Homeless Population Rises For First Time In Years

[Agent Zero]

Our lowest wage earners kicked to the curb.

https://www.apnews.com/47662ad74baf4bb09f40619e4fd25a94


LOS ANGELES (AP) — The nation’s homeless population increased this year for the first time since 2010, driven by a surge in the number of people living on the streets in Los Angeles and other West Coast cities.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released its annual Point in Time count (https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3031/pit-and-hic-data-since-2007/) Wednesday, a report that showed nearly 554,000 homeless people across the country during local tallies conducted in January. That figure is up nearly 1 percent from 2016.

Of that total, 193,000 people had no access to nightly shelter and instead were staying in vehicles, tents, the streets and other places considered uninhabitable. The unsheltered figure is up by more than 9 percent compared to two years ago.Increases are higher in several West Coast cities, where the explosion in homelessness (https://apnews.com/d480434bbacd4b028ff13cd1e7cea155/Amid-booming-economy,-homelessness-soars-on-US-West-Coast) has prompted at least 10 city and county governments to declare states of emergency since 2015.
City officials, homeless advocates and those living on the streets point to a main culprit: the region’s booming economy (https://apnews.com/9309128222ab4c4f92b0d0022e1ec133/%27We-still-need-to-eat%27:-Tech-boom-creates-working-homeless) .

Rents have soared beyond affordability for many lower-wage workers who until just a just few years ago could typically find a place to stay. Now, even a temporary setback can be enough to leave them out on the streets.

[Mister D]

Maybe west coast liberals should lower their rent.

[Agent Zero]

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/18/republican-tax-proposal-steals-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the-rich/


At a time when California’s housing crisis has metastasized from a crisis to a catastrophe, Republicans in the House have moved to pour gas on the fire in the name of massive tax cuts for the rich. How? By savaging critical financing tools — including private activity bonds and certain low-income housing tax credits — that help raise billions of dollars in affordable capital to house veterans, seniors, the homeless and people like Vicki.

​But it is not only affordable housing the GOP is willing to sacrifice in pursuit of redistributing the savings to their wealthy and corporate donors.Beyond affordable housing, private activity bonds are often used as an economic development tool, as well as to build hospitals, health clinics, private universities, charter schools and museums.
By eliminating this financing tool, the GOP plan virtually ensures these critical projects will not get built. And, if they are built, they will come at a greater expense.
Steal from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich. The Sheriff of Nottingham would be so proud.

[Kalkin]

You'd think those big hearted west coast liberals would help find these people a place to live.

[Peter1469]

The cost of living is crazy on the West Coast. Now wonder they are driving people into homelessness.

[Kacper]

Maybe west coast liberals should lower their rent.

Perhaps turn those wind turbines into tree houses or something

[Kalkin]

California can regulate chicken housing and drive the price of eggs up to ridiculous levels. They can do the same thing for human fowl.

[Kacper]

Bus them to a right to work state where they can find a job and affordable housing.

[Mister D]

What was the point of this? That Republicans are driving rents up in LA? lol

[Peter1469]

What was the point of this? That Republicans are driving rents up in LA? lol

lol. The hard left is really lost.

[resister]

Homelessnes rises in liberal bastions, take some of those welfare funds from sanctuary cities and fix it.

[Agent Zero]

What was the point of this? That Republicans are driving rents up in LA? lol
The point is that homelessness is at the highest levels in eight years.

[barb012]

We have the same problem here in Arizona with homelessness. Rising rents contributes to the problem and the freebies the state gives to illegal and legal immigrants.

[Mister D]

The point is that homelessness is at the highest levels in eight years.
So what?

[Mister D]

The OP cites a dramatic increase local to west coast cities. What are these progressive bastions doing wrong?

[Dr. Who]

Maybe west coast liberals should lower their rent.

The northeast is no better. NYC is probably the most expensive place to live in America.

[Chris]

Maybe west coast liberals should lower their rent.

Funny, that's exactly what the OP article says.

How many homeless work? Let alone for minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage would result in fewer hours and fewer new jobs...potentially more homeless.

[Chris]

The northeast is no better. NYC is probably the most expensive place to live in America.

Any data to support a surge in homeless there?

[Mister D]

The northeast is no better. NYC is probably the most expensive place to live in America.
Another liberal bastion but I digress. The OP cites a surge of homelessness in west coast cities and an increased cost of living particularly in terms of rent. How could these people, who insist heir morally superior to everyone else, let this happen?

[Dr. Who]

The point is that homelessness is at the highest levels in eight years.

It's a combination of several things - lack of low skilled employment, lack of affordable housing and lack of care for people with mental disabilities. The cost of housing in all cities is increasing except in those cities where business is fleeing or failing.

[Peter1469]

The point is that homelessness is at the highest levels in eight years.
They can't afford to rent because the cost of government is way too high.

[Dr. Who]

Another liberal bastion but I digress. The OP cites a surge of homelessness in west coast cities and an increased cost of living particularly in terms of rent. How could these people, who insist heir morally superior to everyone else, let this happen?
It's not just a west coast phenomenon.

[Mister D]

Funny, that's exactly what the OP article says.

How many homeless work? Let alone for minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage would result in fewer hours and fewer new jobs...potentially more homeless.
I'd like to see the demographics of the homeless population. Get ready for this shocker, Chris.

Are you sitting down? OK here we go...


Recent figures released by the county show that Latino homelessness shot up by 63% in the past year, a staggering number in a county that saw its overall homeless population soar by 23%, despite increasing efforts to get people off the street.Nearly every demographic, including youth, families and veterans, showed increases in homelessness, but Latinos delivered one of the sharpest rises, adding more than 7,000 people to the surge.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-latino-homeless-20170618-story.html


No way!

