It is. Think of it this way. If I have an apartment to rent and the average person in my community can only afford to pay $500 then I should have to charge that or I lose money from my apartment sitting empty. If the government says "take $200 from the tenant and we will pay you the rest", a landlord has no market based incentive to keep the prices low. They can charge $1500 and if a normal person can't afford it they can sleep easy knowing they can fill it with a person on welfare and still get the price they want.
Remember there was a musician in LA who could build safe flats with water, gas and power for $1200 apiece and even proposed that empty, unused vacant lots would be perfectly viable places to position them and he was forced to demolish them because "they aren't full houses" and that the city council apparently figured that sleeping in tents or on the street while they worked on their $2B government-run housing development plan was "better."
@@somehowstillhere8766by subsidizing the cost of housing the government is incentivizing landlords to charge whatever they want. Landlords can sleep easy knowing if they charge beyond what people can afford the government will make up the difference to keep people from being homeless. In order for capitalism to work, businesses have to have the risk of losing money. Right now landlords don't have normal risk because they can count on the government paying subsidy to cover what tenants cannot. If the government wants housing prices to go down then they need to force the market back into competition.
Let's not forget the fact that California spent 20 billion dollars in a last 5 years for homeless people... AND YET THEY CAN'T TRACK WHERE THE MONEY WENT. It's sounds like... 🎉 *THE MONEY LAUNDERING MOMENT* 🎉 🎊 *THE GAME SHOW THEME STARTS PLAYING* 🎊
@@nobody8717 If the number 32m is the population of CA, then you're math is incorrect since the 4.4B is not going to everyone. Since it's a combating homeless program, let's assume it's only go torward homeless people. In the video above, it's said there's 170K homeless people in CA. 4.4B / 170K is roughly 25.9K. That's plenty for rent
I saw a city in Texas that decided to help the homeless by hiring them to clean up trash in the city. The city gets clean, they gain experience for their resumes, learn the value of hard work, and get to eat with what they earn.
I've worked in outreach programs with the homeless. Many are indeed down on their luck and need a hand up. They truly are grateful when they get that help. There are a good chunk though (I'd estimate about 20% based on my experience) that just want to live the street life. Sure, they'll take the free food and clothes, but turn their nose up at job training classes, a place to stay, or even transitional jobs that pay okayish money. Sometimes this is because they have mental issues that stop them, but about half of that 20% just plain doesn't want to pay rent and would prefer their current squatting/living in an alley/ box in the woods. They don't want to live by anyone's rules. Hell, when there was super-cold winter nights that could literally KILL you some of these people wouldn't come into shelters with room to spare.
Proving that work gives dignity - because 1) you get to feel useful to society, 2) you actually get to make society better, however small the way, and 3) you get to better your own life by receiving compensation!
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 A basic guaranteed 20% failure rate does not mean an 80% success rate. What I was talking about were the people that WANT to live on the street. There is a whole different group that is basically destined to wind up there. These people don't want to live the streets, but just can't stay on the right path. Spending themselves into poverty, picking up the bottle, thinking that just a little drugs once in a while won't hurt anything. Then there are the ones that just can't maintain a household and get evicted from everywhere they live. I helped build a Habitat for Humanity house once. That place was brand new. Nothing fancy, but new. It was deemed uninhabitable by city inspectors about 7 years later. I don't care how poor you are, you should have the intelligence to not punch dozens of holes in the drywall, or have a dozen cats and one litter pan that hasn't been changed in months.
1. They are likely getting homeless from other places in the US because they spend so much on "helping". 2. This brings up another principle of Economics, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. They subsidize homelessness, so they get more. -An Economist
Fun fact.. this issue is NOT only an US problem but a huge problem in EU. Where for 4 years... i been told "Just wait where you are the housing bubble will pop this year." I decided to ignore it and buy a house.. my appartment that was getting too tiny? Doubled in value. The house I live in now for almost a year? Almost 50k Euros more worth then when I bought it and STILL RISIING! And why did housing go up so much here? Cause we build less then our population growth could handle... not just from birth rates but also immigration and refugees. From 50k houses per year to a measly 8k houses per year for my country. Building more houses will solve the problem we all are facing. Cause if housing is affordable and nice, it will also fix every other issue underlying things. Feeling you gotta have two jobs? Gone.. since cost of living goes down a lot. Birthrates going down? Going back up cause people feel more secure to raise a kid. People having trouble finding jobs? Will also be fixed cause now there are more customers nearby to serve thus more employees needed. Also why was housing here cut down? Envoirmentalism. Cause building shoots up a lot of CO2 in the air.... But you know what also shoots alot of CO2 in the air? People having to commute long distances by taxi, bus or car, cause the housing they can afford are far away from their jobs.
Cutting down on migration would also lower housing prices a lot. Especially in countries that are sub replacement birthrate. Cut the migration let the artificially increased housing demand level off and watch the native born birthrate return. However this complicates the desire of the governments to import a subevent voting block while raising over all GDP, ignoring as GDP/capita falls and standards of living fall with it.
@@8is the survey for the Japanese data was improper. Not only did it not account for natural peak population, there has never been a defined baseline for what a stable population level is. 100 years ago, a family of 10 children was common. Now, with space issues, better health care and economic stability, there's no need to essentially triple the population every generation. The same improper surveys have been being conducted in the US. It's an excuse to import labor and it always has been. The only countries with legitimate population decline have no infrastructure and all of their young generation moved away, leaving a declining elderly population that rapidly decreases. These locations have very small populations to begin with.
The other problem other than environmentalism is property developers and landlords lobby our governments A LOT to NOT build more houses. They don’t want houses to be worth less, cause that’ll screw up their nice cushy riches. Pretty sure the tories were mostly funded by property developers, and look how they’ve run the U.K. into the ground in the last 14 years of rule. Of course labour won’t fix this problem :/
Here in Ontario (Canada) a report was made a few years ago addressing the housing crisis and the top recommendations. The experts concluded exactly what this video says: we need to build more. And in order to do that, we need to cut red tape and bureaucratic obstacles. Everyone one seems to agree on the solution that nobody in government wants to actually do.
We need to build more for the citizens of that country. We also desperately need to stop importing impoverished and criminal people who are only here for the 'goodies' we can give them.
Most of the residential areas in cities are zoned for single family homes with a minimum lot size. No basement suites, no duplexes, no fourplexes, no low rise apartment buildings... nothing. There are good reasons to restrict the number of homes that can be built in an area, you want to make sure that the existing roads, electrical grid and sewage system can handle the number of people living there, but loosening those restrictions and allowing more housing to be built in existing areas would help alleviate some of the supply issue cities face. Unfortunately zoning regulations are under the purview of municipal governments who are very susceptible to pressure from local residents who are often against increased housing density. This is why I'm supportive of Pierre Poilievre's plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities unless they build dense, affordable housing centered around transit stations.
@@studentofsmith All of what you said is completely true. And I agree that it will probably take some initiative at the federal level to get the towns and cities moving in the right direction.
Yes, but nobody wants to build more housing because we live under capitalism where things are not public goods but instead profit generators. Points of making housing in a R society isn’t for people to be housed, but instead to make money for developers and landlords. So in the case of them, they don’t want to make efficient affordable, cheap low cost housing for middle and lower incomes. We want to make housing for people who will spend millions per unit on ownership or otherwise exorbitant rent on luxury apartments. Doing that makes more money. Since western countries are not going to wake the hell up to the reality that market solutions are not going to work for a very long time what are to be done is create a government run corporation basically like the Postal Service for housing that has a certain standard of square footage builds up to code and has price controls. This would create a certain supply of available affordable housing, but one that anyone can get into and is entitled to welfare, and instead has the government as a landlord and most importantly serves as a price floor to help control what private developers come up with for any particular income bracket by competing based on price.
@@Mortablunt Companies absolutely want to build more. They are no builders or development companies out there not wanting to get work. Government is getting in the way of building more residential units more than anything else.
As a resident of California, especially living near LA, I could further explain the situation from what I've seen. California politicians' "Fight against Homelessness" is to basically throw money at the problem. They believe that the reason why they're homeless is because they lack money. So they started to give out welfare checks and *free phones to the homeless, which only drove them to double down. While it's true that many have mental illnesses and drug addictions, many of them are there by choice. Some aren't even legal US citizens. At one point, politicians wanted to force privately owned hotels in LA to turn half their rooms into housing for the homeless. Why go back to being a functioning member of society when you get more benefits being a bum?
I live in Portland, I'm pretty sure we have the worst homeless problem in the country due to them decriminalizing drugs. The vast majority of these people don't want a place to stay, they would rather just camp on the side of the road and get high all day and not have responsibilites.
It's to pretend to throw money at the problem, like someone pretends to throw a ball to trick their dog. But the money stayed in their hand. And they put it in their pocket when you looked where you thought the money went.
Sounds like pretty much every woman I've dated. Wait, we were talking about the government... a government run by women and effeminate males... Okay, I think I'm on to something here...
Now talk about WHY California has roughly HALF the Nations homeless. Hint: it’s not because of anything Shamus talked about in this video. It’s closely related to what Bob and the bum said at the end. People come to California to be homeless because California has the most free handouts, the mildest year round weather, while having the weakest criminal justice system for “petty crimes”. They are essentially subsidizing and enabling homelessness.
I like free things, too! I can't opt to be homeless because I have a wife and her parents to take care of, as well as kids someday. But if I were single, abandoned my principles, and just got tired of my job, I'd go straight to California. It has nice weather, they give you free money, and they don't punish you for stealing. I could even visit home whenever I wanted, because they bus their homeless to places like Texas. California has created an incentive structure to be homeless on every level, including cheap drugs. And for me, personally, to take dumps on Leftist doorsteps.
I could never do what they do because I have some semblance of self-esteem and respect for others. Not much but enough that I could never do what they do and laze around all day doing absolutely nothing while living off someone’s else’s labor.
My state found that full families with 2 working adults were living in tents by the river because there were no housing options for them. So they got a team of local politicians and real estate companies. They purposed a plan.. a bunch of new apartments. Once the 5 year project completed you know what we got? High end luxury apartments that only the mega rich can afford! ..what a joke.
