Very thick writing. So many analogies, contrasts, etc. But overall a well-targeted essay. The obvious but difficult solution is a new anti-trust campaign, i.e., breaking up of huge financial conglomerates, the Amazons of the world as well, and add agri-businesses and pharma giants. Since these finance our politicians, it ain't likely to happen. Which brings us to term limits to reduce the power of big money. Oh, well. Where can we begin? Frank Tinari
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness. What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. As many who want to and are able to work should be hired to help feed others and to maintain the facilities. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities are available the city should send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who does not physically resist. Custodial care should be mandatory for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current housing first attempts to fix the problem. Most of the homeless lack the capacity to live unassisted in modern society but that is not an excuse to destroy our beautiful cities and drive out our productive citizens.
Yes, you've said it - cities themselves are fine with the homeless all over the sidewalks (or the Dallas train system in one case), because that's the absolutely cheapest alternative to caring for them any other way.
In an America I can well remember a single wage earner could afford a home. The greed that underlies the "financial engineering" of housing stocks, and the loss of single-earner purchasing power, is hollowing out a whole generation. In Los Angeles, there are currently around 93,000 vacant units, including over 46,000 held off-market by owners! Let's ask ourselves what is going wrong with our "Efficient Markets" and fix those problems.
The aversion from the homeless is neither cruelty nor indifference. It is fear. Crazy people are dangerous as are drunken or drugged people. Beggars approaching for a handout are the perfect cover for a mugger or rapist. I do acknowledge complete indifference to the YIMBY pod people as you aptly describe them. There is no inducement short of coercion that could make me live that way. I would support a complete ban on private equity owning single family homes. I would prefer just outlawing the concept since housing is just the beginning of industries they are screwing up. The other problem is the decades of ZIRP followed by a non-zero interest rate. This combined with the run up in asset value stops us old farts from downsizing and freeing up units for younger people.
Absent a law literally banning the practice of owning homes and apartments by corporations and capping the number of properties an individual landlord may own, the problem will be with us in the foreseeable future, and it will probably get much worse. We need anti-monopoly laws and we need them now.
Brilliant! The spot-on reference to the homeless as uncanny goes back to Freud's extended definition: "intellectual uncertainty as to whether something is alive or not/human or not." Our AI environment abounds with such uncanny encounters, and unfortunately the poses of madness and addiction of our homeless fellow-citizens (esp. the ubiquitous junkie on nod) trigger these same unnerving uncertainties in passersby. To your discussion of US real estate being foreign-owned, we add the irony, as I've argued in my own Substack, that all of the goods (fluffy pillows, scented candles, woven baskets) that mean "home" to the American middle class were in fact made by slave-laborers on the other side of the world. Thank you for this excellent post!
You bring up so many ideas, both the emotional “soft” side of homes and the financial reality of housing units, and you might be the first person I’ve seen who has done that. Lots to consider. BTW I do think that short-term rentals are killing significant parts of lovely communities across the country.
Sorry, while you write well, this essay is mostly waffle to justify restriction: it is unquestionably a fact that places like New York and California are building far too little and are paying the price for it, which is shrinkage and eventually the loss of dynamism.
In more poetic terms, you need to let go of the dead hand of history , and embrace the future, man, it could be so amazing, garden cities as far as the eye could see, beautiful and convenient and full of community. We have the technology to do it and the wealth to do it in the richest country in the world, there’s no reason to accept the shitty tiny apartments or potholed streets that we have to put up with.
If Trump/Vance fail to address this problem aggressively, they deserve to be voted out. I get why Trump might not get it, but I know Vance does, so he's got no excuse. A ban on corporate ownership is pretty obvious -- because what else is gonna stop the private equity slime from hoovering up all of it AND all the land too?
Another difference between housing and home is that children are raised in homes. Housing unsuitable for families should not be an acceptable solution. The long term effects of density's parasitic dependency on smaller communities needs to be considered as well.
Couldn’t get out of all the initial framing to keep reading the rest of the article. I think I saw a bunch of empty Modelo cans the framing was that bad. Oh well. I’ll stick to Kevin Erdmann I guess.