[Mister D]

It's not just a west coast phenomenon.

The OP cites a surge on the west coast as the primary driver of this increase. Again, how could they let this happen?

[Chris]

I'd like to see the demographics of the homeless population. Get ready for this shocker, Chris.

Are you sitting down? OK here we go...



http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-latino-homeless-20170618-story.html


No way!

No way, José!

[Dr. Who]

Any data to support a surge in homeless there?

Well, it depends on how you count the homeless. In NYC, since there is winter to contend with having any shelter takes one off the homeless list:


By comparison, while New York City’s homeless population grew to more than 76,000, only about 5 percent are considered unsheltered thanks to a system that can get people a cot under a roof immediately.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-homelessness-increase-los-angeles-west-coast-cities-department-housing-urban-development-a8094366.html


https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/citys-homeless-population-surges-to-12-year-high/

[Mister D]

Why don't caring west coasters have such a system in place!? I'm outraged!

[Chris]

Well, it depends on how you count the homeless. In NYC, since there is winter to contend with having any shelter takes one off the homeless list:


By comparison, while New York City’s homeless population grew to more than 76,000, only about 5 percent are considered unsheltered thanks to a system that can get people a cot under a roof immediately.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-homelessness-increase-los-angeles-west-coast-cities-department-housing-urban-development-a8094366.html


https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/citys-homeless-population-surges-to-12-year-high/



So what we're seing even on the West Coast is the aftermath of Obama's economic policies. It takes time for policy changes to hit the streets.

[Dr. Who]

So what we're seing even on the West Coast is the aftermath of Obama's economic policies. It takes time for policy changes to hit the streets.
Or it may be that all of the fires in CA of late have driven newly homeless people into places like LA.

[resister]

Or it may be that all of the fires in CA of late have driven newly homeless people into places like LA.
Can you back that up?

[Chris]

Or it may be that all of the fires in CA of late have driven newly homeless people into places like LA.

We're just discussing the same issue on the Eat Coast. Is NYC under fire, hadn't heard.

[Chris]

From the OP: "the explosion in homelessness has prompted at least 10 city and county governments to declare states of emergency since 2015." Not fires now.

[Kacper]

It's not just a west coast phenomenon.
The west coast likes to pad its homeless numbers though by including people who live with others as homeless because they are not the ones paying the bills.

[Dr. Who]

Can you back that up?

Just speculation, but many people have been both left without homes and without employment as a result of those fires. I doubt that stats are currently available. It seems logical that they would go where they think that they can find both.

[Dr. Who]

The west coast likes to pad its homeless numbers though by including people who live with others as homeless because they are not the ones paying the bills.

By that metric, all of the grads still unemployed and living with parents are "homeless".

[Kacper]

By that metric, all of the grads still unemployed and living with parents are "homeless".
They certainly count veterans living with relatives as "homeless". Not sure about grads.

[Dr. Who]

From the OP: "the explosion in homelessness has prompted at least 10 city and county governments to declare states of emergency since 2015." Not fires now.
There are many reasons for homelessness, but one of the biggest is lack of affordable housing and lack of low skilled employment. The last two years has not resulted in an explosion of illegal immigration (in fact the opposite), so there is some other reason. The last two years have been very dry, so farms are not producing as they should. That leaves a lot of agricultural workers without employment. The growth of internet retail has killed many brick and mortar businesses, so that may be another reason that those who don't have "skills" find themselves on the streets. CA has never been a huge industrial employer, but it is a big service industry and agricultural employer.

[Chris]

There are many reasons for homelessness, but one of the biggest is lack of affordable housing and lack of low skilled employment. The last two years has not resulted in an explosion of illegal immigration (in fact the opposite), so there is some other reason. The last two years have been very dry, so farms are not producing as they should. That leaves a lot of agricultural workers without employment. The growth of internet retail has killed many brick and mortar businesses, so that may be another reason that those who don't have "skills" find themselves on the streets. CA has never been a huge industrial employer, but it is a big service industry and agricultural employer.

There are many possible reason but only a few plausible ones, like the data in this case showing it's the high cost of housing.

[Dr. Who]

There are many possible reason but only a few plausible ones, like the data in this case showing it's the high cost of housing.

Of course the cost of housing is dictated by the free market. Short of government interference in that market, it will increase to what the market will bear.

[Chris]

Of course the cost of housing is dictated by the free market. Short of government interference in that market, it will increase to what the market will bear.

If it were "dictated" by the free market then competition among renters would drive prices down. It's shortages that drive up costs, shortages created artificially by government regulation.

[resister]

Of course the cost of housing is dictated by the free market. Short of government interference in that market, it will increase to what the market will bear.
Evidently the market is not bearing it. I hear the ideal is 30% of income on rent. Wonder what the average really is?

[MisterVeritis]

Our lowest wage earners kicked to the curb.

If we boot a half million or so illegal aliens the rents will come down. Alternatively, people can move to places where they can afford to live.

[MisterVeritis]

Many government policies drive up the cost and drive down the amount of available housing. Always look to the government policies in place if you want to understand the costs of things.

[Dr. Who]

If it were "dictated" by the free market then competition among renters would drive prices down. It's shortages that drive up costs, shortages created artificially by government regulation.Property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property. That drives the cost of rents, along with the increasing costs of utilities. Then demand for those properties increases their rental value further. How does government create housing shortages?By not building affordable housing at the expense of taxpayers? Competition among renters means nothing if there are not enough rental properties available. Developers have been converting rental buildings into condos which has reduced the availablity of rental housing stock at a price point that people with minimal means can afford. You have both domestic purchases and Hong Kong money entering the market. Investors don't even care if the property is occupied, so long as they get their money out of China. In a truly free market, they could leave those units vacant for years. Governments are now trying to trying to pass laws to force them to at least rent them out.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/chinas-real-estate-investors-on-a-200b-global-spending-spree.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/chinas-real-estate-investors-on-a-200b-global-spending-spree.html)

[MisterVeritis]

Property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property. That drives the cost of rents, along with the increasing costs of utilities. Then demand for those properties increases their rental value further. How does government create housing shortages?

