If Newsom wanted to he could probably solve the crisis over night, just like he did when Xi Jinping visited.
In Utah they have been constructing “tiny homes” instead of more “shelters”. I think it’s a pretty good idea and, if I remember correctly, the only requirements to qualify are have the need and be drug free. Seems like a much better solution than shared spaces which often turn out to be quite dangerous for many reasons.
he doesn’t want to solve it. homelessness is a threat to keep the people who are on the verge from rioting. people with something to lose don’t riot. Also, same reason we still have healthcare tied to employment. forces you to work.
for the record, I’d be willing to bet you my lunch that if you add up all the costs associated with homelessness as currently being approached- the enforcement, the property damage, the shelters that do fuck all. the health expenses incurred because they can’t get employed. all of it. I bet if you add all that up, it would be less than a housing-first solution similar to finland’s. (it’s finland I’m thinking of, right?)
If hypothetically he could solve the housing crisis overnight, why wouldn’t he? He’s obviously got his sights on the presidency, and being able to resolve the housing crisis in one of the largest states is an easy way to get a lot of positive attention. He could solve the housing crisis over night, then for the next 4 years (trump’s/Biden’s presidency) he can take time to resolve other problems and pad his resume even more.
In my opinion, if Newsom is anything worth his salt, he would invest public funds into tiny homes and basically guaranteed jobs for the homeless, rather than being cool with things like:
living in the BART facilities
living in tents on the street
being rounded up into random buildings/facilities because Xi is coming
$20 minimum wage for everyone but Panera Bread since the CEO is my friend
Newsom, literally with the stoke of a pen, could invest public funds into helping the homeless in a provable way, yet he does not. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not want to.
Please, convince me otherwise, but the state of, at least, SF under Newsom (and big tech, admittedly) has greatly deteriorated
Do you think California is not spending any money homelessness? 17.5 billion dollars in 4 years is nothing to scoff at. This includes money spent on housing, as well as temporary housing and appropriate services. So you’re right in that Newsom can invest public funds to helping homeless in a provable way, but he has actually done that.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html
Until we get our housing shortage sorted out (something that will take years maybe even decades to sort out, even if Newsom was a god king and made the decision to prioritize this issue over all others), we will continue to have this housing and by extension unhoused issue. Homelessness has been increasing throughout the country (source) and with a big contributions being from a shortage of housing built. States should be working on creating new housing(as several states, including California are doing), but the Federal government should be doing what they can to support the states in resolving this issue.
It’s called approving building permits, after the new homes are finished, they would house the people bidding up housing prices, decreasing the pressure on the market
Building permits are being issued more often and faster than before. He passed SB9 that allows a single property to be split into 2 properties, plus allowing an ADU on all properties meaning up to 4 houses per lot. But building even a small home takes multiple months, and it takes time for the trickle down of housing to get to the lowest levels. If you build a new house in Los Angeles, do you think the supply/demand curve instantly shifts? We have a transient population, so new people with money could come in to buy instead of an existing apartment renter being able to buy. A ton of existing home purchases in West Coast cities are going to corporations, investors, and foreign purchasers.
San Francisco has a density of 18,000 people per square mile, while Austin has a density of 3,000 per sqmi. There isn’t room to build new stuff, so they just convert old stuff into more expensive new stuff.
They already found some space, but they would find a ton more if it there weren’t so many single family homes or areas with density limits or building height restrictions
Tokyo was able to redevelop most of its areas to use land better, why can’t SF?
A) That link is behind a paywall. I could only read the first two paragraphs.
B) The first two paragraphs are about how hard it is to find a place to put any new housing. It talks about converting existing spaces into housing, adding new units to existing apartment buildings, etc. And even then, it caps out at 60,000 POSSIBLE units while Austin is permitting over a thousand a month, many of which are single family homes that you are complaining about.
That said, Austin has done a great job of building a ton of apartment buildings. So much so that businesses are complaining that housing prices are going down. It’s easier for Austin to do that, since they have both more space overall and less space that is already developed; but it’s great that they have broken the lines of NIMBY and bureaucracy to actually do it.
Yes, but out of those tens of thousands of possible houses they permit very little.
Single family homes are not an issue in Austin because they have room for them. You are totally correct in that. But the big difference is being willing to change, SF voters are actually the home owners and they like their insane property prices
Feel free to explain why Newsom has been campaigning on solving homelessness in California for ~10 years but only made progress when Xi Jinping visited recently, and also why he hadn’t taken the exact same actions sooner. It’s the same reason, after all.
He didn’t make any progress when Pooh visited. He literally rounded up people, shoved them in a building temporarily, then let them all out once the visit was over. It’s like a kid “cleaning” his bedroom by shoving all his toys and dirty clothes in the closet, only for everything to just tumble out when the doors are opened.
You obviously haven’t been to California. There are tiny home complexes everywhere are they are expanding quickly. You can see a large one just off the 170.
If Newsom wanted to he could probably solve the crisis over night, just like he did when Xi Jinping visited.
In Utah they have been constructing “tiny homes” instead of more “shelters”. I think it’s a pretty good idea and, if I remember correctly, the only requirements to qualify are have the need and be drug free. Seems like a much better solution than shared spaces which often turn out to be quite dangerous for many reasons.
