Homelessness [split from Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts]

[dhuff]

Good video!

Functional people move to nice places, that are also accommodating... to live on the street, or in their vehicle. Why not? It's an easy life. Beats having a job.

Agree, it is a good video. Looking forward to part 2.

I also noted how many of the interviewees actually had jobs, even high-paying ones like that fellow who was a software developer. And yet Cost of Living is so high in the SF Bay area that even "software developer" guy wanted to find alternatives to the ridiculously high apartment rent.

It puzzles me how a society would think it's a good idea to price avg. working people out of the housing market. Do you just not want waiters, store clerks, janitors, etc... in your city ? In the past I've lived in/near ski areas in Colorado and the problem was the same there.

 

[rruff]

I also noted how many of the interviewees actually had jobs, even high-paying ones like that fellow who was a software developer.

Actually I don't think anybody who was on the street or in a vehicle mentioned having a job. I might have missed it though, and it certainly would be possible. People with jobs usually have nicer rigs.

The software guy was in close-packed housing because he didn't want to pay over 10% of his income for it.

Hmmm...smh here. Isn't that what's supposed to happen in a free market? Rent's too high, so people make the rational decisiuon to not pay it?

It's illegal in many places and has been for centuries. No one has a natural "right" to squat. These people are squatting on the most expensive RE in the country because they are allowed. There are loads of places in the US where they could make bottom tier wages or live on SS and afford housing.

The "free market" would naturally find an accommodation between housing costs and wages. If housing gets too expensive relative to wages, employees and companies would both have a strong incentive to move somewhere cheaper. If companies move away, others may move in that expect the costs to be worth it, that will have high wage jobs. If not then the price of RE will decline.

It's insane to think someone has the "right" to live on welfare or just any low-paying job in coastal CA. It's doubly nuts to think they have a right to squat there for free.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't a problem with rising income disparity in this country... just that it has little to do with this issue.

It is also part of being free to live and travel as one pleases in this country. There are legal limits but as long as they are abided by and if too restrictive options or accommodations are provided it is one of the great things about living in this country in my opinion. Many countries I believe you must have papers or permits to travel in.

We aren't free to live as we want... anywhere. Pissing and shitting in the bushes in front of multimillion $ homes isn't a right or legal. Commandeering all the street parking isn't either.

I totally get the appeal. I loved living on the streets in Santa Cruz for the few months I did it. But I realized the homeless population was enjoying themselves at the considerable expense of other people who were working hard and paying for housing and services. And even though I did nothing to trash the area or bother the locals, I was still contributing to that.

 

[user 22017]

... it is one of the great things about living in this country in my opinion. Many countries I believe you must have papers or permits to travel in.

And some countries have greater freedom...

"In Sweden, you can walk, ride, cycle, ski and camp on any land you like, without the landowner’s permission. You can also forage, picking flowers, berries and mushrooms (excluding protected species and those in conservation areas). And you can drive on private land, unless there is a sign that says otherwise.

"In short, the concept of trespassing is anathema to a Swede. The Swedish tourist board even listed the entire country on Airbnb in 2017, advertising the freedom to roam to the whole world."

More: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/sweden-roam-freely-law-Allemansrätt-access-nature/

 

[user 22017]

It puzzles me how a society would think it's a good idea to price avg. working people out of the housing market. Do you just not want waiters, store clerks, janitors, etc... in your city ? In the past I've lived in/near ski areas in Colorado and the problem was the same there.

This person makes very good points for why rent control is needed:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/573841-theres-no-denying-the-data-rent-control-works/
This is one cause of the homelessness problem:

In 1998, through the Faircloth Amendment, the U.S. Government created an artificial barrier by limiting the number of public housing units that federal authorities could build and has resulted in many people being left without a home. This amendment prevents any net increase in public housing stock from the number of units as of October 1, 1999. Simply put, the Faircloth Amendment sets a cap on the number of units any public housing authority (PHA) could own and operate, effectively halting new construction of public housing. This prevents policymakers from using a vital tool, building more permanent affordable housing, to address our nation’s growing housing and homelessness crisis.