By not building affordable housing at the expense of taxpayers? Competition among renters means nothing if there are not enough rental properties available. Developers have been converting rental buildings into condos which has reduced the availablity of rental housing stock at a price point that people with minimal means can afford. You have both domestic purchases and Hong Kong money entering the market. Investors don't even care if the property is occupied, so long as they get their money out of China. In a truly free market, they could leave those units vacant for years. Governments are now trying to pass laws to force them to at least rent them out.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/chinas-real-estate-investors-on-a-200b-global-spending-spree.html
Zoning laws and rent controls may be the worst ideas ever created for those not in the upper classes.

[Dr. Who]

Evidently the market is not bearing it. I hear the ideal is 30% of income on rent. Wonder what the average really is?

That's one of the reasons why homelessness is increasing. Foreign investment in real estate is adding to the rising costs and the disappearance of affordable housing.

[Chris]

Property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property. That drives the cost of rents, along with the increasing costs of utilities. Then demand for those properties increases their rental value further. How does government create housing shortages?By not building affordable housing at the expense of taxpayers? Competition among renters means nothing if there are not enough rental properties available. Developers have been converting rental buildings into condos which has reduced the availablity of rental housing stock at a price point that people with minimal means can afford. You have both domestic purchases and Hong Kong money entering the market. Investors don't even care if the property is occupied, so long as they get their money out of China. In a truly free market, they could leave those units vacant for years. Governments are now trying to trying to pass laws to force them to at least rent them out.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/chinas-real-estate-investors-on-a-200b-global-spending-spree.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/chinas-real-estate-investors-on-a-200b-global-spending-spree.html)


And property taxes are assessed by who? Why none other than your beloved government.


Competition among renters means nothing if there are not enough rental properties available.

By renters I do not mean rentees. I mean those who own housing and rent it out. Given an obvious shortage, renters would build more and more to an open and fairly risk free environment. But why don't they? Because of housing reguilation, zoning laws, and other restrictions by the government to keep rents high for existing renters who more than likely oay them off or contribute to their election campaigns.


Investors don't even care if the property is occupied...

High Prices and Zombie Housing (https://mises.org/wire/high-prices-and-zombie-housing)


...The New York Times, The Guardian and CNN’s Lisa Ling have all reported on the Las Vegas squatter problem. Ion Lovett wrote for the NYT last year,



Squatters have descended on every corner of the Las Vegas Valley, taking over empty houses in struggling working-class neighborhoods, in upscale planned communities like Summerlin, and everywhere in between. And they often bring a trail of crime with them.


“Things get out of hand pretty quickly when these people move in,” Jacquelyn Romero, 59, told the NYT. She has lived in the neighborhood for about 15 years. “We’re trying to do almost like a neighborhood watch, just to keep ourselves safe.”

Echoing that point, a vacant animal clinic in North Las Vegas was torched by squatters in the early hours of November 1st, reports the LVRJ.

This strange brew of limited sale inventory, rising prices and yet three months of vacant inventory being ransacked by squatters is not how markets work, unless manipulated by government.

Again, the government, run by passionate, well-intentioned, do-good liberals who trying to help do harm.


Your possiblities, my plausibilities.

[Chris]

That's one of the reasons why homelessness is increasing. Foreign investment in real estate is adding to the rising costs and the disappearance of affordable housing.

Any investment, be it domestic or foreign, should drive an increase in production of housing and a decrease in prices via competition, not a shortage and rising prices driven by your beloved government.

[Dr. Who]

Zoning laws and rent controls may be the worst ideas ever created for those not in the upper classes.
So you are in favor of homelessness. Of course since you probably don't live in a major metropolis, it doesn't affect you. You are not stepping over people sleeping on the sidewalk and subway grates or finding human feces and urine in exterior stairwells and walkways between buildings. You are not approached 15 times a day for money. The reality of your beliefs hasn't even begun to affect you. Big cities are the canary in the coal mine.

[Dr. Who]

And property taxes are assessed by who? Why none other than your beloved government.



By renters I do not mean rentees. I mean those who own housing and rent it out. Given an obvious shortage, renters would build more and more to an open and fairly risk free environment. But why don't they? Because of housing reguilation, zoning laws, and other restrictions by the government to keep rents high for existing renters who more than likely oay them off or contribute to their election campaigns.



High Prices and Zombie Housing (https://mises.org/wire/high-prices-and-zombie-housing)



Again, the government, run by passionate, well-intentioned, do-good liberals who trying to help do harm.


Your possiblities, my plausibilities.
Building is happening, not in response to the need for affordable housing, because that is chump change, but in response to foreign investment and millennials who cannot afford houses or seniors who are selling off their houses. The condo market is growing exponentially, either through the purchase and renovation of existing rental stock or in new builds. None of this addresses the housing needs of people with lower income, so homelessness is increasing as people are being displaced with nowhere else to go that they can afford, unless they have kind friends who give them a place to live.

[Dr. Who]

Any investment, be it domestic or foreign, should drive an increase in production of housing and a decrease in prices via competition, not a shortage and rising prices driven by your beloved government.

It's not operating that way. Foreign investors are quite happy to leave their units empty rather than deal with tenants long-distance. All they want to do is get their money out of China and for the value to grow faster and more predictably than the stock market. Your theories are not being proven. In fact, they could not be more wrong, because they don't allow for trillions of dollars in Hong Kong money looking for a safe place to be parked.

