. Denver has 670. Minneapolis has 209. Chicago has 141. I'll also draw special attention to page 9 with the percent of the population that is unsheltered.
The unsheltered per 100,000 residents:
San Francisco 420
Denver 184
Boston 18
Chicago 46
Minneapolis 38
I'm well aware of Texas. It isn't the only other city around.
> Boston has 657.
This supports what I said. You also forgot NY.
And check the rankings by State. CA is second behind DC, and after that there is VT, OR, HI, NY, WA, ME.. and so on. Not exactly pristine weather year-round. The common factor is affordability.
"Or to put it another way, while 33% of the homeless population suffers from mental illness, nearly 100% of the homeless population can’t afford housing. 100% is a much bigger number than 33%. Which is why mental health, while a factor in homelessness, cannot possibly or statistically be a lead factor."
The quality of the analysis and arguments are terrible. We can just ignore factors if they don't explain everything? And why is it missing a section on the biggest correlating factor - lack of employment? The severe mental health and substance abuse (with other factors like criminal records) greatly impact one's ability to get any job. Affordability is a moot point for people in these categories as without a job, you can't afford anything. It would be better to do more granular analysis on those who are employed but homeless. That is likely to be the marginal diffence explained in the housing cost section.
> We can just ignore factors if they don't explain everything?
No, we just can't rely on them to explain everything! As you purport.
Only 33% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, and it certainly is not a strong predictor as to why rates are high in some cities but not others. That's the data.
> Affordability is a moot point for people in these categories
It matters to everyone, but even if we pretend it doesn't, that's 67% percent of the homeless.
The data does not support that. You cannot simply subtract 33 from 100 and claim affordability is the primary factor. Mental illness is not the only factor affecting employability. You have substance abuse, criminal records, etc that all prevent people from finding employment.
> You have substance abuse, criminal records, etc that all prevent people from finding employment.
Those all respectively represent a small fraction of the whole, and there's usually overlap. You cannot add them all up as though they are completely separate parts of that 100%.
Ultimately affordability is the primary factor, it's indisputable.
I'm not saying to ads them up! Please read my comment, as I very clearly stated that there was overlap.
"Ultimately affordability is the primary factor, it's indisputable."
What comprises affordability? It's cost and income. It does not matter what the cost is if you have no income because you have employability issues. Until you fix the employment aspect, the cost aspect is moot.
You can point to a poor quality blog post that doesn't examine all the factors all you want. Perhaps that makes it "indisputable" in your own mind, but thats not going to convince people who want to have real conversation about the root of the issue.
It might be correlated, and it might making a difference at the margins (eg the people who have a job and can afford to live in a car). But the vast majority of the homeless population does not fit in that margin. Most of them do have other problems preventing them from getting any job, like severe mental health, substance abuse, or criminal records. Affordability is a moot point when employment is unattainable.
Your link didn't address the other factors preventing a job, such as criminal records. Sure, severe mental health issues are only a quarter. And substance use is something like 40%, but significant overlap. Add in felony convictions and see were we land.