In the two decades since the Faircloth Amendment passed, rent costs have skyrocketed while average incomes have not. The median inflation-adjusted rent has increased 13.0 percent since 2001, while the median inflation-adjusted renter’s income has only increased 0.5 percent during that same period. This obstacle in creating more affordable housing that the amendment created, is happening while there is a $70 billion backlog in funding for maintenance and repairs to existing public housing stock.

https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/

 

[rruff]

This person makes very good points for why rent control is needed

Nope. All that does is screw up the market and lead to less affordability for people who didn't get in while the getting was good. The people who are paying so that a few fortunate poor people can afford rent in NYC, are not the people who should be paying.

All these band-aid measures just make things worse. Wage/income disparity is the root issue. Easy to fix too, just like every other developed country in the world has fixed it... or how we fixed it prior to 1980.

 

[user 22017]

Nope. All that does is screw up the market and lead to less affordability for people who didn't get in while the getting was good. The people who are paying so that a few fortunate poor people can afford rent in NYC, are not the people who should be paying.

All these band-aid measures just make things worse. Wage/income disparity is the root issue. Easy to fix too, just like every other developed country in the world has fixed it... or how we fixed it prior to 1980.

The safety nets did not make things worse. Quite the contrary.

According to the CIA World Factbook, only the top 20% saw their income increase since 1980. Adjusted for inflation. That was on their website since 2000, so I was surprised when several studies came out in recent years stating the same thing. As if it was just discovered.

As Price and Edwards explain, from 1947 through 1974, real incomes grew close to the rate of per capita economic growth across all income levels. That means that for three decades, those at the bottom and middle of the distribution saw their incomes grow at about the same rate as those at the top. This was the era in which America built the world’s largest and most prosperous middle class, an era in which inequality between income groups steadily shrank (even as shocking inequalities between the sexes and races largely remained). But around 1975, this extraordinary era of broadly shared prosperity came to an end. Since then, the wealthiest Americans, particularly those in the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent, have managed to capture an ever-larger share of our nation’s economic growth—in fact, almost all of it—their real incomes skyrocketing as the vast majority of Americans saw little if any gains.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

 

[bullfrog !]

rruff the video doesn’t show or condone extreme behavior, no one was without a means of personal hygiene or behaving radically. You have to admit there are more people out there that are not mentally ill or drug addicts than there have been in recent years, many working but unable to afford the cost of permanent housing. I agree there are people out there with problems but you can’t just focus your comments on them without acknowledging the rest of the group. I’ve been living in an RV and working for almost 20 years since I retired! Lol!!! I have spent many nights legally parked while working on public streets and parking lots. Granted I never did so on the west coast but again in my opinion the numbers seem to be growing as rents are artificially inflated by corporations monopolizing the housing/rental market. Not everyone is so poor they can get assistance many are working poor.

 

[rruff]

As Price and Edwards explain, from 1947 through 1974, real incomes grew close to the rate of per capita economic growth across all income levels.

Actually it was from the early '30s to late '70s when real median incomes actually exceeded GDP. This was to correct for the imbalance that had built up in the late 1800s and early 1900s... culminating in the crash of '29 and the Great Depression.

The only reason we had it so good for that 45 year period was because the oligarchs knew they'd be in deep trouble if communism got too popular. The overall economy does the best when consumer incomes rise as fast as corporate profits; the more stuff consumers can afford to buy the more stuff corporations can produce. You also need a strong tax base to support a big military. You need a strong economy, and wealthy and happy middle class if you want to dominate the world... so we got it. Through WW2 and the cold war they kept this up, until it was obvious that the USSR was going to collapse... then they shifted tactics. Huge drop in marginal income taxes and corporate taxes, "free" trade that encouraged outsourcing of manufacturing and gutted unions. Encouraging women to work!... very important so that households could increase spending even though wages were flat. And debt; "deficits don't matter" (not when have fiat money) resulting in a huge increase in fiscal debt, along with easy credit which let people amass much higher amounts of credit than they could before.