[resister]

Any investment, be it domestic or foreign, should drive an increase in production of housing and a decrease in prices via competition, not a shortage and rising prices driven by your beloved government.
I count ourself fortunate, 550 a month including utilities. Even in this backwater, that is a sweetheart deal. Our last place was 325, without utilities.

Both about 700 SQft Freestanding concrete block.

[Dr. Who]

I count ourself fortunate, 550 a month including utilities. Even in this backwater, that is a sweetheart deal. Our last place was 325, without utilities.

Both about 700 SQft Freestanding concrete block.

Where I live, you would be lucky to get an unrenovated garage for 325 and you can't even rent a room for 550 a month unless you don't mind sharing with roaches.

[resister]

Where I live, you would be lucky to get an unrenovated garage for 325 and you can't even rent a room for 550 a month unless you don't mind sharing with roaches.
Why I love this place.

[Chris]

It's not operating that way. Foreign investors are quite happy to leave their units empty rather than deal with tenants long-distance. All they want to do is get their money out of China and for the value to grow faster and more predictably than the stock market. Your theories are not being proven. In fact, they could not be more wrong, because they don't allow for trillions of dollars in Hong Kong money looking for a safe place to be parked.

Sorry, but that makes no sense, invest and not get return on investment and over time will only lose value or cost more to maintain. Something else going on there.


Your theories are not being proven.

They're not my theories, they're standard economic laws of supply and demand. Much more realistic than your imaginary world: You argue about regulated markets and call them free, lol.

[stjames1_53]

isn't this part of Mad Maxine's bailiwick?

http://c2.vgtstatic.com/thumbll/2/1/216929-v1-xl/maxine-waters-house.jpg

[Chris]

I count ourself fortunate, 550 a month including utilities. Even in this backwater, that is a sweetheart deal. Our last place was 325, without utilities.

Both about 700 SQft Freestanding concrete block.

Rent is geographical. I doubt you could get an apartment around here under $1000.

[Dr. Who]

Sorry, but that makes no sense, invest and not get return on investment and over time will only lose value or cost more to maintain. Something else going on there.



They're not my theories, they're standard economic laws of supply and demand. Much more realistic than your imaginary world: You argue about regulated markets and call them free, lol.

The real estate market is not all that regulated. Furthermore, there is a cultural bias among the Chinese favoring owning property, so they like it as an investment vehicle. As I said, they are looking for places to park their money where the Chinese government can't touch it and where it is relatively safe. They are also worried about devaluation of the Chinese Yuan. They like places that are experiencing growth because they know that their investment will appreciate. Unfortunately, because they are often content to leave these properties unoccupied, it skews the housing market in cities that are experiencing growth and pressure to accommodate people. The price of rental stock goes up and those who cannot afford it are left on the streets.

Condos don't lose value in places experiencing growth and if no one is living in them, they don't deteriorate. It's not like leaving a house empty. The value of those condos can double within as little as five years if they are in high demand neighborhoods, which is generally the sort of properties that they acquire. Typically they invest in new construction, thus the building is not even constructed when they invest. Most condos are worth more once the building is completed than the investors paid for the properties, so on completion, their investment has already increased in value. Chinese buyers may want these properties as vacation homes or have plans to eventually emigrate themselves or have children that will be going to school in the US. There are many reasons why they are buying up properties in many foreign countries, but often it's just to preserve their wealth.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-and-why-buyers-from-China-are-snatching-up-5924991.php

https://macropolo.org/chinese-real-estate-money-transforming-san-francisco-bay-area/

[Agent Zero]

If we boot a half million or so illegal aliens the rents will come down. Alternatively, people can move to places where they can afford to live.
Are you able to provide proof of the above statement?

[stjames1_53]

Are you able to provide proof of the above statement?

does that reasoning and logic really fail you? really???

[Chris]

The real estate market is not all that regulated. Furthermore, there is a cultural bias among the Chinese favoring owning property, so they like it as an investment vehicle. As I said, they are looking for places to park their money where the Chinese government can't touch it and where it is relatively safe. They are also worried about devaluation of the Chinese Yuan. They like places that are experiencing growth because they know that their investment will appreciate. Unfortunately, because they are often content to leave these properties unoccupied, it skews the housing market in cities that are experiencing growth and pressure to accommodate people. The price of rental stock goes up and those who cannot afford it are left on the streets.

Condos don't lose value in places experiencing growth and if no one is living in them, they don't deteriorate. It's not like leaving a house empty. The value of those condos can double within as little as five years if they are in high demand neighborhoods, which is generally the sort of properties that they acquire. Typically they invest in new construction, thus the building is not even constructed when they invest. Most condos are worth more once the building is completed than the investors paid for the properties, so on completion, their investment has already increased in value. Chinese buyers may want these properties as vacation homes or have plans to eventually emigrate themselves or have children that will be going to school in the US. There are many reasons why they are buying up properties in many foreign countries, but often it's just to preserve their wealth.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/How-and-why-buyers-from-China-are-snatching-up-5924991.php

https://macropolo.org/chinese-real-estate-money-transforming-san-francisco-bay-area/




The real estate market is not all that regulated.

That's just plain and simply false. See my previous posts. If you have data countering what I presented, present it.



Condos ....don't deteriorate.

What parallel universe it that?

[MisterVeritis]

Zoning laws and rent controls may be the worst ideas ever created for those not in the upper classes.

So you are in favor of homelessness.
If this is not the dumbest conclusion you have drawn it is close to it. Zoning laws and rent controls are why homes are not affordable. Simply ending rent controls would increase the housing supply. Ending zoning laws designed to make property very expensive would have the same impact. Do both together, get government out of the way, and investors will make all the homes we need at a wide range of price points.