Here is a shortened excerpt from my research about homelessness. Homelessness is a faceted problem involving: Regional access to affordable homes, lack of access for aiding mental illness, prisoners not having adequate access to information and basic rehabilitation, most jobs requiring high skill sets, the minimum wage, and having poor family connections. As well as those who simply choose to not 'try' anymore. Ever since the Regan administration, the presidents has been cutting taxes to mental hospitals (ex. being the Kirk bride mental hospitals). There has been a lack of institutions that cannot rehabilitate individuals who have problems mentally. Both in effectiveness of their methods, and quantity of hospitals. Another big problem is children not being set up for success. Many parents don't set up a college fund, or neglect supplying them with the adequate tools for them to succeed. This added with our declining public education in areas makes this a detriment to children. Drugs taken by average normal Joes can use it responsibly, and at the right doses. In order to get 'addicted' to drugs, there's usually a underlying mental illness, or other problem. Billions of our tax dollars are wasted because they either directly pay the homeless who don't have the wherewithal to use that money effectively. If you supply them with a free home, it will most likely go into disarray because of said mental illnesses, drugs, connections, and poor education. That's the half of it. The other half are rich pansies that sit around in a board meeting all day, talking about solving homelessness, and doing the bare minimum before running out of cash and requesting more. There is also the state, city, and local restrictions on basic aid. Elvis Summers built tiny sheds for the homelessness in Los Angeles. Sheds with a lock and key. These sheds were eventually confiscated by the city, demolished, and burned. The last and final reason is because of investors buying homes and letting them sit to increase in value. Mix this with AirBnB and Virbo and you have yourself the utlimate homelessness problem. In conclusion. In order to get from 0 to 100. You need to have at least a driver's license, a birth certificate, a recent pay stub, a recent bill confirming your address, or a Social Security Number. Homeless people do not have any of these documents, and if they do. They cannot get a job because of the high cost to entry. These costs include: Some sort of transportation, access to a shower, and a laundry mat. Electricity to charge a phone. WiFi or a network connection for phone calls. And the mental fortitude to curb despair. This is a lot to ask of a person's whose items go missing because of thieves or the city throwing their stuff away. The #1 thing that curbs homelessness, are generous individuals who take them in, rehabilitate them, and help them get back on their feet. I can guarantee you. If you give our tax dollars back to us, have local basic necessities (bathrooms, libraries), provide en-masse tiny apartments, and curb the federal minimum wage. You will see homelessness drop to lower than ever before.
So you're saying if the government GOT OUT OF THE WAY, and California had 10 houses for every 1 person, the price of renting or buying would be SO LOW that many homeless people WOULDN'T BE HOMELESS? WOW that makes perfect sense. So Cali will never do it.
No, he's saying that is one part of the solution. You still need to address the crazy people and drug addicts, as well as making sure the economy is healthy enough to support home ownership.
@@Grabthar191 Substances abuse and mental illness plays MUCH lesser role than one might think. The root cause is a lack of supply. If there aren't enough houses to house everyone, some will inevitably be without and that's always those who get priced out and are otherwise the most vulnerable/dysfunctional people. You can compare West Virginia an California who have about equal amount of substances abuse, but because housing is cheap (i.e. in high supply) in West Virginia, they don't have a homeless crisis there.
@@8is The mentally ill and drug abusers aren't going to last long in a home, even if you buy one for them. They can't keep up the utilities, and taxes and eventually the government has to come evict them because it's become a disease infested public health hazard. I've seen that happen first hand in a few local neighborhoods. They spent all their money on meth, and since they didn't have sewer service, just started using the bathroom in the backyard, or in buckets that they would throw into the backyard.
@ChuckSneedly True, there will always be a portion of the population that you just can't help, no matter what you do. Aside from magical or science fiction mind control. I think the effort though should be to help those who can be helped. The rest will just break your heart trying.
There are two types of homeless people. You have some people that genuinely are down on their luck. They lost a job or got in a rough divorce or add catastrophic medical bills and could no longer afford their mortgage. They might have to stay at a shelter or on a friend's couch or with a relative. Then there are people that have severe mental illness and/or addictions. A lot of them live on the streets because they would rather be high or drunk or unmedicated than indoors. Solutions that might help those in the former category often just end up enabling bad habits with the latter category.
Imbeciles, that's who. If the cost of housing were the driver of homelessness, all the homeless could be put on buses to rural Ohio or Indiana and buy a house (that needs a little TLC) for five figures, and the problem would be solved. Except that isn't the nature of the problem.
Look at what happens when they try to make homes for the homeless. The LA Times reported that the tiny housing units they made for homeless people was costing about 800k per unit. Like Milton Friedman joked, "If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand."
Here in the UK, affordable houses and flats are built, then the prices are inflated, so more affordable houses and flats are built to handle the shortfall, then the prices are inflated, so etc etc.
If you are fine with a factory or landfill in the middle of a residential neighborhood, then feel free to get rid of zoning laws. I agree on ending corporate ownership of homes.
You need zoning laws, or your neighbor can do stuff like open a pig farm next door, or a nightclub. A lot of corporations own houses that are in the business with forthright intentions. They are often smaller property management companies that own both apartments and homes that allow families that can't afford a mortgage to rent a home instead. I think you do need to look at predatory purchasing in an effort to manipulate the market or society by mega corps, rather than just banning businesses renting properties outright.
The things I noticed when helping the homeless through my local church group: 1. They are almost all alcoholics. 2. If they aren't an alcoholic, they have severe mental illness to the point they can't take care of themselves. 3. The government isn't doing diddly-squat to help them, despite claiming they are. I never saw anyone from the government out there, meanwhile, our church, through the charitable donations of our congregation, raise enough money to not only ensure every homeless person can get at least one nutritious home-cooked meal each week, along with clean water, and fresh socks and underwear, but we also offer full rehab. The rehab offer has one requirement, which is for them to accept Jesus as their lord and savior, which means they need to WANT to get clean, and WANT to live a better life. In the time I was there, I only saw one taker, out of hundreds of homeless. He had been living quite literally under a bridge for 17 years, and he looked and smelled it. While we said our prayer for him (the price to receive food/drink and clothes), he broke down crying, and told us he couldn't take it anymore, not one more night of that life. He said it was either rehab, or he kills himself, and he doesn't want to die. We praised him for choosing life, and asked him if he's willing to put his life in the hands of Christ. He was absolutely bawling at this point, and said he does, that he wants Jesus to save him. He mentioned he hadn't had human contact in those 17 years, and man, without even thinking about it, I gave the guy a bro hug, and the other guys followed suit. Funny enough, the women in our group did not join in on this spur the moment group hug. I definitely needed a shower after that, but damn if I can't hook a bro up with a hug. So we have him board our shuttle bus, hook him up with a meal, and drive him to rehab. Part of the rehab process the church does is work with local businesses to hire recovering addicts, businesses that provide a working environment that steers clear of alcohol and such. We also work with local apartments to help them have housing while they recover. Finally, we help them with money management so they can make a budget that will meet and balance rent, food, clothing, insurance, and entertainment. The fellow we lead to Jesus that day has since not only successfully rehabilitated, but has turned his entire life around. He managed to meet a lovely woman who also went through rehab, ended up getting married, they bough a home together, and now he volunteers with the same church that reached out to him, so that he may help other homeless people find their way to Christ, and turn their lives around, too. It's interesting how the government is strangely absent in this whole process. The government doesn't want to help anyone help themselves, because then those people would become self-reliant, and have no need for the government. This is why Democrat hell-holes like Chicago, Detroit, NYC, L.A., Portland, and Seattle are still full of homeless people, because the Democrats would rather rule over Hell than serve in Heaven. They do not help the downtrodden; never have, never will. Helping people threatens their goal to rule with an iron fist. Sooner you realize this, the sooner you can actually start helping people, if that's what you want to do.
A powerful testimony. I applaud your church for caring for the body, soul, and future of the homeless. It takes real commitment to not just provide a roof and meal but to walk thru the process and set them up for success. Bravo!
I've actually seen the extent to which the Government, especially left-leaning government, tries to address the homeless issue and it's all summed up as "Oh, we have the resources. They're over there!" You ever been on the phone with insurance and transferred a million times because nobody knows what's going on and the systems they're using are antiquated and need an overhaul? Yeah, that's basically it, and by the end of it, when you get to where you need to go, you find out it's no longer being offered or *grossly* exaggerated. Like, hey, California has a job assistance program! What that means is they'll help you print out a resume and tell you about Indeed or, worse, California's version of Indeed that somehow has just as many fraudulent postings that are even less verified than Indeed's. The " *most* " effective and only consistent thing that's offered is things that are hands off like food stamps and cash assistance, which is why they're not starving yet also have money for drugs and alcohol, but not enough for living accommodations. This is all handled through online forms, meaning there's no humans to get in the way of people getting it. And because of the bureaucracy and *excessive* regulations to get into a position to change anything (you don't need to be a politician, you need a masters degree in several fields) nobody's really going to be able to change it from the inside. All the factors *are* in place to help people, it's just that nobody's audited to see if they're *actually* being helped and are getting "over there." Good on you for doing what the government isn't, by simply not having entire departments who's sole job is to reroute callers.
@@NotInMyRepublic Don't praise us; praise the Lord. Best way to do that is get active with your own local church, and actually make a difference, unlike the left who protest for social clout and never actually help anyone. But only do it if you're gonna commit to it. I don't do it anymore since moving away. I've been slacking (have personal priorities that need addressing), so please, no praise for me. I told this anecdote in hopes people better than me will pick up the slack, and to make a point that if you want to better the world, you gotta do it yourself, not forfeit your rights to the government in hopes they will "do something."
As someone from Cali, you got your points correct! There's also that issue about certain influential people not wanting to solve the issue as they all get chunks from that $4.4B pie. They get wealthier the longer this crisis isn't averted.
Another thing not talked about in California is the taxes have gotten so out of control that you can't run a small business period, and there are only so many jobs at big box retailers. Also due to insurance and other government 'safety measures' for every dollar an employee makes the state pretty much gets two, this is why minimum wage is really really bad every time it goes up, sure you might get $5 more per hour, but your employer is losing $10 to the state for every $5 you make, and you will probably never see those $10 yourself. It creates an exponential problem, litterally the only way to pay your bills in california if you're not in tech or a trade is to work under the counter or freelance, and even as a freelance there is a good chance the state will crack down on you with licensing mafias to protect union interests.
You get what you pay for. If you pay to homeless, there will be more homelessness, not less. If you pay for building houses, there will be more houses, etc.
I see two flaws... politicians and the government. Both can't admit they are wrong... both think the solution is more regulation and spending. Laws really should have an expiration date nobgreater then 20 years in which congress has to vote to renew, edit, or allow it to expire. Congress should be allowed to vote for temporary extension of 1 year for no more then 5 times.
It literally could have been this way (mostly). Thomas Jefferson argued that the Constitution should renew the government every generation (about 16 years at that time). All federal debt would be defaulted, all politicians and judges would have to be re-elected or re-appointed, and all existing laws would be reviewed and would expire unless the new Congress re-approved them. Unfortunately that whole "default on the federal debt every 16 years" lost him any support for this idea.