I'm always annoyed when I see articles lumping the top 1%. The great majority of those are just people with good paying jobs and careers; not that much different than the rest of us. It's when you get to the top .01% where it gets crazy... that cohort has had a 10x increase in real income since the 70s. That's also the bunch that lives off their money and has a lot of pull when it comes to setting policy.

Obviously all this isn't sustainable forever, but it's amazingly "worked" for over 40 years. I won't go into the end game... but I think some smart people forecast a long time ago that tech and AI would eventually make most people effectively useless... so might as well slowly impoverish them before the hammer comes down.

 

[BelgianPup]

Deliberately created inflation causes trouble at every level. Our government has been spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave. They are creating money that has nothing to back it.

Add that to an educational system that has been creating people who are so ignorant they can't understand the very basics of problems. If an American company needs highly educated employees, they usually have to hire Asians. A while back, I found a list of the educational quality of all the countries in the world (most lists leave out industrialized nation's), and ours was 154th out of almost 200 countries.

The US has outsourced a full third of it's production overseas, mostly to China. We are selling our land to China. Some of our politicians are owned and operated by China. Now, there are rumblings of getting into a war with China. Doesn't THAT sound like a great idea?

And I suspect the worst is yet to come.

 

[jacqueg]

Deliberately created inflation causes trouble at every level. Our government has been spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave. They are creating money that has nothing to back it.

Actually, it has quite a lot to back it up - the full faith and credit of the largest economic engine the world has ever seen. There is literally no earthly substance, which is both sufficiently common and sufficiently rare, that can "back" US currency, let alone the world's.

Money is an entirely made-up thing anyway, it only has value in the eye of its beholder(s). It's ALL monopoly money.

 

[wayne49]

Faith based economics. Works great until punched in the mouth.

Actually it is debt [credit is debt] based economics, debt that is never intended to be repaid.

Much of the financial wealth now is based on derivatives of derivatives, which aren't backed by anything physical. That is what killed the Silicon Valley Bank recently, and many banks and institutions in 2008.

Everything's great in the USA, until the world plus dog dumps US Dollars for ex-USA trade, which is happening now.

The US and its NATO partners are sanctioning every nation that chooses non-USD currency for international trade. The coalition of the sanctioned is increasing and approaching a critical mass. That mass can, and will, create its own payment system, outside of SWIFT and USD.

Africa and India are looking to switch to Yuan/Remimbi for trade with the rest of the world.

The "economic powerhouse" of USA is importing electronics and other consumer goods from Mainland China, home of the Yuan/Remimbi.

Thermo-dollar warfare. Ukraine is sucking up billions per month. War is a hole in the ground where cash is dumped and ends up in the accounts of the already ultrawealthy.

 

[bullfrog !]

Not to worry soon the first corporation to get an AI computer system up and running will solve it all by eliminating all other competitors! Wonder what kind of solutions it will come up with for homeless in the world?

 

[DLTooley]

Do consider this, big picture every dollar spent on building affordable housing is coming from deficit spending and going to owners of land. Not buildings, but the land. I have no objection for an individual owning their own residence or business, but corporate ownership and similar is rife with almost completely unaddressed problems.
Henry George, a late and moderate contemporary of Karl Marx, published a work in 1879 that goes to this. It became very popular during the depression and should be so again. Progress and Poverty.

 

[WanderingRose]

corporate ownership and similar is rife with almost completely unaddressed problems.

Tho subsidized housing for the low income would still be subsidized housing for the low income, and many of these developments are being built and re-built on land already owned rather than newly purchased.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Do consider this, big picture every dollar spent on building affordable housing is coming from deficit spending and going to owners of land. Not buildings, but the land. I have no objection for an individual owning their own residence or business, but corporate ownership and similar is rife with almost completely unaddressed problems .....

I don't know about other places but in Minnesota land cost varies between 10% and 40% of the cost of a finished dwelling. It varies based on location and the magnificence of the structure.

The biggest and most corrupt corporation (and biggest landowner) we have is the Federal Government.

