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]

So agreed!

Add to your list people living in cars not because they love living in cars, and people living at campsites, out in the woods, empty lots, under urban bridges in tents, and campers and not because they love camping and mobile living.

And yes, tiny houses are adorable, but having lived in mobile homes, and especially an efficiency for many more years than I wanted to, I can attest that minimalist living is a luxury only for the wealthy who can count on picking up what they need at whatever cost when disaster, illness, disability, and caretaker responsibilities hit.

[conuly]

Oh, gosh yes. And people who put on a good face for family and especially their kids that this is their choice.

[crystalpyramid]

Yeah there are a ton of useless homes built in places that don't have the wealth to justify the highways they need to survive. Especially pre-recession. But I don't think shipping people to e.g. suburban Las Vegas is a good idea...

[maia]

Agreed!

ETA: OTOH, in NYC where so much real estate belongs to the super-rich, there are so many palatial "homes" that are seldom occupied. I've often thought we ought to give the owners a choice: either pay a VERY high tax on your unoccupied property, or allow the city to house the homeless there whenever you're away.

[calimac]

I've seen it brought up, not in a stupid "Let's put all the homeless into those empty houses" sense, but more in a ways of pointing out that the houses aren't where the homeless are, so this is fncked up in more than one sense.

[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.

[angelofthenorth]

OK. In the UK this actually has meaning. We have a major problem of people hoarding houses in areas people want to live and using them as either air bnb or keeping them empty.
We also have a legal definition of homelessness that encompasses all the groups mentioned.

I know NYC and slc have similar issues of houses that need to be brought back into circulation because they've been case studies for homelessness how to and how not to.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[conuly]

Hoarding homes is disgusting, I quite agree. There ought to be a tax for unoccupied properties.

We also have a legal definition of homelessness that encompasses all the groups mentioned.

And does everybody scrupulously use the legal definition at all times?

[conuly]

Brought up that way, not so bad. Brought up in this way, lazy thinking.

[conuly]

YES TAX UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY.

INCLUDING RETAIL SPACES.

[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.

[maia]

YES!!!

[dewline]

Add in community gardens alongside parks?

[bitterlawngnome]

Vancouver BC has a tax on empty housing, and while it's only recent it does seem to have made the city less attractive for people overseas buying housing to hold and flip later. Slightly. Wait and see what it does in the long haul. The developers of course are all screaming because now omg who will buy their unlivable million-dollar shoeboxes? and threatening (if that's the word) to stop doing what they do. Nobody has actually raised this issue, developers building crap "housing" units that are designed solely to look good in the sales brochure but god forbid you try raising kids in them or etc. ... another issue to add to your list of frustrations.

[conuly]

God forbid you try to live in them. I've seen how some of these houses are made, and it's shoddy all around.

[nodrog]

If they’d said, “potential homes,” I would agree.  It’s wrong and tragic, that it’s cheaper and easier to break new ground than to refurbish existing buildings, making for more and more suburban sprawl while leaving a necrotic ring of empty buildings to deteriorate.  How many people could live in any empty Rite-Aid? Let ’em!

[low_delta]

300,000,000 people in the US. If there were an average of 3 people per home (just to pull a number out of the sky for discussion purposes) that would be over 100M homes.

So these people wouldn't see a problem until there were over 100 million homeless people.

[mindstalk]

I think conuly left out the word 'vacant'. The usual claim I see is that there are more vacant homes than homeless people.

[conuly]

Yes, that's exactly what happened, whoops.