[MisterVeritis]

If we boot a half million or so illegal aliens the rents will come down. Alternatively, people can move to places where they can afford to live.

Are you able to provide proof of the above statement?
If half a million illegal aliens being booted out of the high rent cites is insufficient I would happily agree to a much larger number. Why not go for the whole 30 million illegals living here?

[MisterVeritis]

Of course the cost of housing is dictated by the free market. Short of government interference in that market, it will increase to what the market will bear.
This goofy statement indicates you have no idea what a free market is. Is this lack of understanding the reason you are a socialist?

Interestingly you said the right words. But you utterly failed to understand them. A free market will find the price point for a particular good or service that the market will bear.

Government coercion always screws this up.

[Dr. Who]

That's just plain and simply false. See my previous posts. If you have data countering what I presented, present it.




What parallel universe it that?

What data did you present about regulation? The only regulation that is relevant to the condo boom is that which would prevent foreign buyers and that doesn't exist. Foreclosed houses are not really the targets of overseas buyers, which seems to be what your zombie housing link discusses.
Empty condos don't deteriorate. If no one is using them, there is no damage. They aren't even furnished. Condos are mostly concrete, steel and drywall. What deteriorates in condos is paint, flooring, fixtures and fittings. Those deteriorate from use, not from lack of use. It's not like the places are unheated and open to the elements. As long as someone goes in once a month to clear out the dust and washes the windows once a year to meet with condo regulations, the place isn't going to fall apart.

Rental buildings are being constructed less and less because they are a hassle to operate and certainly much of that is because of government regulations that protect tenants with things like rent control legislation. So builders have turned to condo development and often people buy individual units as income properties which adds to the available rental stock. Rent control laws don't apply to condo unit owners. Meanwhile, rental buildings are often being sold to developers for conversion to condos and the rental stock is dropping leaving many people unable to afford a place to live. The only thing that is going to change that dynamic is if municipalities start creating tax incentives to build rental properties, or require that condo buildings include a few floors of rental spaces. I believe that has happened in NYC.

[Chris]

What data did you present about regulation? The only regulation that is relevant to the condo boom is that which would prevent foreign buyers and that doesn't exist. Foreclosed houses are not really the targets of overseas buyers, which seems to be what your zombie housing link discusses.
Empty condos don't deteriorate. If no one is using them, there is no damage. They aren't even furnished. Condos are mostly concrete, steel and drywall. What deteriorates in condos is paint, flooring, fixtures and fittings. Those deteriorate from use, not from lack of use. It's not like the places are unheated and open to the elements. As long as someone goes in once a month to clear out the dust and washes the windows once a year to meet with condo regulations, the place isn't going to fall apart.

Rental buildings are being constructed less and less because they are a hassle to operate and certainly much of that is because of government regulations that protect tenants with things like rent control legislation. So builders have turned to condo development and often people buy individual units as income properties which adds to the available rental stock. Rent control laws don't apply to condo unit owners. Meanwhile, rental buildings are often being sold to developers for conversion to condos and the rental stock is dropping leaving many people unable to afford a place to live. The only thing that is going to change that dynamic is if municipalities start creating tax incentives to build rental properties, or require that condo buildings include a few floors of rental spaces. I believe that has happened in NYC.


It gets tiresome arguing with your possible worlds.

[Dr. Who]

This goofy statement indicates you have no idea what a free market is. Is this lack of understanding the reason you are a socialist?

Interestingly you said the right words. But you utterly failed to understand them. A free market will find the price point for a particular good or service that the market will bear.

Government coercion always screws this up.

When I say cost housing, I mean real estate properties for sale, not rentals. The government is not dictating the prices of houses or condos for sale. They do interfere in the price of rents.

[Chris]

When I say cost housing, I mean real estate properties for sale, not rentals. The government is not dictating the prices of houses or condos for sale. They do interfere in the price of rents.

Dictating the price of rents will affect the prices of houses and condo...and apartments. Those will higher rents will be seen as lower risk and higher ROI, and vice versa.

[Dr. Who]

Dictating the price of rents will affect the prices of houses and condo...and apartments. Those will higher rents will be seen as lower risk and higher ROI, and vice versa.
That may be so but municipal governments are also responsive to their voters, many of whom are renters (those who rent) and having ones rent double in one year because the new owner of a building wants to make more money, makes people homeless or poor. Raising rents annually at rates that exceed the rate of inflation and increases in wages also makes people poorer and even homeless. Homelessness is not something that any municipality wants.
It's not an easy problem. More often than not the owners of apartment buildings, especially the large ones, are big real estate developers. They don't care about affordable housing.

[Chris]

That may be so but municipal governments are also responsive to their voters, many of whom are renters (those who rent) and having ones rent double in one year because the new owner of a building wants to make more money, makes people homeless or poor. Raising rents annually at rates that exceed the rate of inflation and increases in wages also makes people poorer and even homeless. Homelessness is not something that any municipality wants.
It's not an easy problem. More often than not the owners of apartment buildings, especially the large ones, are big real estate developers. They don't care about affordable housing.

OK, so that argument of yours was knocked down.

So you leap to another...


municipal governments are also responsive to their voters

BS. They are more responsive to rent seekers who fund their campaigns to get political favor in return. People like "big real estate developers".



It's not an easy problem.

Then it can't be simplified to signle factors as you argue.

[Dr. Who]

Zoning laws and rent controls may be the worst ideas ever created for those not in the upper classes.

If this is not the dumbest conclusion you have drawn it is close to it. Zoning laws and rent controls are why homes are not affordable. Simply ending rent controls would increase the housing supply. Ending zoning laws designed to make property very expensive would have the same impact. Do both together, get government out of the way, and investors will make all the homes we need at a wide range of price points.

