Study: Homelessness Rate Correlated With Median Rent, not Rates of Poverty or Mental Illness

[RDKirk]

What I'm mostly focused on is chronic or nearly life long homelessness. And that's an issue that isn't an affordability question.

The majority of chronic homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs or alcohol, have some sort of disability, want to be homeless and/or a combination of any of them. Most chronic homeless are not hard working poor who just can't find a place to live.

The significant information is that the majority of the homeless are not the "chronic homeless."

That means the big "homelessness" problem can be significantly reduced by relatively direct and effective measures.

Yeah, that leaves the "chronic homeless" as a problem, but it can be more accurately seen as a smaller problem than if we believe the entire "homelessness" problem is the "chronic homeless."

 

[iluvatar5150]

Hmm... after reading that I'm not convinced. Yes housing is a problem.

And there are many people who have had a period of homelessness due to job loss, loss of a house, a disability etc.

What I'm mostly focused on is chronic or nearly life long homelessness. And that's an issue that isn't an affordability question.

The majority of chronic homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs or alcohol, have some sort of disability, want to be homeless and/or a combination of any of them. Most chronic homeless are not hard working poor who just can't find a place to live.

The OP makes it seem like if we just had cheaper housing we wouldn't have any homeless. Yes the working poor might find easier access to housing. But the chronic homeless still wouldn't be able to keep a house. Just take a look at what has been done in some locations that tried to put the homeless into motels and such. They just wrecked the place and it became a hotbed of crime.

This article minimizes the true problems of chronic homelessness. We as a society did the mentally ill and addicted no favors by letting them run in the streets. They are constant victimea or crime and abuse with each other and they have little to no resources or help with the addictions and illnesses that put them there.

The article isn't about the chronically homeless.

 

[rjs330]

But if we did that then homeowners wouldn’t be able to use their houses as ATM’s.

I don't think people generally use their homes that way. People want a nice affordable home. They don't really want a home that is so expensive that nearly all their money is sunk into it.

 

[rjs330]

I doubt, even if we made it a priority in the places where it is necessary, that we could build housing fast enough to 'crash the housing market'.



Anyone who has paid decades into a mortgage has gains that are unoutwipeable. The median home price 20 years ago was $150,000. Now it's $350,000. If prices suddenly fell by a third (as they did in 2008), the median house would be worth $233K, and the median buyer would still be well into gain territory over what they put into the house. And they would have no reason to sell -- housing prices will, inevitably, go back up again. And if they did sell, they'd be a 'homeless' person with more than $200 grand in cash to their name.



I remember that it wasn't caused by building too much housing.

You have forgotten what happened. There were a lot of folks that went upside down.

And if housing prices dropped and went back up we'd be in the same boat as today.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting be done to lower home prices.

 

[rjs330]

The significant information is that the majority of the homeless are not the "chronic homeless."

That means the big "homelessness" problem can be significantly reduced by relatively direct and effective measures.

Yeah, that leaves the "chronic homeless" as a problem, but it can be more accurately seen as a smaller problem than if we believe the entire "homelessness" problem is the "chronic homeless."

The significant part is that if that is the case, then the majority of the homeless.are only there for a short period of time. And most of that is due to loss of job and not due to the expense of a home.

And if you don't have a job, cheaper housing isn't going to solve that because you still have to pay for it.

Bottom line, I am.all for cheaper housing. Houses are ridiculously priced right now.

But homelessness is caused by other things not expensive housing for the most part.

Most people are homeless for a very short period of time. Just a few days or even a few weeks. It's honestly not as serious a problem as it's made out to be. EXCEPT for the chronic homeless. The majority of them can't live in a house for long even if it was cheaper. Their illnesses prevent the from.doing that. THOSE are the people.we.ahoils be focusing on. They are the ones that need help.

 

[rjs330]

The article isn't about the chronically homeless.

It was about homelessness and part of that is the chronic homeless. It sought to blame homelessness on expensive housing. Most homelessness is not caused by expensive housing.

Most homelessness is short in duration for the regular person just down on their luck for a moment. Cheaper housing still wont help them that much.

I'm all for cheaper housing. Don't get me wrong. Housing is out of control in many places. Making it very difficult. Much of it is due to government regulations on who can build what where. Land becomes VERY expensive and contractors and builders make a lot of money with really good wages. Which also adds to the cost of a house.

In my area government decided we needed.loya of open space. This limited the land use. Suddenly land became more expensive cause there wasn't as much to be able to buy. Land owners were only able to sell.certain pieces of their land and only certain things could be built on it.

Now I have to admit that I don't want an apartment building built next to my house. I chose my neighborhood because that's the way I wanted to live. If I wanted to live next door to an apartment complex I would have chosen a different location.

But there is a LOT of land around here that could be used for building, but can't be due to regulations. Then there is the availability of water and sewer. In order to take that on you have to be able to get into the ground.water. The more apartments you build the more you tap into water sources and the more sewage has to be processed. It's all very complicated.

 

[FireDragon76]

The significant part is that if that is the case, then the majority of the homeless.are only there for a short period of time. And most of that is due to loss of job and not due to the expense of a home.

And if you don't have a job, cheaper housing isn't going to solve that because you still have to pay for it.

Bottom line, I am.all for cheaper housing. Houses are ridiculously priced right now.

But homelessness is caused by other things not expensive housing for the most part.

The evidence presented here doesn't support an alternative hypothesis. Housing prices are the primary driver of homelessness in the US.

There are actually a fair number of homeless that are employed, believe it or not. It's a myth that homeless people are generally mentally ill or incapable of holding down a job. The issue is really about the lack of sound housing policy in the US that isn't focused on enriching a few at the expense of many.

