Sooner or later you're bound to see somebody

[conuly]

or more like several somebodies proclaim that there are more homes in the USA than homeless people.

I have no idea where they get this little factoid, but it's a pretty useless tidbit.

First, it's unclear how they're defining "homeless", or if they've given any thought as to how they should define it. Are we counting people who are chronic couchsurfers because they can't find an affordable place to stay, but who technically have a friend's roof over their head every night, even if they have to hustle week from week to find another friend so as not to wear out their welcome? Are we counting families who have split the kids up among relatives because Mom and Dad can't find a place with enough space for them AND the kids, but technically everybody is housed? Are we counting people paying exorbitant fees week to week to rent a motel room because they can't get the cash together for first and last month rent plus a security deposit on an actual apartment? How about families living "doubled up", as they say, sharing an apartment with two or more families that isn't big enough, really, for one - each family crammed into a bedroom and timesharing the bathroom and kitchen?

Or are they only thinking of the long term homeless who literally live on the streets or occasionally in shelters?

Secondly, while I agree that any solution to homelessness starts with giving people homes, the actual existence of houses does no good if they aren't where the people are! If my job is in NYC, and my kids go to school in NYC, and I'm hooked up to the social programs in NYC, and my family is in the greater NYC area, it does no good to tell me that there are hundreds of empty houses in Detroit. Even if I could get there, what would I do once I did? And at least Detroit is a city. Do we seriously expect the urban homeless population to decamp to the thinning out rural counties of America? Would they even be welcome, no matter how many homes they live in?

Utterly useless statement, there are more homes than homeless. Utterly, utterly useless.

Comments

[ex_inklessej388]

I think pushing out of the built up urban areas is part of the solution to homelessness. Inevitably the price of housing rises as we stack more and more of these spaces on top of one another. Not to mention that rarely are any of these new condos and highrises affordable for people. But there are a whole whack of other things that have to happen to make rural life more palatable for people. Investment in public transportation that is efficient and affordable is a huge start. A lot of smaller communities around large urban areas can be revitalized with investment in light rail, but governments need to make the investment and see the connection between providing affordable housing, access to urban networks (the everything in greater NYC area example you give) and pushing out of the desire to build up and make money.

This is coming from a Canadian living in a part of the country where homelessness and affordable housing are a MAJOR issue that is not getting the action it needs from all levels of government.

[conuly]

I disagree. I think building more units in built up areas is key. American cities are just not very dense, and while I understand that increasing supply can in some cases paradoxically increase demand, when it comes to urban housing demand has outstripped supply for a long time.

I also think we need to make our inner suburbs much denser. Smaller homes, smaller plots, more two and three family houses. Our families are smaller than in the 1950s, so why are modern houses bigger?

[lavendertook]

For the past 30 years there have been no small freestanding family homes built--only free-standing McMansions, and 30 years ago I knew how fucked up this was--that we couldn't have that many wealthy people with large families who could afford these things, and the housing bubble and the Big Short of bad loans to convince USians who couldn't possibly afford these things to buy them and the dismantling of the middle-class arose therefrom.

And even back then, I knew we needed small houses built of the cape cod or simpler, even ticky tacky variety built and if there have been any built since the 70's they are few and far between. I'm not against a small house and a large lot--there are many couples without or with one or 2 children who have the will and ability to work that land ecologically and economically, as well as aesthetically, and should be allowed to be good stewards of the earth that way, even close to urban areas--there be suppliers at farmer's markets.

Of joined homes, they have all been of the luxury variety--townhomes and condos. We need government regulations to lower the prices of these, especially as they age while still requiring proper management upkeep.

A movement to update McMansions into sectioned 2 and 3 family homes, each with their own entrances, bathrooms and kitchens is needed, and some with communal kitchens for affiliated families that want to live communally needs to happen and be supported.

But acknowledgement that pretty much the only free-standing housing that has been built in the last 30 years (generally outside urban limits--we have plenty of inner suburban older mansions in the DC area) is the McMansion needs to be acknowledged and widely talked about by all US communities and tackled as the economic issue it is.

[conuly]

I think we really need to deemphasize larger lots for suburbs, though, as an ancillary issue and instead promote parks (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc) because most people spend approximately no time on their lots except for when they mow their lawns. It's a complete waste of space, whereas parks might get used.