Very thick writing. So many analogies, contrasts, etc. But overall a well-targeted essay. The obvious but difficult solution is a new anti-trust campaign, i.e., breaking up of huge financial conglomerates, the Amazons of the world as well, and add agri-businesses and pharma giants. Since these finance our politicians, it ain't likely to happen. Which brings us to term limits to reduce the power of big money. Oh, well. Where can we begin? Frank Tinari
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness. What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. As many who want to and are able to work should be hired to help feed others and to maintain the facilities. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities are available the city should send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who does not physically resist. Custodial care should be mandatory for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current housing first attempts to fix the problem. Most of the homeless lack the capacity to live unassisted in modern society but that is not an excuse to destroy our beautiful cities and drive out our productive citizens.
Yes, you've said it - cities themselves are fine with the homeless all over the sidewalks (or the Dallas train system in one case), because that's the absolutely cheapest alternative to caring for them any other way.
In an America I can well remember a single wage earner could afford a home. The greed that underlies the "financial engineering" of housing stocks, and the loss of single-earner purchasing power, is hollowing out a whole generation. In Los Angeles, there are currently around 93,000 vacant units, including over 46,000 held off-market by owners! Let's ask ourselves what is going wrong with our "Efficient Markets" and fix those problems.
The aversion from the homeless is neither cruelty nor indifference. It is fear. Crazy people are dangerous as are drunken or drugged people. Beggars approaching for a handout are the perfect cover for a mugger or rapist. I do acknowledge complete indifference to the YIMBY pod people as you aptly describe them. There is no inducement short of coercion that could make me live that way. I would support a complete ban on private equity owning single family homes. I would prefer just outlawing the concept since housing is just the beginning of industries they are screwing up. The other problem is the decades of ZIRP followed by a non-zero interest rate. This combined with the run up in asset value stops us old farts from downsizing and freeing up units for younger people.
Absent a law literally banning the practice of owning homes and apartments by corporations and capping the number of properties an individual landlord may own, the problem will be with us in the foreseeable future, and it will probably get much worse. We need anti-monopoly laws and we need them now.
Brilliant! The spot-on reference to the homeless as uncanny goes back to Freud's extended definition: "intellectual uncertainty as to whether something is alive or not/human or not." Our AI environment abounds with such uncanny encounters, and unfortunately the poses of madness and addiction of our homeless fellow-citizens (esp. the ubiquitous junkie on nod) trigger these same unnerving uncertainties in passersby. To your discussion of US real estate being foreign-owned, we add the irony, as I've argued in my own Substack, that all of the goods (fluffy pillows, scented candles, woven baskets) that mean "home" to the American middle class were in fact made by slave-laborers on the other side of the world. Thank you for this excellent post!
Singapore figured out a good way to go with 90% ownership, prices at the low end under a hundred thousand and per capita income exceeding the US.
It is not the critic who counts…
Spot on here thanks.
You bring up so many ideas, both the emotional “soft” side of homes and the financial reality of housing units, and you might be the first person I’ve seen who has done that. Lots to consider. BTW I do think that short-term rentals are killing significant parts of lovely communities across the country.
Sorry, while you write well, this essay is mostly waffle to justify restriction: it is unquestionably a fact that places like New York and California are building far too little and are paying the price for it, which is shrinkage and eventually the loss of dynamism.
In more poetic terms, you need to let go of the dead hand of history , and embrace the future, man, it could be so amazing, garden cities as far as the eye could see, beautiful and convenient and full of community. We have the technology to do it and the wealth to do it in the richest country in the world, there’s no reason to accept the shitty tiny apartments or potholed streets that we have to put up with.
If Trump/Vance fail to address this problem aggressively, they deserve to be voted out. I get why Trump might not get it, but I know Vance does, so he's got no excuse. A ban on corporate ownership is pretty obvious -- because what else is gonna stop the private equity slime from hoovering up all of it AND all the land too?
Another difference between housing and home is that children are raised in homes. Housing unsuitable for families should not be an acceptable solution. The long term effects of density's parasitic dependency on smaller communities needs to be considered as well.
Couldn’t get out of all the initial framing to keep reading the rest of the article. I think I saw a bunch of empty Modelo cans the framing was that bad. Oh well. I’ll stick to Kevin Erdmann I guess.