 

[durangodawood]

...Now I have to admit that I don't want an apartment building built next to my house. I chose my neighborhood because that's the way I wanted to live. If I wanted to live next door to an apartment complex I would have chosen a different location....

You could have bought enough land so you control what your house is next to. I thought you were libertarian minded? But here you are thanking the govt for controlling what other people can build on their land.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You have forgotten what happened. There were a lot of folks that went upside down.

So what? Being upside down doesn't change their mortgage payment. That alone doesn't make anyone homeless. And prices went back up, and now they're not upside down.

[There was also a recession. People who are out of work can't pay their mortgages. That was a problem. That would not be the case if we built more housing. If anything, there would be more jobs in construction. Unemployment is at historic lows right now. It would not be the same situation at all if we increased the housing supply, lowering average selling prices.]

And if housing prices dropped and went back up we'd be in the same boat as today.

Except that many more people would be in their own homes, benefitting from that wealth generator. More people would be in the wealth boat, rather than in the rent-is-too-darn-high boat.

If we built 30 million more homes, and set aside a million cheap ones for 'the homeless', and 30 million more families bought them. Then if prices went back up, that's 30 million more families owning their equity and becoming wealthier.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting be done to lower home prices.

It's painfully simple. Build more housing.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You could have bought enough land so you control what your house is next to. I thought you were libertarian minded? But here you are thanking the govt for controlling what other people can build on their land.

Interesting......this quote you linked to me (#51) didn't come from me........

 

[durangodawood]

Interesting......this quote you linked to me (#51) didn't come from me........

Thats odd. Certainly didnt mean to put someone elses words in your mouth.

 

[rjs330]

So what? Being upside down doesn't change their mortgage payment. That alone doesn't make anyone homeless. And prices went back up, and now they're not upside down.

[There was also a recession. People who are out of work can't pay their mortgages. That was a problem. That would not be the case if we built more housing. If anything, there would be more jobs in construction. Unemployment is at historic lows right now. It would not be the same situation at all if we increased the housing supply, lowering average selling prices.]



Except that many more people would be in their own homes, benefitting from that wealth generator. More people would be in the wealth boat, rather than in the rent-is-too-darn-high boat.

If we built 30 million more homes, and set aside a million cheap ones for 'the homeless', and 30 million more families bought them. Then if prices went back up, that's 30 million more families owning their equity and becoming wealthier.



It's painfully simple. Build more housing.

Who going to build them and where are they going to be built? How are they going to be paid for?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Who going to build them and where are they going to be built? How are they going to be paid for?

What if investors and developers were given special perks by the government in the form of grants, for new construction projects? Wouldn't the market resolve itself?

...Where the wise investor sees opportunity, others will follow. Just like in nature, how ecosystems develop. Except with man-made affairs, it's our duty to help steer ourselves in the right direction. If investors don't see opportunity, then it just doesn't happen is all.

 

[Landon Caeli]

How do you build new cities? We can't find enough workers for the cities we have. What kind of jobs would there be to sustain a new city? Who's going to live there? What are we going to build a bunch of empty skyscrapers, housing, strip.malls, grocery stores.etc and then people will come? Cities are not just built.

They started small, had reasons for people.to come there and over the last 200 years developed into what they are now.

"Had reasons for people to come there" you say... What about grants based on geographical zoning. IOW, that would be a reason to develop a currently undeveloped area - for the grant money.

...Just like we artificially fertilize and water fields, we can water and fertilize, monetarily, to influence how the real estate markets grow.

 

[RDKirk]

How do you build new cities? We can't find enough workers for the cities we have. What kind of jobs would there be to sustain a new city? Who's going to live there? What are we going to build a bunch of empty skyscrapers, housing, strip.malls, grocery stores.etc and then people will come? Cities are not just built.

They started small, had reasons for people.to come there and over the last 200 years developed into what they are now.

I would generally agree that a city needs a physical reason to have been settled in a particular location. But things might be changing these days with so many people being able to work from home.

What rather more likely than a brand new city being settled out in the middle of an open prairie, however, is that some small town, say somewhere like Eureka, IL, could become a mecca for Chicago remote workers working for companies that continue to pay Chicago wages no matter where the workers actually work.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Geographical zones with reduced taxes in California? For large businesses, and new construction? I wonder what that would do.

...I think we could spread things out a *lot*. You just designate where you want the growth, and drop taxes right there at that spot.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who going to build them and where are they going to be built? How are they going to be paid for?

You should pay closer attention to this thread. It's already been discussed that some form of government intervention will be required, since the private sector is just not building enough homes. It could be incentives as Landon suggests, or outright public-funded construction.

There are lots of people who would like to buy a home, but are 'priced out of the market'. If prices fall, there are already buyers ready and willing to pay market value. Currently, there's a 3-4% vacancy rate for rental housing in Los Angeles. There just aren't a lot of places to live even if you have cash in hand. If some renters become buyers, that will also alleviate pressure on the rental market, opening up spaces for people to move in from off the street or out of their cars.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interestingly, there’s actually a modest negative correlation between poverty rates and homelessness rates.

Homelessness Is a Housing Problem

Fascinating....

3 questions come to mind. Is there any correlation between rent and population density?

The mental illness thing seems extremely difficult to calculate. How did they do it?

As for the poverty rate....I haven't seen it move much despite the flattening of wages and increase in prices due to inflation/etc.

Where is the cutoff line compared to the past?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd like to see California begin it by breaking ground in Southern California's High Desert, a barren landscape, hundreds of miles wide, only an hour or two from LA. Why this land all lays undeveloped while home prices an hour away are some of the highest in the country is beyond me.

Lack of water I imagine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We should be building new cities where no cities currently exist, and refurbishing old areas at the same time.

...That would be the sign of a healthy society anyway.

Cities form around industrial hubs.