So, why do you suppose that things like rent controls came into being? There was a time when there were none. Zoning has existed for a very very long time. It is meant to ensure that no one can build a slaughterhouse or some other industrial business next to your house in the middle of a residential neighborhood or operate a strip joint next to a school.

[Adelaide]

does that reasoning and logic really fail you? really???


Thread banned by OP.

[Chris]

So, why do you suppose that things like rent controls came into being? There was a time when there were none. Zoning has existed for a very very long time. It is meant to ensure that no one can build a slaughterhouse or some other industrial business next to your house in the middle of a residential neighborhood or operate a strip joint next to a school.

Rent controls probably came because some politicians with passionate agendas want to help the poor. So they regulated prices. What happens when you do that is you get people who refuse to leave when they normally would as rents increase. And you get a glut of people rushing to rent. But there are many more who want to rent. But given low rents there's no incentive to build more houses, condos and apartments. There's a shortage. There a rise in homeless.

Thank you government and politicians with passion.

[resister]

Having acted as landlord over 3 other units for our out of state landlords, I can tell you that being a landlord is a giant PITA. Had to evict squatters, took the better part of 3 months, cost the owners over 300$ and multiple trips to the courthouse and sheriffs office. Then their is all the property damage in addition to hauling off half a house of junk.

If I owned a house, I would be very loathe to rent it and I would want top dollar.

[Dr. Who]

Rent controls probably came because some politicians with passionate agendas want to help the poor. So they regulated prices. What happens when you do that is you get people who refuse to leave when they normally would as rents increase. And you get a glut of people rushing to rent. But there are many more who want to rent. But given low rents there's no incentive to build more houses, condos and apartments. There's a shortage. There a rise in homeless.

Thank you government and politicians with passion.
Rent controls have been around for a long time. This sudden rise in homelessness would indicate some new dynamic. Could it be because there is a sudden shift in demographics, where people now want to live in condos in urban centers, rather than commuting for hours to live in the suburbs? Could it be that this demographic shift is causing older rental properties to be purchased by developers and replaced with highrise condo buildings? Could it also be that decayed urban areas are being gentrified and condo construction is part of that process?

[Chris]

Rent controls have been around for a long time. This sudden rise in homelessness would indicate some new dynamic. Could it be because there is a sudden shift in demographics, where people now want to live in condos in urban centers, rather than commuting for hours to live in the suburbs? Could it be that this demographic shift is causing older rental properties to be purchased by developers and replaced with highrise condo buildings? Could it also be that decayed urban areas are being gentrified and condo construction is part of that process?

Ah, I see, so now you want to abandon your rent control point and pursue something else.

Why are you quoting me as if to respond to what I posted? I really don't get that. "Rent controls have been around for a long time" doesn't respond to what I posted on rent controls, It's a throw away line. So, really, why do you quote me when you're not replying to me?

[MisterVeritis]

So, why do you suppose that things like rent controls came into being? There was a time when there were none. Zoning has existed for a very very long time. It is meant to ensure that no one can build a slaughterhouse or some other industrial business next to your house in the middle of a residential neighborhood or operate a strip joint next to a school.
I don't know but I suspect it is because people like you are economically illiterate. The zoning I refer to eliminates large swaths of land from being used for housing. Rent controls guarantee no one will build more homes for rent.

[Chris]

Having acted as landlord over 3 other units for our out of state landlords, I can tell you that being a landlord is a giant PITA. Had to evict squatters, took the better part of 3 months, cost the owners over 300$ and multiple trips to the courthouse and sheriffs office. Then their is all the property damage in addition to hauling off half a house of junk.

If I owned a house, I would be very loathe to rent it and I would want top dollar.


Same here. If someone in living in the house, condo, apartment, you have to put in a legal notification for them to leave, and it takes months for the court to act. Why? Some passionate do-gooder politician wants to help the poor and homeless. People like you are reluctant to get into the rental business and a shortage results. This is just simple, basic economics that escapes wishful thinking.

[MisterVeritis]

Rent controls have been around for a long time. This sudden rise in homelessness would indicate some new dynamic. Could it be because there is a sudden shift in demographics, where people now want to live in condos in urban centers, rather than commuting for hours to live in the suburbs? Could it be that this demographic shift is causing older rental properties to be purchased by developers and replaced with highrise condo buildings? Could it also be that decayed urban areas are being gentrified and condo construction is part of that process?
The new dynamic is the same as the old dynamic. When a Democrat is in the White House homelessness is not reported. When a Republican is in the White House it is.

[resister]

Same here. If someone in living in the house, condo, apartment, you have to put in a legal notification for them to leave, and it takes months for the court to act. Why? Some passionate do-gooder politician wants to help the poor and homeless. People like you are reluctant to get into the rental business and a shortage results. This is just simple, basic economics that escapes wishful thinking.
Squatters seem to have more rights than landlords and they wonder why the rent is so high.

[Chris]

Squatters seem to have more rights than landlords and they wonder why the rent is so high.

Exactly, and yet liberals speak of equality.

[Dr. Who]

Ah, I see, so now you want to abandon your rent control point and pursue something else.

Why are you quoting me as if to respond to what I posted? I really don't get that. "Rent controls have been around for a long time" doesn't respond to what I posted on rent controls, It's a throw away line. So, really, why do you quote me when you're not replying to me?
Oh, I see, we can only discuss the narrow issue that you think has merit, to the exclusion of any other issues that may have greater relevance to "sudden homelessness", because the other relevant issues are more contemporary and can't be blamed on government interference.

Let's not forget that you stomped into my original comments about empty condos contributing to homelessness and tried to force the conversation around to rent controls. I admitted the role of rent control in reducing the rental stock, but that's not good enough for you because you don't want to admit that there are any other reasons for this recent homeless issue because it challenges your pet economic theories. You simply cannot tolerate disagreement. Meh.