While I can respect the intent behind it, in practice mandatory sunset provisions would make the situation worse. By creating systems where there are massive shifts in government operation based on whether or not something is continued, you'll just end up with massive omnibus bills for renewing sunsetting laws. No one in congress will pay attention to what's actually being renewed, they'll just rubber stamp it. Then, much like the debt ceiling and budget approvals, you'll end up with politicians who demand their pet laws be enacted or they'll block the omnibus bill, meaning that tens of thousands of laws would sunset unless they capitulate to the demand. What I'd be in favor of is a required declaration of intent behind every law, along with some objective measure of success. If that objective isn't met, the law automatically ends. That way, if you have a bill like, say, "The Inflation Reduction Act" and then inflation doesn't actually go down, it would automatically be rejected. Couple this with a constitutional requirement that legislation be encapsulated to a single area of concern (e.g. all provisions of a bill must be related to each other, so no packaging farm subsidies in the same bill as education reform, etc), and you'd have a much better functioning congress.
@@r.l.royalljr.3905Yeah, defaullting like that would guarantee an economic crisis every 16 years. Bump the date to 20 years so it happens after every 5 elections rather than 4 and it'd be perfect.
i thought up an idea to help awhile ago, it would be housing they are not meant to stay forever in, they sign something saying they want to get a job and need a address , getting their names on the books, and are given a small place to have residency in [an apartment building most likely], so they can get a job, get paid, and when they can afford to live on their own, they then pay what they owe for staying there as long as they did.[ usually in the range of $300, with no interest] but this probably won't work if their is no houses for them to move to.
Crime and the refusal to punish criminals also plays a part too. Poverty does not cause crime, crime causes poverty. If there was more crackdowns on crimes, communities would be safer. If communities are safer, businesses want to set up there. The more businesses want to set up there, the more job opportunities. The more job opportunities, the more revenue. The more revenue, the less poverty. You can remove all these regulations, yet if crime is still rampant why would anyone want to build there?
Asking Californian land owners to make less money to solve a problem only works if you tell them it’s for brown people who won’t be allowed near their property 😅
Government can't build houses, and developers don't do what they do to not make money. That, combined with the fallacy that 'homeless people just need an affordable place to live and they will be fine' is about like saying Iraq just needed to get rid of Saddam and everything will be fine. Shyeah.
Accurate. I used to work in the “affluent” part of a California city and it was only one mile and a couple streets from the “ghetto” and country. People would complain about homeless people that had only walked a mile north of their encampment. Like my friend went one mile south of there and got robbed at gunpoint at In-N-Out. Then you go east of it and there’s a house with a bunch of Confederate flags. But everyone there thinks they’re above everyone else.
As if landowners in other states are not as greedy? Try having a welfare industrial complex as big as California and having so many government employees and private corporations that depend on the Californians living on welfare; multiply that by the power of unions and activists lobby.
Low cost housing won’t help people who don’t want to clean themselves up and get jobs. The part about mental health and substance abuse is important, but even beyond that, a lot of people simply don’t want to have a home, or more specifically, don’t want to work. The only option to fix that is to just give them money to not work, but guess how people treat houses they don’t have to pay for. Equally as important, the people who work to get what those people get for free, won’t want to keep working 40 hours a week to keep up with people not working at all. On top of that, especially in California, the politicians don’t want to fix the problem. That money to ‘end homelessness’ is just a money laundering scheme. Look at who owns the companies getting those contracts. I do have to agree with the people not wanting homeless people in free houses in their neighborhood. I don’t want that around me, nor do I want the value of my property that I had to pay for destroyed just so other people can get free things without earning it.
I've heard arguments from both ends. There are also people who say that city planners implemented roads and infrastructure for a maximum capacity of residents per square mile, and doubling or tripling that capacity causes blight. Unaffordable housing is the policy in places like Los Angeles in order to prevent overpopulation due to open borders.
What that sounds like to me is that city planners implemented overly rigid central planning which could not account for or adapt to changing conditions. Then, instead of trying to back down and find ways to add flexibility and expand the capacity of their infrastructure, they began legislating even more rigid centrally planned policy to try and push the problem elsewhere.
@melvinlemay7366 yes. I had an opportunity to speak with a city council member 1 on 1 and that is precisely what he said. "This is a suburban community for people who want to get away from the cities, which prides itself on being a safe place to raise a family." Maybe I should have lectured him on the free market and how he doesn't speak for all families in his community. Perhaps residents there desire inner city gang warfare. Let the market decide.
The definition of "blight" varies wildly. In our minds we often pictured dilapidated buildings but there are cities that have used anti-blight laws to categorize houses as "blighted" if they lack attached garages or have an insufficient number of bedrooms or bathrooms or insufficient lot size or square footage or what have you.
Yeah, but they often do it by renovating and fixing something that's run down. Which can motivate neighbors to fix their stuff that's run down, or sell to someone who will.
I don't understand California's contradictory economy. - the dollar there has the single lowest value compared to any state -they have the most homelessness than any other state -the food there is the most expensive than any other state (eggs cost 17 dollars) -there are a lots of people leaving compared to most if not all states -the crime there is pretty high -one of the highest if not the highest tax rates in us and despite all that (and probably more) they somehow have the highest gdp per capita of all states. you would expect their economy to plummet with all of these problems.
Because they have Hollywood and Silicon Valley as well as a large portion of the agricultural and shipping market. If their awful policies were anywhere else that place would be the trash heap of the U.S.
A Cali city (I forget which) built a 'modular apartment' out of brand new (not 'used' that's against regulations!) cargo containers. The end cost was roughly what a 1 bedroom condo cost in that city. Now there were some 'features' like it used otherwise useless government property, and had offices providing resources & stuff. But still, double the estimated cost per unit, iirc.
Property tax is unconstitutional. A core aspect of a republic is the right to own your own stuff without having to pay a fee to own it. Not even the government is allowed to charge (tax) you for owning something.
The best part is that the government can tell you how much they think it's worth and base the tax on that. At the very least, the law shut require the government to immediately purchase said property, as is, at whatever price they claim it is worth if the owner chooses to sell. That would maybe at least be a small check on the runaway tax valuations you see in some areas.
Every now and then I get recommended a video about home buying in Japan. They have a housing surplus because of their declining population, and you can buy a nice-looking home in a good area for literally $40,000 USD. Nice, new apartments - albeit small - can be rented for $200 per month. Meanwhile in the US a studio apartment is $1,200 per month (unless you're looking for one in places like NYC where you can expect to pay $3,000/month of more) and buying a run down crackhouse in the middle of the ghetto is $350,000. Something has got to give.
Be very careful about Japanese Homes in Japan. Another reason why the market is so saturated with available homes is because many need updates due to changed laws concerning Tsunami/Earthquake resistance, and those homes (while priced incredibly cheaply) will effectively have to be completely razed and rebuilt to meet the new standards......which costs a mint in Japan. Like most things, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.....
A message from Europe: new houses are bought by corporations or rich people and put on Airbnb/Booking (in tourist/work transfers areas) or rented to the medium class at crazy prices... or just left empty. Then housing becomes even scarcer than before. Cities like Barcellona, Milan, Paris are housing nightmares. In Milan we have almost 100.000 empty houses and there are homeless people too :)
The homeless shelters where I live try to rehabilitate homeless people and get them back on their feet. The problem is that because of their mental health and drug use, they don’t want to live by the rules of the shelter. So one of the local Sisters of Mercy started protesting a private parking garage for not letting the homeless people stay there. I know people who worked in that garage and attacks by homeless people was not an uncommon occurrence. They would come at people with used needles and their bodily secretions. These people are unwell and need help, but you can’t force that help upon them.
@@dextercochran4916landfills aren't that scary dude. I lived near one. Honestly highways being closer to schools is way worse than a pile of trash getting covered in dirt.
Right. I don't think most people realize how governments, federal, state, and local are all actually making the problem worse instead of better. They just can't seem to imagine that government and government officials can be part of the problem.
I work as an officer for my cities Public housing. The vast majority of these people are strung out, completely looney or both. The small handful that are just down on their luck take advantage of the MANY government, private and charity offerings. There is almost no good reason that a person with a sound mind is sleeping on the street.
Ive made this argument to coworkers in a very gentle way and the response i typically get is "actually that wouldnt fix it, because (the rich people) will just buy up more houses and leave them vacant!" No, honey... houses are being left vacant BECAUSE there is a scarcity causing houses to appreciate at rates that far surpass other investments. Why invest in stocks when you can balloon 20% or more per year with an empty house?
I guess the actual problem is these people aren't wanted in the states where they are located. They dont want to house them, they dont want to pay for them, they dont want to give them medical help or put them to work. They want to be surrounded by money and people who have money so they're treating the problem like its a roach infestation in hopes they OD and die off or leave and become someone elses problem. I do not know why you'd want to live on the coast. I watched this documentary where this guy housed 40,000 people in these tiny houses and it lasted a month before Someone complained the housing complex lowered the property value and with the orders of someone high up, the police escorted everyone out of their houses and demolished them. The next week it was like he did nothing and everyone was terrified to ask for help again. They were treating Fentanyl addictions by giving them large supplies of Fentanyl and sending them on their way.
Missing from this: Contractors are also beholden to activist Wallstreet investors who will only loan money to HIGH MARGIN projects which is why not just Cali but most of the nation is only seeing Mansions and other expensive houses being built.
"Someone should do something to help the homeless" Why don't you rent out your spare room? "I don't want some jobless bum staying in my house". I have seen too many with that attitude
ok but to be fair part of the problem is you dont know what you'll get, every once in awhile you hear stories about people that helped a person and let them stay at their place only to get robbed or murdered (im not saying its a high %, simply that hearing about that will weigh on peoples minds when considering it)
@@almightyk11 the excuse I see is that the problem is "systemic" and therefore requires government solutions. Then when you point out they should still lead by example, even if it's just a small little thing, they'll actually tell you that an individual helping a homeless person is bad, because it discourages the government from helping. These people have a propagandized answer for everything.
Property investors, the government, banks, real-estate agents, etc. all have a vested interest in property values being higher. They all make money from it. The idea that the government is ever going to do something about it is just crazy.
NYC has gotten record-breaking gentrification in the past few years, but no one can afford these new buildings! No wonder you built something without a purpose!
The "Bunker-Less" group of homeless really hit me, because I miss those videos so much. It's not like there aren't still plenty of videos to debunk, but times got tough when the shit on the internet became so absurd that they became reality.
It’ll be impossible to solve the problem entirely because some people will absolutely refuse to ever be moral people who will take care of what you give them. Give them a house and they’ll strip all the copper out of it or turn it into a lab.
Homes built by half drunk English peasants in the 1500s are still standing. And yet, many houses built only 50 years ago with expensive materials and standards are already crumbling. Only sucky buildings are allowed.
RFK's counter would be that 60% of the home on the market are owned by big investment firms. If we don't want big government meddling in the market neither should investment companies who are try to milk us.
And the process of getting a home is a total nightmare too. They compare whatever home your buying to others to base if the value of said home your buying is accurate. They compared my small house to a massive one that was about 500k. I dont see how thats fair, its over 2x what i payed for this
People really don't like them and Americans have gotten much richer since then. That's why the average floor area of a house as doubled since the 1970s.
