[adreamingsoul]

Absolutely. I have personal experience with having a family member who was homeless due to mental health issues. Unfortunately, housing was not the solution for them nor was it the right solution. They were homeless for a couple of years before volunteering to be committed. Due to their illness, it was not safe to house them with family or around others who are on the road to recovery.

The system is slow and challenging to navigate and eventually (after several years) my mother was able to navigate the system to become a court appointed guardian.

On the other side, I have also been in government appointed committees that set housing policy and have had to listen to many “experts” explain that housing is the solution for homelessness and their suggestions is usually along the lines of “relax the codes and permitting process so builders can build more homes”. Needless to say, I’m somewhat sceptical of this argument but that is probably mostly due to my own bias.

Imho, I think our tax money should be going to social services and universal healthcare.

[KevinGlass]

These can both be true at the same time. Yes, the biggest cause of homelessness is mental health and addiction but lack of affordable housing is the also contributing. The only city on the planet with falling housing costs is Tokyo. Tokyo also has the best urban planning policies in the world.

In America, our extremely restrictive zoning is massively limiting what can be built. In most Californian cities it can cost over $500k just for planning approval and environmental review. That's before any building materials, cost of labor, hiring architects, etc. Simply to be allowed to building something.

This is not sustainable. The fact that it's easier and cheaper to build a new development on virgin, untouched land then to upzone a single family house into a duplex is tragic.

[giantg2]

"In America, our extremely restrictive zoning is massively limiting what can be built. In most Californian cities it can cost over $500k just for planning approval and environmental review. That's before any building materials, cost of labor, hiring architects, etc. Simply to be allowed to building something."

I agree that there is generally a lot of red tape around building things, and this is generally true of most developed nations. Your example of California is sort of the extreme for the US. There are vast areas of the US where zoning is not nearly as restrictive and permits are not nearly as expensive. In a lot of the US, converting from single family to duplex is not forbidden.

The real question is about population distribution. People choose to live in the restrictive areas. Maybe some don't have a choice because that's where the jobs are. It seems there is some self correcting market effect to this in that some companies are choosing not to stay in California with the high cost of living, taxes, and regulations. If there's really enough support, there's really nothing stopping like minded companies from forming their own city in a new area, or even reinvigorating the Appalachian cities that were once much larger than they currently are (Pittsburgh and Google are a slight example).

Just a point about Tokyo. The average dwelling is under 300 sqft. Perhaps the reason that housing is increasingly expensive in places like SF, or even the US in general, is that the housing size has drastically increased over time as has the preference for more amenities. Now I'll agree that the zoning/code tends to set a minimum size limit of about 600 sqft in many places, but even then, consumer choices make it a moot point since nobody want to buy a house that small (and people in many small NYC apartments complain about size too). So even if we change zoning/codes, we still have a culture problem that doesn't necessarily fit with Tokyo's system.

[pydry]

>On the other side, I have also been in government appointed committees that set housing policy and have had to listen to many “experts” explain that housing is the solution for homelessness and their suggestions is usually along the lines of “relax the codes and permitting process so builders can build more homes”.

This an artefact of lobbying by the building industry who can absolutely rake in profits building luxury housing but are restricted in terms of where they can do it.

It will absolutely nothing for the supply of affordable housing unless luxury housing is taxed to death and building affordable housing is engineered to be profitable, but they'll fight that tooth and nail. Nobody exchanges 16% profit margins for 4% willingly.

It might even make things worse if the stripped regulations are about mandating % of affordable homes in new developments (which theyd fucking LOVE) and it will probably ensure quality goes down the tubes.

Only public housing will actually solve the supply issue. Singapore is the best model here.

[boredumb]

Have you been around public housing? The idea in theory is great, but in the US and in Puerto Rico it is a hub of drugs, alcohol, crime, government dependency, broken families, youth gangs and a slew of other things concentrated into a single area - destroys nearby culture and societal cohesiveness as well as corrupts large swathes of otherwise bright and successful young people that reside within them.

[Retric]

Luxury apartments rarely stay that way long term. It’s a similar model as cars where used ends up moving down market.

[adreamingsoul]

I agree. From my experience, a city does not have the budget for public housing, the free market doesn’t value it, and raising property taxes to pay for it is usually contentious.

So that leaves federal funding. Might as well use my taxes to provide funding for public housing projects.