[Chris]

Oh, I see, we can only discuss the narrow issue that you think has merit, to the exclusion of any other issues that may have greater relevance to "sudden homelessness", because the other relevant issues are more contemporary and can't be blamed on government interference.

Let's not forget that you stomped into my original comments about empty condos contributing to homelessness and tried to force the conversation around to rent controls. I admitted the role of rent control in reducing the rental stock, but that's not good enough for you because you don't want to admit that there are any other reasons for this recent homeless issue because it challenges your pet economic theories. You simply cannot tolerate disagreement. Meh.

I didn't say that, Who. I did not say you must discuss anything. I said you quote what I post as if to respond to it but you address nothing I posted, but repeat your argument and change the topic to another. The pretentiousness is rude. Post what you like but don't pretend you're responding to me--you can, but people will start to see through it.


"Let's not forget that you stomped into my original comments"..."You simply cannot tolerate disagreement." LOL. I stomp on your posts of wishful thing with simple economic facts. But at least when I quote you I address what you post. I don't just pretend to.

[Dr. Who]

I don't know but I suspect it is because people like you are economically illiterate. The zoning I refer to eliminates large swaths of land from being used for housing. Rent controls guarantee no one will build more homes for rent.

I'm not, but without specifics about "bad" zoning, I can only comment about zoning in general, with which I don't happen to disagree. Municipal governments change zoning all the time as the character of cities change. For instance, as heavy industry has moved away from cities, lands formerly reserved for heavy industry have been rezoned for light industry and even residential uses. This has happened in all large cities, which is why so many turn of the century factories have been renovated into condominiums, prompting the demand for "factory lofts".

However urban planners do have to consider keeping land aside for those services necessary for a functioning city and mixing some industrial use with residential use is simply unsafe when you have things like chemical storage, heavy truck traffic, recycling plants and the like.

When there is some solution for affordable housing, perhaps rent controls will disappear. In the meantime, people with less money need places to live.

[Chris]

First, let's establish that zoning is just a form of rent control.

Inclusionary Zoning Is Rent Control 2.0 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/05/27/inclusionary-zoning-is-rent-control-2-0/#534fa09d561c)


Despite prevailing in a few cities, rent control policies have declined across America, for reasons I mentioned in a previous post. They have been found—perhaps counterintuitively—to increase housing costs, by taking units off the market, encouraging abandonment by landlords, and preventing construction. While several cities still enforce rent control for older units, they don’t on newly-built ones, since even public officials now recognize the downsides. But this doesn’t mean that housing price controls have vanished. Instead, a supposedly more market-oriented solution has arisen to replace rent control, with results that are often just as bad. It is called “inclusionary zoning.”

IZ laws, while varying by locality, typically mandate that developers make a percentage of units affordable in exchange for building at higher densities. Other times, developers can pay into affordable housing funds or build affordable units elsewhere, in lieu of building them on-site. Such units are typically preserved for residents making up to 80% of area median income, and encompass 10-30% of a project’s overall stock.

...Such programs have become popular in expensive cities that struggle with gentrification and inequality. They are meant not only to increase affordable housing stock, but in a way that mixes the poor with the rich, rather than isolating them. The term itself is a spinoff from “exclusionary zoning,” a longstanding de facto suburban policy wherein large-lot zoning is used to prevent low-income housing construction.

Most IZ laws are, technically speaking, voluntary. But in expensive and land-constrained markets, where building more units is necessary for a developer to achieve profit, IZ requirements might as well be considered a set business cost. Thus, they function like rent control once did, and, according to the academic literature, have similar downsides.

...

Now rent control:

Do rent controls work? (https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-19)


...But economists, on both the left and the right, tend to disagree. As Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times in 2000, rent control is “among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and—among economists, anyway—one of the least controversial”. Economists reckon a restrictive price ceiling reduces the supply of property to the market. When prices are capped, people have less incentive to fix up and rent out their basement flat, or to build rental property. Slower supply growth exacerbates the price crunch. And those landlords who do rent out their properties might not bother to maintain them, because when supply and turnover in the market are limited by rent caps, landlords have little incentive to compete to attract tenants. Rent controls also mean that landlords may also become choosier, and tenants may stay in properties longer than makes sense. And some evidence shows that those living in rent-controlled flats in New York tend to have higher median incomes than those who rent market-rate apartments. That may be because wealthier households may be in a better position to track down and secure rent-stabilised properties. The example of Germany is also an imperfect one: many cities there have seen declining populations and low (or falling) house prices over the past two decades, although the latter is now changing in several cities.

...

Pretty much exactly what I've been arguing.

[Dr. Who]

The new dynamic is the same as the old dynamic. When a Democrat is in the White House homelessness is not reported. When a Republican is in the White House it is.
You might want to read up on the relatively recent trend toward gentrification of older neighborhoods in large cities and the flight from the suburbs which is removing cheap housing from cities and displacing the poor.


https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/09/the-complicated-link-between-gentrification-and-displacement/404161/

[The Xl]

Trump colluded with the Russians to drive up the cost of living in the liberal haven LA

[Dr. Who]

Having acted as landlord over 3 other units for our out of state landlords, I can tell you that being a landlord is a giant PITA. Had to evict squatters, took the better part of 3 months, cost the owners over 300$ and multiple trips to the courthouse and sheriffs office. Then their is all the property damage in addition to hauling off half a house of junk.

If I owned a house, I would be very loathe to rent it and I would want top dollar.

We used to have an income property that we rented out. It was a bit of a PITA but the worst was renting to friends. We never had to evict anyone, but one tenant managed to get a lot of engine oil on the carpet. That was not fun to remove. Anyway, eventually, we got tired of maintaining two houses and sold it.