[dewline]

Add in community gardens alongside parks?

[conuly]

That's just a bit from what you said, I know, but I just got in so give me a minute to warm up.

As for McMansions - ugh, don't get me started, it's such a clusterfuck of stupid.

[mindstalk]

Government regulations is likely why you're only seeing "luxury" condos. If you can build only a limited amount of housing, naturally you'll go for the more profitable units first. Why is supply limited? Zoning laws, parking requirements (which also add to the cost directly).

Healthy markets make stuff for the rich and the poor.

[hudebnik]

I wrote something recently (I think it was on Quora) about rent regulation, and how it's one of the few Republican boogeymen that I disagree with too. It distorts the market in ways that don't benefit renters OR owners, such as encouraging owners to make their tenants' lives miserable so they move out so the landlord can convert an affordable rental property into a luxury apartment or condo.

An alternative approach is California's tax credit for low-income renters: it's means-tested, so it doesn't produce the bizarre situation of a moderately well-off person paying $500/month while the poorer family next door pays $1500 for a comparable apartment, and rather than depressing the rental housing market, it stimulates specifically the market for low-income rental properties. The only problem is that it's currently too underfunded to make a difference (and, of course, the political problem that it involves gummint spending tax dollars on Those People).

[mindstalk]

Rent control can be a problem but only exists in a few cities. Zoning restrictions on supply are far more pervasive and fundamental.

[hudebnik]

True. There are legitimate reasons for some zoning rules -- you probably don't want a noisy, polluting, heavy-industry shop setting up in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood -- but they often have undesirable effects such as pushing all the noisy, polluting stuff into low-income neighborhoods, or keeping densities too low for mass transit or walking to be effective, so everybody has to have a car, which increases pollution and demand for parking and roads.

[mindstalk]

Noise/emissions/risk could be handled by nuisance law rather than zoning per se, perhaps. But anyway US zoning goes far beyond such separation.

Japanese zoning is radically different. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html?m=1

National constraints on allowable policy; 'residential' just that, no distinction between houses and apartments (though hotel is another category, and short-term rental like Airbnb tacked on recently); density limits are on building size, a formula of street width and setback, and not on how many people can go in a building; parking requirements are minimal to non-existent; even the most residential zone allows some mixed use ("residential buildings also used as small shops or offices"); it's impossible zone for offices while excluding housing.

It's far from laissez-faire but it's also a lot more market-oriented than US zoning. No socialized parking, either. Try getting a conservative to endorse it, though...

[mindstalk]

Most of the US isn't even remotely built up. Housing prices in Boston or the Bay Area are increasing not because of stacking but because more people want to live there now; price of housing is increasing without any stacking whatsoever. Pretty much all the booming areas have been adding 3-6 times as many jobs as housing units for the last 2-3 decades. It's supply and demand.

What is allowed to be built is (a) limited (b) high-rise and (c) required to have expensive parking. All three elements raise the price.

Most US urban area is zoned for detached single-family houses. There is no stacking, no apartments allowed; black/poor people might move in!

"a whole whack of other things that have to happen to make rural life more palatable for people. Investment in public transportation that is efficient and affordable is a huge start"

People are trying to move to select cities because that's where the jobs are.

You need density to have efficient and affordable public transit.

[loligo]

But there are a whole whack of other things that have to happen to make rural life more palatable for people.

Well, there's really only one big one: well-paying jobs.

I live in a *slightly* thinning out rural county, adjacent to some really thinning out rural counties, and I can tell you that many of the people who are leaving the area would NOT be leaving if they could still make a decent living here. Most of the jobs that have been lost in the past 40 years are in agriculture or mining, but several pretty big factories have closed, too. Then there's all the retail and service jobs that used to support those people.

Yes, for sure, if you want to attract new people to a rural area, you need to provide them with some of the nice things that larger places have, like transit. (And heck, those of us who are already here would love some transit, too!) But it wouldn't take much to *retain* the people who already have roots here and already love it.

[neotoma]

No, the price of housing doesn't rise because of density, it rises because of desirability.

Where I live, the price differential between comparable living spaces within easy walking distance of a subway station and not within easy walking distance are significant. Home prices can be 8% or more, and apartments are even more variable.

Also, dense housing let's there be enough people in a small area to support things like mass transit, quirky little bookshops, and various small businesses that rely on foot traffic.