Where I live (a city in Canada), there were a bunch of tents set up near a large bridge where the homeless camped at, but eventually, the police had to go and kick them all out of that area. I'm absolutely certain that the money from our own homeless solving budget was used to kick those people out.
I live in Lancaster CA. There is probably more vacant land than buildings inside the city limits. The only housing occurring is big corporation massive subdivisions where the houses are listed for about the same as all the other existing single family homes ($450k-$600k+). One can't simply buy a lot and get a contractor to build you a home. Not only are the regulations onerous, but existing homeowners don't want their appraisal values to drop due to people building their own for 1/2 the cost. Don't raise the 'low-cost' housing cliche, AKA apartment buildings. It's the restrictions and hostility from existing single family house owners not wanting cheaper single family suburban houses lowering their own house values.
Um those are jobs. Homelessness is caused by high unemployment rate look up hoover towns thus getting rid of those jobs mean more Homeless people. Are you ok?
When a developer is splitting up land into 1-acre plots, which size home do you think gives them the better incentive to build...the $250K single family starter home or the $450K+ McMansion??? The problem is the type of inventory available and its biggest rate of return. States and Corporations love to keep building apartment buildings...but they don't seem to be interested in building actual affordable homes for people to upgrade to.
This is a HUGE part of the problem. It's more about the profit margins. Building a 1000 sq. ft. home costs about $35k, and sells for $45k (not counting land costs) so the profit is $10k (about 30% profit margin). But building a 2500 sq. ft. home costs about $60k and sells for $120k (again, no land included) so the profit is $60k (about 100% profit margin). As a builder, which would YOU choose to build? The 2500 sq. ft. home, of course. You'll make a LOT more money. So there is little incentive for building the smaller, more affordable houses. Apartment complexes and Townhouses/condominiums are even more lucrative, since there's virtually no separation between the living spaces and virtually no yards.....so in the space of a single house, you can have 6-8 apartments or 3-4 townhomes/condos. And, since they don't actually "own" the property, they can be evicted if necessary......and regardless of how long they pay, there's always income being generated. So most property developers do both, but try to maximize the profit on housing developments......and will continue to do so until something FORCES them to do otherwise.
You should. If you don't, the problem isn't that you can't afford a home, the problem is that you can't afford to live in Santa Monica, and you aren't willing to live in, say, Greenville Ohio.
@@mr2981 There aren't as many jobs in Greenville, OH. However, I'm keeping my eyes open to places with opportunities and affordable housing. I'm originally from the Midwest and would be open to moving back. Texas would be great.
I view it as a triangular problem, 1st problem drugs addiction/ mental illness 2 the abysmal state of the job market 3 the cost of housing, the cost of housing doesn't really matter if you can't get a job and a stable income to afford a house
The NIMBY crowd also plays a big role in this. I've lived in a few states, both red and blue. CA is the only one where a housing development became a political issue. People will protest against it. Citing reasons, such as: increased traffic, prices are too high, won't blend in to the current home landscape.
It's not a good idea to give them free real estate. People will pretend to be homeless to get a free apartment. They should live there, but start paying rent once they find a job.
It's not that hard, there are only 5 things needed to reduce 60% of homelessness; 1. Create an aor, " arrest on request" policy, allowing anyone, without any form of criminal or misdemeanor involved, to simply request there own arrest by a police officer, spending a night in holding, and, generating a non crime related arrest report. Many people going through homelessness, have been tricked into, or, are leaving a bad situation, with no access to there documentation. In order to get a copy of your birth certificate and social security number, an arrest report counts as identification towards these. Unfortunately, you can't usually have one without some form of crime or suspected crime occuring. So, this will massively help those who had to run from parents, guardians, communal living, or cults, that have threatened them, or, have stolen or burned there documents. While you'd suspect the police can help with this, there's really not much that can be done, without an expensive lawyer. 2. Put mailboxes in police stations, and, allow anyone who has requested and gone through with an aor, to pick up there mail at the station, for the next 2 months. Many don't know this, but, most homeless shelters and halfway houses, don't allow for mail to be sent to the location. The only such option that always allows for mail, is a drug rehab center. This, to get the mailing address they need, to get an id, a credit union account, a phone bill, a library card, a check from there job, or, anything else needed to escape homelessness, it is REQUIRED, in many states, for them to be on a strong enough addictive or illegal substance, that, it shows up in urine. The government then pays for these urine tests, and, the subsequent ones, till they are clean. Unfortunately, this creates a system, where the homeless become a " base line buyer" , similar to getting a government contract, for drug dealers, in order to escape there situation. To fix this, simply have them pick up there mail at the police or sheriff's station. With the secure mailing address, it becomes far more reasonable to go to the shelters, as, they just kick a person out the next morning anyways, and, use the police station as a central location, to get there documents and bills together, for gainful employment. As well, there needs to be a state law, requiring any place that has account biased payment processing, by card, to accept such arrest reports, the same way they would accept a utility bill or piece of mail, to open an account, so, the homeless can ACTUALLY get jobs. 3. Allow a locker service for the homeless at the police station, similar to vehicle holding or evidence holding, but, without the charge , pick up, or drop off restrictions. Many homeless shelters expose the homeless to rampant theft, if not by other residents, then, by the staff themselves. This can even be under some bizarre form of " virtue signaling" , like " removing them from modern technology" , as an excuse to confiscate and destroy phones, laptops, and repair tools. There are even shelters which refuse to allow people to seek employment, while staying there. Anyone should be able to see the insanity with that. Having a secure place for there belongings and work tools, like the station, will allow people to seek out the shelters FAR more easily. 4. All shelters must now have TWO set times to enter, sleep, and exist, consisting of 10 to 12 hours, to enter , sleep, get there things, and leave. As well, there needs to be a tax break, for any retail, restaurant, cafe, or other shopping business with at LEAST 4 unskilled labor positions available, who stays open at least 22 hours a day, at least 6 days a week. That way, the shelter space is doubled, while, job opportunities for the homeless, at different hours, are increased, allowing them to get jobs while out of the shelter more easily . 5. Per resident rents are now banned, allowing up to at LEAST 4 people, per rental property, to contribute to the rent. This will allow people living on minimum wage, to ACTUALLY rent properties, allowing them to have a place to live, a mailing address, a job, and, due to splitting the rent, a better take home pay, letting them move forward with life more easily, even if they have to live with roommates for a few years. With these steps in place, it will be FAR more easy, to reduce the number of homeless, to only those with chemical, and, not traumatic mental disorders. : )
where i live in canada there are a ton of regulations that basically make modest homes illegal. You want to have a roof over your head and a wood stove for heat? maybe can't afford the electricity yet? your ok with settling for less while you build yourself up? well guess what, daddy government doesn't consent to you living in a frontier style cabin, instead you are much better off freezing on the cold canadian streets. Why is it like this you may ask? so that current home owners investment in the value of their own property doesn't risk going down.
From what I understand from other video's is Environmental Impact surveys are on the biggest problems in California. Every project needs them, and almost any one involved in the area can demand one to be done. Some projects have been delayed by decades because of all the Environmental impact surveys they have to do, even Govt projects like building Water Reservoirs. Even when a project finally gets finished, the builders and companies involved just pass that cost onto the buyers.
As an 8th generation Washingtonian let me correct this. We rarely have had any earthquakes. In fact the first my gramma born in 1917, and myself, experienced was in the 2000s and made her bed shake a little. I voted San Francisco a year before and in the hotel felt a strong bed shake, looked out the window, and saw cars pulled over as the road moved up and down like it was alive. Californians moved here in the 80s and brought their phobia of The Big One with them. This is why former governor, and lawyer, Christine Gregouire, a Democrat, used that fear to get people to back her idea to destroy all unique and architecturally historic bridges and replace them all with plain cement ones with light rail….to feel safer, and to move the homeless around.
"Washington State, a place with similar natural disasters" WHOA. Sorry Seamus, but as a Washingtonian who used to live in California, we have _far_ fewer in Washington. That doesn't justify California's ridiculous policies, but there's no way they have similar levels of natural disasters. The biggest earthquake I've ever seen in Washington was barely enough to make my desk wobble.
Zoning laws are not the only issue. Keeping things "up to code" really means building houses that don't last as long while paying your local government thousands of dollars. Just for them to send someone out to say, "Bribe me." And it's all under the lie about making the house better for the environment.
@@Grabthar191 They actual real issue is zoning banning multifamily residential housing and impose height limits which puts a HARD cap on the number of people who are allowed to live in any given area.
@@8is It's to make sure that the property that other people have purchased don't lose value. I certainly would not purchase a home that had an apartment nearby where people could stare down into my backyard.
I'm in Bremerton, WA, looking at a new 14 unit "low income complex" going up. It's going to be at least $1500 a unit. I'm making $1000 a month with a steady job, before taxes (highest in the nation), and have been attacked by the homeless (most of them by choice) SIX times this month. I'm sharing a house with NINE guys just to afford rent. WA has given millions of dollars to the homelessness problem, yet it's far worse than four years ago. Lack of housing up here isn't the problem, it's lack of drive to do better mixed with government handouts which create a dependent population. I myself was homeless just a few months ago, and had to spend the entirety of my savings and max out my credit cards just to survive for two weeks, then got help from my church and the Freemasons to move in where I'm at. In Bremerton, there is a large amount of low-income housing, but it's constantly filled with addicts and undesirables who either don't pay or rely on government to pay, and the wait-list is currently at FOUR YEARS of waiting.
What you subsidize you get more of. What you tax, you get less of. Spend money on homeless, get more homeless. CA proved it. Therefore, *if we tax homeless, we will get less.* Seriously, make every homeless person pay $20/night for "urban camping" permits. If they don't pay, they get arrested and processed for: - warrants - if they have them, they go to jail - drug abuse - if they use drugs, they go to non-voluntary detox/rehab until the facility says they are okay to leave - psychological problems - if they do, they go to non-voluntary psych wards until the facility says they are okay to leave - abuse / trafficking / etc. - if they suffer from this, they go to a shelter & support system to help them escape and start a productive life The homeless will say "F*** this s***" and leave. Then, the remaining homeless will be much easier to manage, meaning put through the above process. And if it doesn't have enough of a result, increase the "urban camping" fee until it does.
If we incentive homelessness, we get more homelessness. If we incentive single motherhood, we get more single motherhood. If we incentive shoplifting, we get more shoplifting. If we incentive illegal migration, we get more illegal migration (and child sec trafficking). Who'd have thought that not punishing bad actions, and even giving people free stuff for doing them, would create more of those bad actions.
One of the big reasons certain people want to keep housing prices so high is that they see their homes as an investment. Thus, anything that would realistically reduce the cost of housing is seen as a direct threat to their "investment".
California raised taxes to pay for low cost government housing. Their solution is the problem.
How so?
How is providing housing the problem?
It is. Think of it this way. If I have an apartment to rent and the average person in my community can only afford to pay $500 then I should have to charge that or I lose money from my apartment sitting empty.