 

[RonDean]

Some of this thread sounds like the old story of blind men describing an elephant, each only feeling a small part of it. If we start with the assumption that we would rather have some government providing some things for the population as a whole, then the only questions come down to what do we want that government to provide and how do we pay for it? For myself, I favor providing a livable minimum standard of living for all our citizens. Nobody should have to live under a tarp and go without medical care. But that's just my priority, I guess. There seem to be a lot of people that would rather focus on the grand global economics.

OK. Let go there. For the last 6 years running, Finland has been the happiest country in the world. Although no country is all one economic "type", Finland does lean more toward socialism than the US and they have one of the the highest global tax rates. So...why is everybody so happy? I would submit it is because of what they get for their taxes. Their taxes pay for "tax funded" (as against the term "free") health care, education, and all the other basics they consider necessary. How do they manage this? They still have a strong manufacturing base, they actually tax their churches (which is a huge loss of revenue here), and so on... The list of intelligent things they do just goes on and on.

How about homelessness? Finland was an early adopter of "Housing First" policies. And Finland has seen decades of progress while we continue going in the opposite direction. Maybe it's time to take our collective heads out of the ground and ask the simple question of who is succeeding and how could we do it too?

 

[jacqueg]

Tho subsidized housing for the low income would still be subsidized housing for the low income, and many of these developments are being built and re-built on land already owned rather than newly purchased.

Dunno if this is true for ALL states, but in Washington state, private rent-subsidized communities need only offer the lower rents for, IIRC, 20 years. After that, they can raise the rents anytime. So it's a good idea to research the history of any rent-subsidized development...

 

[bullfrog !]

I think RonDean is correct. I think Spaceman Spiff makes a good point, as in how do we stop corruption from preventing the people of this country from getting done what needs to be done. Especially if some place like Finland can get things done why can’t our country? Simple answer is the majority of people need to use our system to get the results they want by supporting those that want the same results they want period. Our military manages to house everyone while in service, how come they can’t house everyone once they get out especially those with service related disabilities? Our county’s solution is private nonprofits? In my opinion we need to demand better results from our government representatives and leadership. Housing first makes a lot of sense to me why can’t it make sense to those that have the power to make it happen? Why would any government representative be against putting a roof over a veteran that has served this country? Why would any representative be against helping those that elected them become an asset to the community they represent? We need results on issues that the majority of people in this country need. I agree with Spaceman Spiff if they are against getting the results the majority of the people want most likely there is corruption involved and they should be replaced by representatives that can get the job done.

 

[WanderingRose]

in Washington state, private rent-subsidized communities need only offer the lower rents for, IIRC, 20 years. After that, they can raise the rents anytime. So it's a good idea to research the history of any rent-subsidized development...

I’m not familiar with private, rent-subsidized communities, was referring to federally subsidized housing and Section 8 vouchers, which would be completely different entities.

With the latter, you remain eligible for that subsidy as long as you stay within income and other guidelines.

A lot of the older federal housing complexes, particularly the high rises, are being torn down and replaced with safer and more modern homes, often duplexes, on the same land.

 

[rruff]

Simple answer is the majority of people need to use our system to get the results they want by supporting those that want the same results they want period.

....was referring to federally subsidized housing and Section 8 vouchers, which would be completely different entities.
With the latter, you remain eligible for that subsidy as long as you stay within income and other guidelines.

I would not vote for most of the "solutions" being proposed in this thread. Government programs and handouts based on staying below income thresholds are very unfair to people who are poor but not poor enough. It creates a huge incentive to game the system and contribute little or nothing to society. It's also creates an expensive layer of bureaucracy.

Other developed countries have "solved" this for many decades by having a sane and efficient system of unions where workers and owners negotiate for a share of the business's profits, with both sides realizing that the prosperity of the business is what they are *both* after. Income taxes are very high so it makes little sense to have much income disparity... consequently all jobs pay good wages and there is little class division. Higher education is free, but you must qualify... and the number of degrees offered vary by industry need. Public services are extensive, crime is low, work hours are low with many vacations, holidays and paid sabbaticals. Life is easy and there just isn't much to worry about. That's why the Scandinavians are happy.

The US did this a lot better in the 30s-70s with high union involvement and high income taxes and corporate taxes. It's isn't something that is hard to figure out.