[Peter1469]

I rented my condo for three years while I lived closer to work. I hired a property manager, so it wasn't much of a hassle. Each tenant was good. No real problems.

Now I am back in my condo - my office moved so I am closer here.

I liked the apartment that I had for those three years. Everything you need within walking distance. But it was outrageously expensive.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm not, but without specifics about "bad" zoning, I can only comment about zoning in general, with which I don't happen to disagree. Municipal governments change zoning all the time as the character of cities change. For instance, as heavy industry has moved away from cities, lands formerly reserved for heavy industry have been rezoned for light industry and even residential uses. This has happened in all large cities, which is why so many turn of the century factories have been renovated into condominiums, prompting the demand for "factory lofts".

However urban planners do have to consider keeping land aside for those services necessary for a functioning city and mixing some industrial use with residential use is simply unsafe when you have things like chemical storage, heavy truck traffic, recycling plants and the like.

When there is some solution for affordable housing, perhaps rent controls will disappear. In the meantime, people with less money need places to live.
If people cannot afford to live in a given area they need to move to an area where they can afford to live.

[MisterVeritis]

You might want to read up on the relatively recent trend toward gentrification of older neighborhoods in large cities and the flight from the suburbs which is removing cheap housing from cities and displacing the poor.


https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/09/the-complicated-link-between-gentrification-and-displacement/404161/
You might want to look at the history of reporting on homelessness. It goes up dramatically when a Republican is in the white house and disappears when a Democrat occupies the place.

[Agent Zero]

You might want to look at the history of reporting on homelessness. It goes up dramatically when a Republican is in the white house and disappears when a Democrat occupies the place.
President Obama establishment shed a program to help homeless veterans. Our current VA Secretary wanted to cut all funding for the program.

[MisterVeritis]

President Obama establishment shed a program to help homeless veterans. Our current VA Secretary wanted to cut all funding for the program.
Cool. Therefore what?

Barack Hussein O spent ten trillion dollars we don't have.

[Dr. Who]

If people cannot afford to live in a given area they need to move to an area where they can afford to live.
For a long time, those crumbling urban neighborhoods were the affordable housing and happened to be close to where these people worked. Now they have to move so far away that many can't afford the commute nor can they find employment where they can afford to live because they are service industry workers, office or hospital cleaners, bike couriers etc and most of that work, is in the city core.

[MisterVeritis]

For a long time, those crumbling urban neighborhoods were the affordable housing and happened to be close to where these people worked. Now they have to move so far away that many can't afford the commute nor can they find employment where they can afford to live because they are service industry workers, office or hospital cleaners, bike couriers etc and most of that work, is in the city core.
It is not our responsibility to find places for people to afford. It is a personal problem. They need to move to places they can afford to live.

[Chris]

It is not our responsibility to find places for people to afford. It is a personal problem. They need to move to places they can afford to live.

And asking the government to regulate and redistribute only harms those they seek to help.

[Dr. Who]

It is not our responsibility to find places for people to afford. It is a personal problem. They need to move to places they can afford to live.
"Are there no prisons?" "Plenty of prisons..." "And the Union workhouses." ...."Those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population ...
~ A Christmas Carol

[Chris]

Dickens was a classical free market liberal mocking the socialist Scrooges of his day who, for example, still believed we were stuck in the Malthusian Trap ("they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population").

[Agent Zero]

Cool. Therefore what?

Barack Hussein O spent ten trillion dollars we don't have.

So you don't support our veterans. I'm not surprised.

[Mister D]

Dickens was a classical free market liberal mocking the socialist Scrooges of his day who, for example, still believed we were stuck in the Malthusian Trap ("they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population").

Socialist Scrooge? :shocked:

[Chris]

Socialist Scrooge? :shocked:

Yes. Dickens was a supporter of Victorian Capitalism. He portrays Scrooge criticising Malthus in the "Christmas Carol" -- "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" -- pretty much the same way Marx did. There's more but Scrooge reforms and becomes a charitable capitalist celegrating commercial Christmas in the end.

[Mister D]

Yes. Dickens was a supporter of Victorian Capitalism. He portrays Scrooge criticising Malthus in the "Christmas Carol" -- "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" -- pretty much the same way Marx did. There's more but Scrooge reforms and becomes a charitable capitalist celegrating commercial Christmas in the end.
Not sure I agree. I'm no expert on Dickens but I took Scrooge as a heartless, greedy Jew like Fagin.

[Chris]

Not sure I agree. I'm no expert on Dickens but I took Scrooge as a heartless, greedy Jew like Fagin.

Here's another view: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/92828-The-Economic-Theory-of-Ebenezer-Scrooge

[Chris]

What I returned for was this: Seattle Bans Landlords From Screening "Qualified" Tenants (https://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/28/seattle-bans-landlords-from-screening-te): "The city's goal is to curb "unconscious bias." But the policy is based on dangerous premises, and is likely to harm tenants more than it benefits them."

And what do you think the result will be but that fewer people go into the rental business.

[Mister D]

What I returned for was this: Seattle Bans Landlords From Screening "Qualified" Tenants (https://reason.com/volokh/2017/12/28/seattle-bans-landlords-from-screening-te): "The city's goal is to curb "unconscious bias." But the policy is based on dangerous premises, and is likely to harm tenants more than it benefits them."

And what do you think the result will be but that fewer people go into the rental business.

Disparate Impact is racism without racists.

Unconscious Bias is racism without intent.


Both are highly problematic on the conceptual level.

[Mister D]

Here's another view: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/92828-The-Economic-Theory-of-Ebenezer-Scrooge

Saw that. I'm no expert on Dickens. Not making any definitive claims.

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNYViRmSUBE

[Kacper]

People who are homeless now are not going to be able to afford new construction housing.