If the government says "take $200 from the tenant and we will pay you the rest", a landlord has no market based incentive to keep the prices low. They can charge $1500 and if a normal person can't afford it they can sleep easy knowing they can fill it with a person on welfare and still get the price they want.
Remember there was a musician in LA who could build safe flats with water, gas and power for $1200 apiece and even proposed that empty, unused vacant lots would be perfectly viable places to position them and he was forced to demolish them because "they aren't full houses" and that the city council apparently figured that sleeping in tents or on the street while they worked on their $2B government-run housing development plan was "better."
@@somehowstillhere8766by subsidizing the cost of housing the government is incentivizing landlords to charge whatever they want. Landlords can sleep easy knowing if they charge beyond what people can afford the government will make up the difference to keep people from being homeless.
In order for capitalism to work, businesses have to have the risk of losing money. Right now landlords don't have normal risk because they can count on the government paying subsidy to cover what tenants cannot.
If the government wants housing prices to go down then they need to force the market back into competition.
Let's not forget the fact that California spent 20 billion dollars in a last 5 years for homeless people... AND YET THEY CAN'T TRACK WHERE THE MONEY WENT.
It's sounds like...
🎉 *THE MONEY LAUNDERING MOMENT* 🎉
🎊 *THE GAME SHOW THEME STARTS PLAYING* 🎊
CA - like Ukraine in so many ways...
They actually know where the money went. They just don't want to admit it went to hiring their college buddies for jobs in the bureaucracy.
~32m residents, 4 billion per year... lets do the math.
~$125/person/year.
Who is going to pay a year's worth of rent with $125?
@@nobody8717 If the number 32m is the population of CA, then you're math is incorrect since the 4.4B is not going to everyone.
Since it's a combating homeless program, let's assume it's only go torward homeless people. In the video above, it's said there's 170K homeless people in CA.
4.4B / 170K is roughly 25.9K. That's plenty for rent
@@theevermind Ukraine has actually accomplished things.
I saw a city in Texas that decided to help the homeless by hiring them to clean up trash in the city. The city gets clean, they gain experience for their resumes, learn the value of hard work, and get to eat with what they earn.
I've worked in outreach programs with the homeless. Many are indeed down on their luck and need a hand up. They truly are grateful when they get that help. There are a good chunk though (I'd estimate about 20% based on my experience) that just want to live the street life. Sure, they'll take the free food and clothes, but turn their nose up at job training classes, a place to stay, or even transitional jobs that pay okayish money. Sometimes this is because they have mental issues that stop them, but about half of that 20% just plain doesn't want to pay rent and would prefer their current squatting/living in an alley/ box in the woods. They don't want to live by anyone's rules. Hell, when there was super-cold winter nights that could literally KILL you some of these people wouldn't come into shelters with room to spare.
Proving that work gives dignity - because 1) you get to feel useful to society, 2) you actually get to make society better, however small the way, and 3) you get to better your own life by receiving compensation!
@matts1166 Assuming you are correct, then wouldn't programs like the one in Texas reduce homelessness by 80%?
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 A basic guaranteed 20% failure rate does not mean an 80% success rate. What I was talking about were the people that WANT to live on the street. There is a whole different group that is basically destined to wind up there. These people don't want to live the streets, but just can't stay on the right path. Spending themselves into poverty, picking up the bottle, thinking that just a little drugs once in a while won't hurt anything. Then there are the ones that just can't maintain a household and get evicted from everywhere they live. I helped build a Habitat for Humanity house once. That place was brand new. Nothing fancy, but new. It was deemed uninhabitable by city inspectors about 7 years later. I don't care how poor you are, you should have the intelligence to not punch dozens of holes in the drywall, or have a dozen cats and one litter pan that hasn't been changed in months.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243technically YES! Look at what Roosevelt did in the 30s and also the germans in the 30s
1. They are likely getting homeless from other places in the US because they spend so much on "helping".
2. This brings up another principle of Economics, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. They subsidize homelessness, so they get more.
-An Economist
This is also why things like UBI are dumb ideas.
The only reason to implement programs like this is if you want more people to come in
@@dinoblacklane1640not just more people, but more non-productive people to come in, that is
Actually they give bus tickets to get them to leave.
@@davidthedeaf Why leave when all of the good stuff is in Cali?
True, if I was homeless, i’d at least spend the winter in Cali
Fun fact.. this issue is NOT only an US problem but a huge problem in EU. Where for 4 years... i been told "Just wait where you are the housing bubble will pop this year."
I decided to ignore it and buy a house.. my appartment that was getting too tiny? Doubled in value.
The house I live in now for almost a year? Almost 50k Euros more worth then when I bought it and STILL RISIING!
And why did housing go up so much here? Cause we build less then our population growth could handle... not just from birth rates but also immigration and refugees.
From 50k houses per year to a measly 8k houses per year for my country.
Building more houses will solve the problem we all are facing.
Cause if housing is affordable and nice, it will also fix every other issue underlying things. Feeling you gotta have two jobs? Gone.. since cost of living goes down a lot.
Birthrates going down? Going back up cause people feel more secure to raise a kid.
People having trouble finding jobs? Will also be fixed cause now there are more customers nearby to serve thus more employees needed.
Also why was housing here cut down? Envoirmentalism. Cause building shoots up a lot of CO2 in the air....
But you know what also shoots alot of CO2 in the air? People having to commute long distances by taxi, bus or car, cause the housing they can afford are far away from their jobs.
It's funny when San Francisco has built more houses than London in the past 5 years lol.
Cutting down on migration would also lower housing prices a lot. Especially in countries that are sub replacement birthrate. Cut the migration let the artificially increased housing demand level off and watch the native born birthrate return. However this complicates the desire of the governments to import a subevent voting block while raising over all GDP, ignoring as GDP/capita falls and standards of living fall with it.
@@simonnachreiner8380 Ah yes, Japan is famous for its rebound fertility rate.
@@8is the survey for the Japanese data was improper. Not only did it not account for natural peak population, there has never been a defined baseline for what a stable population level is. 100 years ago, a family of 10 children was common. Now, with space issues, better health care and economic stability, there's no need to essentially triple the population every generation. The same improper surveys have been being conducted in the US. It's an excuse to import labor and it always has been. The only countries with legitimate population decline have no infrastructure and all of their young generation moved away, leaving a declining elderly population that rapidly decreases. These locations have very small populations to begin with.
The other problem other than environmentalism is property developers and landlords lobby our governments A LOT to NOT build more houses. They don’t want houses to be worth less, cause that’ll screw up their nice cushy riches. Pretty sure the tories were mostly funded by property developers, and look how they’ve run the U.K. into the ground in the last 14 years of rule. Of course labour won’t fix this problem :/
Here in Ontario (Canada) a report was made a few years ago addressing the housing crisis and the top recommendations. The experts concluded exactly what this video says: we need to build more. And in order to do that, we need to cut red tape and bureaucratic obstacles.
Everyone one seems to agree on the solution that nobody in government wants to actually do.
We need to build more for the citizens of that country. We also desperately need to stop importing impoverished and criminal people who are only here for the 'goodies' we can give them.
Most of the residential areas in cities are zoned for single family homes with a minimum lot size. No basement suites, no duplexes, no fourplexes, no low rise apartment buildings... nothing. There are good reasons to restrict the number of homes that can be built in an area, you want to make sure that the existing roads, electrical grid and sewage system can handle the number of people living there, but loosening those restrictions and allowing more housing to be built in existing areas would help alleviate some of the supply issue cities face. Unfortunately zoning regulations are under the purview of municipal governments who are very susceptible to pressure from local residents who are often against increased housing density. This is why I'm supportive of Pierre Poilievre's plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities unless they build dense, affordable housing centered around transit stations.
@@studentofsmith All of what you said is completely true. And I agree that it will probably take some initiative at the federal level to get the towns and cities moving in the right direction.
Yes, but nobody wants to build more housing because we live under capitalism where things are not public goods but instead profit generators. Points of making housing in a R society isn’t for people to be housed, but instead to make money for developers and landlords. So in the case of them, they don’t want to make efficient affordable, cheap low cost housing for middle and lower incomes. We want to make housing for people who will spend millions per unit on ownership or otherwise exorbitant rent on luxury apartments. Doing that makes more money.
Since western countries are not going to wake the hell up to the reality that market solutions are not going to work for a very long time what are to be done is create a government run corporation basically like the Postal Service for housing that has a certain standard of square footage builds up to code and has price controls. This would create a certain supply of available affordable housing, but one that anyone can get into and is entitled to welfare, and instead has the government as a landlord and most importantly serves as a price floor to help control what private developers come up with for any particular income bracket by competing based on price.
@@Mortablunt Companies absolutely want to build more. They are no builders or development companies out there not wanting to get work. Government is getting in the way of building more residential units more than anything else.
As a resident of California, especially living near LA, I could further explain the situation from what I've seen.
California politicians' "Fight against Homelessness" is to basically throw money at the problem. They believe that the reason why they're homeless is because they lack money. So they started to give out welfare checks and *free phones to the homeless, which only drove them to double down.
While it's true that many have mental illnesses and drug addictions, many of them are there by choice. Some aren't even legal US citizens.
At one point, politicians wanted to force privately owned hotels in LA to turn half their rooms into housing for the homeless.
Why go back to being a functioning member of society when you get more benefits being a bum?
Perverse incentives all around.
I live in Portland, I'm pretty sure we have the worst homeless problem in the country due to them decriminalizing drugs. The vast majority of these people don't want a place to stay, they would rather just camp on the side of the road and get high all day and not have responsibilites.
@grumpywolfgaming Not to mention the BLM riots that took place.
It's to pretend to throw money at the problem, like someone pretends to throw a ball to trick their dog.
But the money stayed in their hand. And they put it in their pocket when you looked where you thought the money went.
not to mention shelters require they don't use drugs when many just use drugs to help their woes away and then they get addicted....
Seamus neglected the debunkers for so long they lost their bunker
Silly Seamus, homes aren't for living in! They're for investing in!
Us poors just have to buy homes (and buy the money and credit to get the homes)
This is actually what the Chinese think
Me, an intellectual: hey there friend, have you ever heard of the Georgian Single Tax?
0:37 Not the Debunkers!
My boys are outside! Why!
Tim Pool too!
No. It is the Bunkerlessers
They've been de-bunkered!
@@deckardcanine Oh. I like that one.
We don't want good solutions!
*WE 👏 WANT 👏 TO 👏 COMPLAIN 👏!*
Sounds like pretty much every woman I've dated. Wait, we were talking about the government... a government run by women and effeminate males...
Okay, I think I'm on to something here...
Someone needs to patent that as the official Gen Z slogan
@@GLASSMOSCOWANDBEIJING true smh
It's not about the nail!
@@GLASSMOSCOWANDBEIJINGyou mean millennials
Lizzo scares Bob. Run from the natural disaster!
