Absolutely. It is also a very large metro area where, when you can't find shelter, the climate is generally agreeable to living outside for most of the year compared to others.
It's also the place that attracts the homeless because let's face it, it's easier to find food and some shelter in a city than sitting on the Great Plains or heading for the hills.
Most of those locations are in Democrat areas. Im Going to assume that's what pcgeek was going to mention. Not that it matters. I know the homeless flick to areas where the weather is more consistent. Minnesota being very cold in the winter is less appealing than Seattle or San Diego. That's why coastal cities are more popular for the homeless. It's just a coincidence that they are also blue areas.
Sorry, I totally missed your point.I think you didn’t understand the point as my point is definitely correct. You’re referring to the fact that in some cases it might not be cost efficient for developers to build but that’s entirely different than my point of the simple fact that increasing the quantity of housing in an area makes housing cheaper for people to purchase. More houses = lower rents = fewer homeless.
More importantly, in all of the areas being discussed in this thread the objections you bring up are nowhere close to being the case. Developers would LOVE to build all over San Francisco, New York, etc, but NIMBYism, affordable housing mandates, historical district nonsense, zoning, etc, are what prevent projects from being started.
Sorry, I totally missed your point.
I completely disagree with the concept of unregulated construction, zoning is an absolute necessity in every city.
While that's possible, it's never been my experience.I don’t disagree with the concept of zoning, I just think it has been taken way too far and has now become a way to enrich incumbent property owners.
While that's possible, it's never been my experience.
Zoning is all about keeping different uses separate, and controlling density to match infrastructure. Yes, some of it is about protecting peoples investment in their homes, but that's valid, and necessary. I don't want a foundry next door, I don't want a high rise apartment building at the end of my street. Both of those would adversely affect my life and the value of my property, for no better reason than to enrich someone else.
I agree. But what spy see's as a hindrance to increased density, I see as a necessary protection against rampant development. I don't want as many people as can possibly fit in my city. I don't want roads so congested as to be impassable. I don't want sewer systems that are overwhelmed every time it rains. I don't want a blackout every time a million people turn on their AC.Literally proved his point here.
While that's possible, it's never been my experience.
Zoning is all about keeping different uses separate, and controlling density to match infrastructure. Yes, some of it is about protecting peoples investment in their homes, but that's valid, and necessary. I don't want a foundry next door, I don't want a high rise apartment building at the end of my street. Both of those would adversely affect my life and the value of my property, for no better reason than to enrich someone else.
I agree. But what spy see's as a hindrance to increased density, I see as a necessary protection against rampant development. I don't want as many people as can possibly fit in my city. I don't want roads so congested as to be impassable. I don't want sewer systems that are overwhelmed every time it rains. I don't want a blackout every time a million people turn on their AC.
If you want a high density city, build one. Design it from the ground up to support whatever population density you like. But two features it will absolutely have are zoning regulations and building codes.
Except it never works out that way. The money is almost never used for infrastructure. California has sixty billion dollars worth of deferred maintenance on the books. We've had two or three gas tax increases to fund those projects, and the money ends up being diverted to the general fund. Infrastructure is ignored until it fails, then it becomes an emergency. Parts of the SF sewer system are over a hundred years old, and it's by and large ignored until it fails and swallows a few homes.No high density city in the country was built from the ground up to be high density. More dense construction leads to more tax revenues to improve infrastructure. It’s a wonderful virtuous cycle.
Like I said if you want to prohibit denser housing that’s your business but you should be aware of the harm you are inflicting on others.
I object to the notion that more conventional housing will somehow alleviate homelessness. Here in Metro Denver, particularly Denver proper, apartment construction is intense. Formerly open areas & low density areas have been & still are being built up relentlessly, often w/ little regard to issues like parking. That's particularly true anywhere along the Light Rail alignment. We've actually lost population (slightly) yet rents remain sky high. The Denver skyline has been significantly altered as a result.
None of which does jack shit for the homeless. Why? Because they have no jobs & no money. Hell- it's actually hard on them because they don't have the nooks & crannies of the city where they once camped. We still have the fading luxury of close in under utilized ground for projects like this-
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2018/...s-a-tiny-house-village-to-combat-homelessness
It's a drop in the bucket so far, but it's a start.
Except it never works out that way. The money is almost never used for infrastructure. California has sixty billion dollars worth of deferred maintenance on the books. We've had two or three gas tax increases to fund those projects, and the money ends up being diverted to the general fund. Infrastructure is ignored until it fails, then it becomes an emergency. Parts of the SF sewer system are over a hundred years old, and it's by and large ignored until it fails and swallows a few homes.
Have you considered how the housed originally become homeless? It’s usually because they can’t afford their rent.
I didn't say otherwise. I merely point out that intense apartment building here in Denver hasn't dented the homeless population. Dunno about elsewhere, but Denver's homeless are a very diverse group. None of them get that way with the money in their pockets to re-establish residency w/o a lot of help from other people. It's a chosen lifestyle only for a minority.
Based on what I've seen Denver has lagged significantly in housing production to accommodate it's growth util very recently. There may seem to be construction everywhere now but it's lagged the actual need.
Also to your previous post there should be high density housing near transit. It's simply the best place for it. That a lot of places spend millions or billions to build out new transportation infrastructure without increasing density near stations is horrible planning.
I'm all for high density near transit stations. Never said otherwise.
There's been lots of building all along, just at the higher end & often in the 'burbs. Low income housing obviously hasn't been an honest priority for builders, anyway, & won't be, either. When they can build for upscale tenants that's what will happen.
Low income housing isn't built unless it's a matter of policy. However as new supply comes online older properties can remain more affordable. There are really two related issues IMO, the issue of affordability for households making median incomes and the issue of low income/homeless housing. The first can definitely be helped by a bunch of construction but the latter requires some kind of subsidy program.
Big landlord jack up the rent on existing properties every chance they get, every time the lease expires. Only when units stay vacant do they back down. Units they rented profitably at half the price ten years ago make them money hand over fist & they won't let the goodness of their hearts interfere with that. Because they don't have any, because it's all done through investment groups like Hannity's.
Big landlord jack up the rent on existing properties every chance they get, every time the lease expires. Only when units stay vacant do they back down. Units they rented profitably at half the price ten years ago make them money hand over fist & they won't let the goodness of their hearts interfere with that. Because they don't have any, because it's all done through investment groups like Hannity's.
If supply has not caught up with demand yes older properties can still raise rents. This is the foundation of the argument to allow more housing to be built, a whole lot more.
NIMBYism is one of the few places where the left and the right somehow unite in total stupidity that betrays their core beliefs: liberals engage in housing policy that screws over poor people. Conservatives embrace heavy handed government regulation. I suspect it’s because no one really holds those beliefs very closely when it conflicts with their self interest of running up their own property value.
Most people hate change and will do anything to protect/increase their own property value. Seemingly a consideration well above political ideology for a lot of folks.
I am happy to live in a place that hasn't, yet, gone totally insane on housing policy. One upside of the last crash is the near total absence of large condo projects which usually become infested with obstructive cranks. Give me dozens more rental towers any day of the week.