Feel free to explain how Newsom could solve the crises over night, and also why he hasn’t done it.
he doesn’t want to solve it. homelessness is a threat to keep the people who are on the verge from rioting. people with something to lose don’t riot. Also, same reason we still have healthcare tied to employment. forces you to work.
for the record, I’d be willing to bet you my lunch that if you add up all the costs associated with homelessness as currently being approached- the enforcement, the property damage, the shelters that do fuck all. the health expenses incurred because they can’t get employed. all of it. I bet if you add all that up, it would be less than a housing-first solution similar to finland’s. (it’s finland I’m thinking of, right?)
but how would he solve it over night?
If hypothetically he could solve the housing crisis overnight, why wouldn’t he? He’s obviously got his sights on the presidency, and being able to resolve the housing crisis in one of the largest states is an easy way to get a lot of positive attention. He could solve the housing crisis over night, then for the next 4 years (trump’s/Biden’s presidency) he can take time to resolve other problems and pad his resume even more.
i’m guessing they’re saying by rounding them up and locking them up. I’m not the OC, however, so I’m not saying he could do it overnight.
In my opinion, if Newsom is anything worth his salt, he would invest public funds into tiny homes and basically guaranteed jobs for the homeless, rather than being cool with things like:
Newsom, literally with the stoke of a pen, could invest public funds into helping the homeless in a provable way, yet he does not. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not want to.
Please, convince me otherwise, but the state of, at least, SF under Newsom (and big tech, admittedly) has greatly deteriorated
Do you think California is not spending any money homelessness? 17.5 billion dollars in 4 years is nothing to scoff at. This includes money spent on housing, as well as temporary housing and appropriate services. So you’re right in that Newsom can invest public funds to helping homeless in a provable way, but he has actually done that. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html
Until we get our housing shortage sorted out (something that will take years maybe even decades to sort out, even if Newsom was a god king and made the decision to prioritize this issue over all others), we will continue to have this housing and by extension unhoused issue. Homelessness has been increasing throughout the country (source) and with a big contributions being from a shortage of housing built. States should be working on creating new housing(as several states, including California are doing), but the Federal government should be doing what they can to support the states in resolving this issue.
It’s called approving building permits, after the new homes are finished, they would house the people bidding up housing prices, decreasing the pressure on the market
Building permits are being issued more often and faster than before. He passed SB9 that allows a single property to be split into 2 properties, plus allowing an ADU on all properties meaning up to 4 houses per lot. But building even a small home takes multiple months, and it takes time for the trickle down of housing to get to the lowest levels. If you build a new house in Los Angeles, do you think the supply/demand curve instantly shifts? We have a transient population, so new people with money could come in to buy instead of an existing apartment renter being able to buy. A ton of existing home purchases in West Coast cities are going to corporations, investors, and foreign purchasers.
But nowhere near as fast as Texas, and it shows.
https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1767651808233849142
It’s almost like there’s a gigantic difference between building new housing in a city that has water on 2 sides, a mountain on the 3rd, is hilly as fuck, and looks like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tripsavvy.com%2Fthmb%2FcDzV0BmLpYR9pvR2fM4WyJBGlfs%3D%2F2121x1414%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale()%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2Fcolumbus-ave-downtown-san-francisco-aerial-538152367-58460a475f9b5851e5e8e767.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=40220336d594426b1951f443a0803c0edbae4bf26b20180063d42a59bfa3c822&ipo=images
Versus a completely flat city with open scrub-land on 4 sides that looks like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fphotohome.com%2Fpictures%2Ftexas-pictures%2Faustin%2Fdowntown-austin-1a.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=59082578a907c28cc53849c4638464ef282fe68eb7b754bda3287bbb07364464&ipo=images
San Francisco has a density of 18,000 people per square mile, while Austin has a density of 3,000 per sqmi. There isn’t room to build new stuff, so they just convert old stuff into more expensive new stuff.
Don’t act like there’s no space in SF, I’m from there.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-building-maps-17625366.php
They already found some space, but they would find a ton more if it there weren’t so many single family homes or areas with density limits or building height restrictions
Tokyo was able to redevelop most of its areas to use land better, why can’t SF?
A) That link is behind a paywall. I could only read the first two paragraphs.
B) The first two paragraphs are about how hard it is to find a place to put any new housing. It talks about converting existing spaces into housing, adding new units to existing apartment buildings, etc. And even then, it caps out at 60,000 POSSIBLE units while Austin is permitting over a thousand a month, many of which are single family homes that you are complaining about.
That said, Austin has done a great job of building a ton of apartment buildings. So much so that businesses are complaining that housing prices are going down. It’s easier for Austin to do that, since they have both more space overall and less space that is already developed; but it’s great that they have broken the lines of NIMBY and bureaucracy to actually do it.
Yes, but out of those tens of thousands of possible houses they permit very little.
Single family homes are not an issue in Austin because they have room for them. You are totally correct in that. But the big difference is being willing to change, SF voters are actually the home owners and they like their insane property prices
Feel free to explain why Newsom has been campaigning on solving homelessness in California for ~10 years but only made progress when Xi Jinping visited recently, and also why he hadn’t taken the exact same actions sooner. It’s the same reason, after all.
hey man, you made the assertion. If you can’t back up your claims, just say that you’re making things up.
He didn’t make any progress when Pooh visited. He literally rounded up people, shoved them in a building temporarily, then let them all out once the visit was over. It’s like a kid “cleaning” his bedroom by shoving all his toys and dirty clothes in the closet, only for everything to just tumble out when the doors are opened.
You obviously haven’t been to California. There are tiny home complexes everywhere are they are expanding quickly. You can see a large one just off the 170.