I should sue Seamus for millions for forcing us to see Lizzo twerking.
Lizzo scares me too.
She could crack me in two and slurp up my insides like I was a blue shell crab.
Lizzo is an unnatural disaster
Now talk about WHY California has roughly HALF the Nations homeless.
Hint: it’s not because of anything Shamus talked about in this video. It’s closely related to what Bob and the bum said at the end.
People come to California to be homeless because California has the most free handouts, the mildest year round weather, while having the weakest criminal justice system for “petty crimes”. They are essentially subsidizing and enabling homelessness.
Subsidizing homelessness, drug abuse, and being a criminal.
It is not a sustainable system.
Yeah I’m shocked he didn’t address that
Actually Hawaii has the mildest year round weather, but otherwise good point
I like free things, too! I can't opt to be homeless because I have a wife and her parents to take care of, as well as kids someday. But if I were single, abandoned my principles, and just got tired of my job, I'd go straight to California. It has nice weather, they give you free money, and they don't punish you for stealing. I could even visit home whenever I wanted, because they bus their homeless to places like Texas. California has created an incentive structure to be homeless on every level, including cheap drugs. And for me, personally, to take dumps on Leftist doorsteps.
I could never do what they do because I have some semblance of self-esteem and respect for others. Not much but enough that I could never do what they do and laze around all day doing absolutely nothing while living off someone’s else’s labor.
Oh no, the Debunkers got debunkered!
yeah ive meaning to asked what happened to them they go radio silent and this is the first we've seen of them in years
well, what did you expect to happen when they're pumping money through fire-hoses? XD
@@the.dandy.man2 Their bunker was repurposed to a "safe space" and now they need a new one.
Bob being traumatised by Lizzo twerking and causing earthquakes is the most Bob reaction.
My state found that full families with 2 working adults were living in tents by the river because there were no housing options for them. So they got a team of local politicians and real estate companies. They purposed a plan.. a bunch of new apartments. Once the 5 year project completed you know what we got? High end luxury apartments that only the mega rich can afford! ..what a joke.
Here is a shortened excerpt from my research about homelessness.
Homelessness is a faceted problem involving: Regional access to affordable homes, lack of access for aiding mental illness, prisoners not having adequate access to information and basic rehabilitation, most jobs requiring high skill sets, the minimum wage, and having poor family connections. As well as those who simply choose to not 'try' anymore.
Ever since the Regan administration, the presidents has been cutting taxes to mental hospitals (ex. being the Kirk bride mental hospitals). There has been a lack of institutions that cannot rehabilitate individuals who have problems mentally. Both in effectiveness of their methods, and quantity of hospitals.
Another big problem is children not being set up for success. Many parents don't set up a college fund, or neglect supplying them with the adequate tools for them to succeed.
This added with our declining public education in areas makes this a detriment to children.
Drugs taken by average normal Joes can use it responsibly, and at the right doses. In order to get 'addicted' to drugs, there's usually a underlying mental illness, or other problem.
Billions of our tax dollars are wasted because they either directly pay the homeless who don't have the wherewithal to use that money effectively. If you supply them with a free home, it will most likely go into disarray because of said mental illnesses, drugs, connections, and poor education. That's the half of it. The other half are rich pansies that sit around in a board meeting all day, talking about solving homelessness, and doing the bare minimum before running out of cash and requesting more. There is also the state, city, and local restrictions on basic aid. Elvis Summers built tiny sheds for the homelessness in Los Angeles. Sheds with a lock and key. These sheds were eventually confiscated by the city, demolished, and burned.
The last and final reason is because of investors buying homes and letting them sit to increase in value. Mix this with AirBnB and Virbo and you have yourself the utlimate homelessness problem.
In conclusion. In order to get from 0 to 100. You need to have at least a driver's license, a birth certificate, a recent pay stub, a recent bill confirming your address, or a Social Security Number. Homeless people do not have any of these documents, and if they do. They cannot get a job because of the high cost to entry. These costs include: Some sort of transportation, access to a shower, and a laundry mat. Electricity to charge a phone. WiFi or a network connection for phone calls. And the mental fortitude to curb despair. This is a lot to ask of a person's whose items go missing because of thieves or the city throwing their stuff away.
The #1 thing that curbs homelessness, are generous individuals who take them in, rehabilitate them, and help them get back on their feet. I can guarantee you. If you give our tax dollars back to us, have local basic necessities (bathrooms, libraries), provide en-masse tiny apartments, and curb the federal minimum wage. You will see homelessness drop to lower than ever before.
So you're saying if the government GOT OUT OF THE WAY, and California had 10 houses for every 1 person, the price of renting or buying would be SO LOW that many homeless people WOULDN'T BE HOMELESS? WOW that makes perfect sense. So Cali will never do it.
No, he's saying that is one part of the solution. You still need to address the crazy people and drug addicts, as well as making sure the economy is healthy enough to support home ownership.
@@Grabthar191 Substances abuse and mental illness plays MUCH lesser role than one might think. The root cause is a lack of supply. If there aren't enough houses to house everyone, some will inevitably be without and that's always those who get priced out and are otherwise the most vulnerable/dysfunctional people. You can compare West Virginia an California who have about equal amount of substances abuse, but because housing is cheap (i.e. in high supply) in West Virginia, they don't have a homeless crisis there.
@@8is The mentally ill and drug abusers aren't going to last long in a home, even if you buy one for them. They can't keep up the utilities, and taxes and eventually the government has to come evict them because it's become a disease infested public health hazard. I've seen that happen first hand in a few local neighborhoods. They spent all their money on meth, and since they didn't have sewer service, just started using the bathroom in the backyard, or in buckets that they would throw into the backyard.
@ChuckSneedly True, there will always be a portion of the population that you just can't help, no matter what you do. Aside from magical or science fiction mind control. I think the effort though should be to help those who can be helped. The rest will just break your heart trying.
There are two types of homeless people. You have some people that genuinely are down on their luck. They lost a job or got in a rough divorce or add catastrophic medical bills and could no longer afford their mortgage. They might have to stay at a shelter or on a friend's couch or with a relative. Then there are people that have severe mental illness and/or addictions. A lot of them live on the streets because they would rather be high or drunk or unmedicated than indoors. Solutions that might help those in the former category often just end up enabling bad habits with the latter category.
Who would have thought that making affordable houses could solve the issue
Edit: I meant help with the issue, my bad y'all
Imbeciles, that's who. If the cost of housing were the driver of homelessness, all the homeless could be put on buses to rural Ohio or Indiana and buy a house (that needs a little TLC) for five figures, and the problem would be solved. Except that isn't the nature of the problem.
That and addressing the mental illness and substance abuse problems.
Look at what happens when they try to make homes for the homeless. The LA Times reported that the tiny housing units they made for homeless people was costing about 800k per unit. Like Milton Friedman joked, "If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand."
Here in the UK, affordable houses and flats are built, then the prices are inflated, so more affordable houses and flats are built to handle the shortfall, then the prices are inflated, so etc etc.
@@MrDj232 I think homelessness and more importantly hopelessness plays large part in those.
End zoning regulations, end corporate ownership of homes!
without zoning regulations a corporation can just say the building is not a home
No to the first part yes to the second part.
If you are fine with a factory or landfill in the middle of a residential neighborhood, then feel free to get rid of zoning laws. I agree on ending corporate ownership of homes.
@@InitialPC You can define what makes a building a residence without restricting what kinds of buildings go in what areas.
You need zoning laws, or your neighbor can do stuff like open a pig farm next door, or a nightclub. A lot of corporations own houses that are in the business with forthright intentions. They are often smaller property management companies that own both apartments and homes that allow families that can't afford a mortgage to rent a home instead. I think you do need to look at predatory purchasing in an effort to manipulate the market or society by mega corps, rather than just banning businesses renting properties outright.
The things I noticed when helping the homeless through my local church group:
1. They are almost all alcoholics.
2. If they aren't an alcoholic, they have severe mental illness to the point they can't take care of themselves.
3. The government isn't doing diddly-squat to help them, despite claiming they are.
I never saw anyone from the government out there, meanwhile, our church, through the charitable donations of our congregation, raise enough money to not only ensure every homeless person can get at least one nutritious home-cooked meal each week, along with clean water, and fresh socks and underwear, but we also offer full rehab.
The rehab offer has one requirement, which is for them to accept Jesus as their lord and savior, which means they need to WANT to get clean, and WANT to live a better life. In the time I was there, I only saw one taker, out of hundreds of homeless. He had been living quite literally under a bridge for 17 years, and he looked and smelled it. While we said our prayer for him (the price to receive food/drink and clothes), he broke down crying, and told us he couldn't take it anymore, not one more night of that life. He said it was either rehab, or he kills himself, and he doesn't want to die. We praised him for choosing life, and asked him if he's willing to put his life in the hands of Christ. He was absolutely bawling at this point, and said he does, that he wants Jesus to save him. He mentioned he hadn't had human contact in those 17 years, and man, without even thinking about it, I gave the guy a bro hug, and the other guys followed suit. Funny enough, the women in our group did not join in on this spur the moment group hug. I definitely needed a shower after that, but damn if I can't hook a bro up with a hug. So we have him board our shuttle bus, hook him up with a meal, and drive him to rehab.
Part of the rehab process the church does is work with local businesses to hire recovering addicts, businesses that provide a working environment that steers clear of alcohol and such. We also work with local apartments to help them have housing while they recover. Finally, we help them with money management so they can make a budget that will meet and balance rent, food, clothing, insurance, and entertainment.
The fellow we lead to Jesus that day has since not only successfully rehabilitated, but has turned his entire life around. He managed to meet a lovely woman who also went through rehab, ended up getting married, they bough a home together, and now he volunteers with the same church that reached out to him, so that he may help other homeless people find their way to Christ, and turn their lives around, too.
It's interesting how the government is strangely absent in this whole process. The government doesn't want to help anyone help themselves, because then those people would become self-reliant, and have no need for the government. This is why Democrat hell-holes like Chicago, Detroit, NYC, L.A., Portland, and Seattle are still full of homeless people, because the Democrats would rather rule over Hell than serve in Heaven. They do not help the downtrodden; never have, never will. Helping people threatens their goal to rule with an iron fist. Sooner you realize this, the sooner you can actually start helping people, if that's what you want to do.
A powerful testimony. I applaud your church for caring for the body, soul, and future of the homeless. It takes real commitment to not just provide a roof and meal but to walk thru the process and set them up for success. Bravo!
I've actually seen the extent to which the Government, especially left-leaning government, tries to address the homeless issue and it's all summed up as "Oh, we have the resources. They're over there!"
You ever been on the phone with insurance and transferred a million times because nobody knows what's going on and the systems they're using are antiquated and need an overhaul? Yeah, that's basically it, and by the end of it, when you get to where you need to go, you find out it's no longer being offered or *grossly* exaggerated. Like, hey, California has a job assistance program! What that means is they'll help you print out a resume and tell you about Indeed or, worse, California's version of Indeed that somehow has just as many fraudulent postings that are even less verified than Indeed's.
The " *most* " effective and only consistent thing that's offered is things that are hands off like food stamps and cash assistance, which is why they're not starving yet also have money for drugs and alcohol, but not enough for living accommodations. This is all handled through online forms, meaning there's no humans to get in the way of people getting it.
And because of the bureaucracy and *excessive* regulations to get into a position to change anything (you don't need to be a politician, you need a masters degree in several fields) nobody's really going to be able to change it from the inside.
All the factors *are* in place to help people, it's just that nobody's audited to see if they're *actually* being helped and are getting "over there." Good on you for doing what the government isn't, by simply not having entire departments who's sole job is to reroute callers.
@@NotInMyRepublic Don't praise us; praise the Lord. Best way to do that is get active with your own local church, and actually make a difference, unlike the left who protest for social clout and never actually help anyone.
But only do it if you're gonna commit to it. I don't do it anymore since moving away. I've been slacking (have personal priorities that need addressing), so please, no praise for me. I told this anecdote in hopes people better than me will pick up the slack, and to make a point that if you want to better the world, you gotta do it yourself, not forfeit your rights to the government in hopes they will "do something."
wow, using the promise of treatment to compel people to join your cult. How sick AND hypocritical.
As someone from Cali, you got your points correct! There's also that issue about certain influential people not wanting to solve the issue as they all get chunks from that $4.4B pie. They get wealthier the longer this crisis isn't averted.
Oh! So this is like diabetes? There will never be a cure for diabetes as long as everyone's getting so much money from treating diabetes.
Another thing not talked about in California is the taxes have gotten so out of control that you can't run a small business period, and there are only so many jobs at big box retailers.
Also due to insurance and other government 'safety measures' for every dollar an employee makes the state pretty much gets two, this is why minimum wage is really really bad every time it goes up, sure you might get $5 more per hour, but your employer is losing $10 to the state for every $5 you make, and you will probably never see those $10 yourself. It creates an exponential problem, litterally the only way to pay your bills in california if you're not in tech or a trade is to work under the counter or freelance, and even as a freelance there is a good chance the state will crack down on you with licensing mafias to protect union interests.
You get what you pay for. If you pay to homeless, there will be more homelessness, not less. If you pay for building houses, there will be more houses, etc.
That bunkerless hobo broke My heart
I see two flaws... politicians and the government.
Both can't admit they are wrong... both think the solution is more regulation and spending.
Laws really should have an expiration date nobgreater then 20 years in which congress has to vote to renew, edit, or allow it to expire. Congress should be allowed to vote for temporary extension of 1 year for no more then 5 times.
Ha, you're missing a few flaws.
It literally could have been this way (mostly). Thomas Jefferson argued that the Constitution should renew the government every generation (about 16 years at that time). All federal debt would be defaulted, all politicians and judges would have to be re-elected or re-appointed, and all existing laws would be reviewed and would expire unless the new Congress re-approved them. Unfortunately that whole "default on the federal debt every 16 years" lost him any support for this idea.
While I can respect the intent behind it, in practice mandatory sunset provisions would make the situation worse. By creating systems where there are massive shifts in government operation based on whether or not something is continued, you'll just end up with massive omnibus bills for renewing sunsetting laws. No one in congress will pay attention to what's actually being renewed, they'll just rubber stamp it. Then, much like the debt ceiling and budget approvals, you'll end up with politicians who demand their pet laws be enacted or they'll block the omnibus bill, meaning that tens of thousands of laws would sunset unless they capitulate to the demand.
What I'd be in favor of is a required declaration of intent behind every law, along with some objective measure of success. If that objective isn't met, the law automatically ends. That way, if you have a bill like, say, "The Inflation Reduction Act" and then inflation doesn't actually go down, it would automatically be rejected. Couple this with a constitutional requirement that legislation be encapsulated to a single area of concern (e.g. all provisions of a bill must be related to each other, so no packaging farm subsidies in the same bill as education reform, etc), and you'd have a much better functioning congress.
@@r.l.royalljr.3905Yeah, defaullting like that would guarantee an economic crisis every 16 years. Bump the date to 20 years so it happens after every 5 elections rather than 4 and it'd be perfect.
Fun fact every 10 years in Ohio it is required that a vote be held to either keep or "redo" the State Constitution.
i thought up an idea to help awhile ago, it would be housing they are not meant to stay forever in, they sign something saying they want to get a job and need a address , getting their names on the books, and are given a small place to have residency in [an apartment building most likely], so they can get a job, get paid, and when they can afford to live on their own, they then pay what they owe for staying there as long as they did.[ usually in the range of $300, with no interest]
but this probably won't work if their is no houses for them to move to.
Crime and the refusal to punish criminals also plays a part too. Poverty does not cause crime, crime causes poverty.
If there was more crackdowns on crimes, communities would be safer. If communities are safer, businesses want to set up there. The more businesses want to set up there, the more job opportunities. The more job opportunities, the more revenue. The more revenue, the less poverty.
You can remove all these regulations, yet if crime is still rampant why would anyone want to build there?
It's called leftwing degeneracy and leftwing godlessnesses.
Asking Californian land owners to make less money to solve a problem only works if you tell them it’s for brown people who won’t be allowed near their property 😅
Government can't build houses, and developers don't do what they do to not make money. That, combined with the fallacy that 'homeless people just need an affordable place to live and they will be fine' is about like saying Iraq just needed to get rid of Saddam and everything will be fine. Shyeah.
Accurate. I used to work in the “affluent” part of a California city and it was only one mile and a couple streets from the “ghetto” and country. People would complain about homeless people that had only walked a mile north of their encampment. Like my friend went one mile south of there and got robbed at gunpoint at In-N-Out. Then you go east of it and there’s a house with a bunch of Confederate flags. But everyone there thinks they’re above everyone else.
As if landowners in other states are not as greedy? Try having a welfare industrial complex as big as California and having so many government employees and private corporations that depend on the Californians living on welfare; multiply that by the power of unions and activists lobby.
Be me.
Build 349,000 single-family homes.
Sell 342,000 single-family homes to blackrock property management.
Retire.
There's that, and there's the fact that they're importing millions more people to compete for housing. Competition raises prices too.
1:26 my BOI is traumatized
I am too
0:37 The debunkers went bunker-less?!
Low cost housing won’t help people who don’t want to clean themselves up and get jobs. The part about mental health and substance abuse is important, but even beyond that, a lot of people simply don’t want to have a home, or more specifically, don’t want to work. The only option to fix that is to just give them money to not work, but guess how people treat houses they don’t have to pay for. Equally as important, the people who work to get what those people get for free, won’t want to keep working 40 hours a week to keep up with people not working at all. On top of that, especially in California, the politicians don’t want to fix the problem. That money to ‘end homelessness’ is just a money laundering scheme. Look at who owns the companies getting those contracts. I do have to agree with the people not wanting homeless people in free houses in their neighborhood. I don’t want that around me, nor do I want the value of my property that I had to pay for destroyed just so other people can get free things without earning it.
I've heard arguments from both ends. There are also people who say that city planners implemented roads and infrastructure for a maximum capacity of residents per square mile, and doubling or tripling that capacity causes blight.
Unaffordable housing is the policy in places like Los Angeles in order to prevent overpopulation due to open borders.
And yet they won't secure the border
What that sounds like to me is that city planners implemented overly rigid central planning which could not account for or adapt to changing conditions. Then, instead of trying to back down and find ways to add flexibility and expand the capacity of their infrastructure, they began legislating even more rigid centrally planned policy to try and push the problem elsewhere.
@melvinlemay7366 yes. I had an opportunity to speak with a city council member 1 on 1 and that is precisely what he said. "This is a suburban community for people who want to get away from the cities, which prides itself on being a safe place to raise a family."
Maybe I should have lectured him on the free market and how he doesn't speak for all families in his community. Perhaps residents there desire inner city gang warfare. Let the market decide.
The definition of "blight" varies wildly. In our minds we often pictured dilapidated buildings but there are cities that have used anti-blight laws to categorize houses as "blighted" if they lack attached garages or have an insufficient number of bedrooms or bathrooms or insufficient lot size or square footage or what have you.
I always wondered how the house flippers affect all this. I know they drive up prices
Yeah, but they often do it by renovating and fixing something that's run down. Which can motivate neighbors to fix their stuff that's run down, or sell to someone who will.
@@FireFox64000000 They don't have to do that if they keep the supply the same since that will just artificially jack up the price over time.
so Sheamus, Penguin plushie or Florida man alligator plushes when?
I don't understand California's contradictory economy.
- the dollar there has the single lowest value compared to any state
-they have the most homelessness than any other state
-the food there is the most expensive than any other state (eggs cost 17 dollars)
-there are a lots of people leaving compared to most if not all states
-the crime there is pretty high
-one of the highest if not the highest tax rates in us
and despite all that (and probably more) they somehow have the highest gdp per capita of all states.
you would expect their economy to plummet with all of these problems.
Because they have Hollywood and Silicon Valley as well as a large portion of the agricultural and shipping market. If their awful policies were anywhere else that place would be the trash heap of the U.S.
It would plummet if the federal government in the States would stop propping California up
As long as someone gets a paycheck to "handle" the problem, it will continue to be a problem.
An excellent point that applies to many governments programs and incentives. Healthcare anyone?
California spent millions of dollars on 1200 tiny houses last year, except it hasn’t actually ordered a single house yet.
A Cali city (I forget which) built a 'modular apartment' out of brand new (not 'used' that's against regulations!) cargo containers. The end cost was roughly what a 1 bedroom condo cost in that city. Now there were some 'features' like it used otherwise useless government property, and had offices providing resources & stuff. But still, double the estimated cost per unit, iirc.
Property tax is unconstitutional. A core aspect of a republic is the right to own your own stuff without having to pay a fee to own it. Not even the government is allowed to charge (tax) you for owning something.
The best part is that the government can tell you how much they think it's worth and base the tax on that.
At the very least, the law shut require the government to immediately purchase said property, as is, at whatever price they claim it is worth if the owner chooses to sell. That would maybe at least be a small check on the runaway tax valuations you see in some areas.
Every now and then I get recommended a video about home buying in Japan. They have a housing surplus because of their declining population, and you can buy a nice-looking home in a good area for literally $40,000 USD. Nice, new apartments - albeit small - can be rented for $200 per month. Meanwhile in the US a studio apartment is $1,200 per month (unless you're looking for one in places like NYC where you can expect to pay $3,000/month of more) and buying a run down crackhouse in the middle of the ghetto is $350,000.
Something has got to give.
Be very careful about Japanese Homes in Japan. Another reason why the market is so saturated with available homes is because many need updates due to changed laws concerning Tsunami/Earthquake resistance, and those homes (while priced incredibly cheaply) will effectively have to be completely razed and rebuilt to meet the new standards......which costs a mint in Japan.
Like most things, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.....
A message from Europe: new houses are bought by corporations or rich people and put on Airbnb/Booking (in tourist/work transfers areas) or rented to the medium class at crazy prices... or just left empty. Then housing becomes even scarcer than before. Cities like Barcellona, Milan, Paris are housing nightmares. In Milan we have almost 100.000 empty houses and there are homeless people too :)
The homeless shelters where I live try to rehabilitate homeless people and get them back on their feet. The problem is that because of their mental health and drug use, they don’t want to live by the rules of the shelter. So one of the local Sisters of Mercy started protesting a private parking garage for not letting the homeless people stay there. I know people who worked in that garage and attacks by homeless people was not an uncommon occurrence. They would come at people with used needles and their bodily secretions. These people are unwell and need help, but you can’t force that help upon them.
Zoning laws are the actual problem. It becomes either impractical or expensive to build enough houses.
Which is exactly the point, it keeps housing an investment instead of a basic necessity.
Zoning laws keep landfills away from playgrounds and elementary schools.
@@dextercochran4916 The issue is that zoning laws go too far.
@@dextercochran4916landfills aren't that scary dude. I lived near one. Honestly highways being closer to schools is way worse than a pile of trash getting covered in dirt.
Right. I don't think most people realize how governments, federal, state, and local are all actually making the problem worse instead of better. They just can't seem to imagine that government and government officials can be part of the problem.
I work as an officer for my cities Public housing. The vast majority of these people are strung out, completely looney or both. The small handful that are just down on their luck take advantage of the MANY government, private and charity offerings. There is almost no good reason that a person with a sound mind is sleeping on the street.
Ive made this argument to coworkers in a very gentle way and the response i typically get is "actually that wouldnt fix it, because (the rich people) will just buy up more houses and leave them vacant!"
No, honey... houses are being left vacant BECAUSE there is a scarcity causing houses to appreciate at rates that far surpass other investments. Why invest in stocks when you can balloon 20% or more per year with an empty house?
That LIZZO "shaking" earthquake bit was great!
NO! THE DEBUNKERS HAVE BEEN DEBUNKERED! 0:37
I guess the actual problem is these people aren't wanted in the states where they are located. They dont want to house them, they dont want to pay for them, they dont want to give them medical help or put them to work. They want to be surrounded by money and people who have money so they're treating the problem like its a roach infestation in hopes they OD and die off or leave and become someone elses problem. I do not know why you'd want to live on the coast.
I watched this documentary where this guy housed 40,000 people in these tiny houses and it lasted a month before Someone complained the housing complex lowered the property value and with the orders of someone high up, the police escorted everyone out of their houses and demolished them. The next week it was like he did nothing and everyone was terrified to ask for help again. They were treating Fentanyl addictions by giving them large supplies of Fentanyl and sending them on their way.
Missing from this: Contractors are also beholden to activist Wallstreet investors who will only loan money to HIGH MARGIN projects which is why not just Cali but most of the nation is only seeing Mansions and other expensive houses being built.
"Someone should do something to help the homeless" Why don't you rent out your spare room? "I don't want some jobless bum staying in my house".
I have seen too many with that attitude
The NIMBY people
California, at one point, wanted to force hotels in LA to turn half their rooms into housing for homeless. Luckily, the idea never came to fruition.
ok but to be fair part of the problem is you dont know what you'll get, every once in awhile you hear stories about people that helped a person and let them stay at their place only to get robbed or murdered (im not saying its a high %, simply that hearing about that will weigh on peoples minds when considering it)
@@almightyk11 the excuse I see is that the problem is "systemic" and therefore requires government solutions. Then when you point out they should still lead by example, even if it's just a small little thing, they'll actually tell you that an individual helping a homeless person is bad, because it discourages the government from helping. These people have a propagandized answer for everything.
@@TH-rj4ds I'm not the one morally grandstanding about how everyone else should do more to help, I think people should help themselves.
Property investors, the government, banks, real-estate agents, etc. all have a vested interest in property values being higher. They all make money from it. The idea that the government is ever going to do something about it is just crazy.
0:38 NOOO NOT THE DEBUNKERS!!!!!!!!!
In my country, buying house has a 6% added tax
Building house has 21%
Sad days
NYC has gotten record-breaking gentrification in the past few years, but no one can afford these new buildings!
No wonder you built something without a purpose!
The "Bunker-Less" group of homeless really hit me, because I miss those videos so much. It's not like there aren't still plenty of videos to debunk, but times got tough when the shit on the internet became so absurd that they became reality.
It’ll be impossible to solve the problem entirely because some people will absolutely refuse to ever be moral people who will take care of what you give them. Give them a house and they’ll strip all the copper out of it or turn it into a lab.
Homes built by half drunk English peasants in the 1500s are still standing. And yet, many houses built only 50 years ago with expensive materials and standards are already crumbling. Only sucky buildings are allowed.
RFK's counter would be that 60% of the home on the market are owned by big investment firms.
If we don't want big government meddling in the market neither should investment companies who are try to milk us.
I know it's not easy to do what you do, but it would be really nice to see you producing longer videos more frequently. Your stuff is awesome!
I feel ya man, I too am Bunkerless.
And the process of getting a home is a total nightmare too. They compare whatever home your buying to others to base if the value of said home your buying is accurate. They compared my small house to a massive one that was about 500k. I dont see how thats fair, its over 2x what i payed for this
How's about we go back to the cheaper manufactured homes of the 50s instead of these copycat, dime-a-dozen, yet expensive af developments?
People really don't like them and Americans have gotten much richer since then. That's why the average floor area of a house as doubled since the 1970s.
@@8is The floor area might have doubled but the price is likely 8x as much
@@dinoblacklane1640 Actually not, the price per square foot has remained the same since the 1970s too!
@@dinoblacklane1640Did you actually do any research to get that number, or did you make it up while you were typing?
@@8isThe price per square foot has tripled here in Dallas over the last 3 years...
Fewer regulations are typically better but more are required where disreputable builders are abundant.
Where I live (a city in Canada), there were a bunch of tents set up near a large bridge where the homeless camped at, but eventually, the police had to go and kick them all out of that area.
I'm absolutely certain that the money from our own homeless solving budget was used to kick those people out.
I live in Lancaster CA. There is probably more vacant land than buildings inside the city limits. The only housing occurring is big corporation massive subdivisions where the houses are listed for about the same as all the other existing single family homes ($450k-$600k+). One can't simply buy a lot and get a contractor to build you a home. Not only are the regulations onerous, but existing homeowners don't want their appraisal values to drop due to people building their own for 1/2 the cost. Don't raise the 'low-cost' housing cliche, AKA apartment buildings. It's the restrictions and hostility from existing single family house owners not wanting cheaper single family suburban houses lowering their own house values.
1 abolish all sales and property tax
2 abolish zoning laws, construction, occupancy, get government out of housing..
Um those are jobs. Homelessness is caused by high unemployment rate look up hoover towns thus getting rid of those jobs mean more Homeless people. Are you ok?
Guess Ron is still in jail
I haven't noticed
When a developer is splitting up land into 1-acre plots, which size home do you think gives them the better incentive to build...the $250K single family starter home or the $450K+ McMansion??? The problem is the type of inventory available and its biggest rate of return. States and Corporations love to keep building apartment buildings...but they don't seem to be interested in building actual affordable homes for people to upgrade to.
This is a HUGE part of the problem. It's more about the profit margins. Building a 1000 sq. ft. home costs about $35k, and sells for $45k (not counting land costs) so the profit is $10k (about 30% profit margin). But building a 2500 sq. ft. home costs about $60k and sells for $120k (again, no land included) so the profit is $60k (about 100% profit margin).
As a builder, which would YOU choose to build? The 2500 sq. ft. home, of course. You'll make a LOT more money. So there is little incentive for building the smaller, more affordable houses. Apartment complexes and Townhouses/condominiums are even more lucrative, since there's virtually no separation between the living spaces and virtually no yards.....so in the space of a single house, you can have 6-8 apartments or 3-4 townhomes/condos. And, since they don't actually "own" the property, they can be evicted if necessary......and regardless of how long they pay, there's always income being generated. So most property developers do both, but try to maximize the profit on housing developments......and will continue to do so until something FORCES them to do otherwise.
I'm currently living in LA. Homeownership is pretty much impossible. I'm really tempted to find a job in another state.
You should. If you don't, the problem isn't that you can't afford a home, the problem is that you can't afford to live in Santa Monica, and you aren't willing to live in, say, Greenville Ohio.
@@mr2981 There aren't as many jobs in Greenville, OH. However, I'm keeping my eyes open to places with opportunities and affordable housing. I'm originally from the Midwest and would be open to moving back. Texas would be great.
If you look up the NIMBY awards or most NIMBY cities, they're all in California.
Lizzio was the last thing I expected to see animated by Seamus but wow that was savage.
I view it as a triangular problem, 1st problem drugs addiction/ mental illness 2 the abysmal state of the job market 3 the cost of housing, the cost of housing doesn't really matter if you can't get a job and a stable income to afford a house
The NIMBY crowd also plays a big role in this.
I've lived in a few states, both red and blue. CA is the only one where a housing development became a political issue. People will protest against it. Citing reasons, such as: increased traffic, prices are too high, won't blend in to the current home landscape.
So that’s why there has been no debunkers
I also noticed that most places only accept digital resumes as well now.
It's not a good idea to give them free real estate. People will pretend to be homeless to get a free apartment.
They should live there, but start paying rent once they find a job.
It's not that hard, there are only 5 things needed to reduce 60% of homelessness;
1. Create an aor, " arrest on request" policy, allowing anyone, without any form of criminal or misdemeanor involved, to simply request there own arrest by a police officer, spending a night in holding, and, generating a non crime related arrest report.
Many people going through homelessness, have been tricked into, or, are leaving a bad situation, with no access to there documentation.
In order to get a copy of your birth certificate and social security number, an arrest report counts as identification towards these. Unfortunately, you can't usually have one without some form of crime or suspected crime occuring. So, this will massively help those who had to run from parents, guardians, communal living, or cults, that have threatened them, or, have stolen or burned there documents.
While you'd suspect the police can help with this, there's really not much that can be done, without an expensive lawyer.
2. Put mailboxes in police stations, and, allow anyone who has requested and gone through with an aor, to pick up there mail at the station, for the next 2 months.
Many don't know this, but, most homeless shelters and halfway houses, don't allow for mail to be sent to the location.
The only such option that always allows for mail, is a drug rehab center. This, to get the mailing address they need, to get an id, a credit union account, a phone bill, a library card, a check from there job, or, anything else needed to escape homelessness, it is REQUIRED, in many states, for them to be on a strong enough addictive or illegal substance, that, it shows up in urine. The government then pays for these urine tests, and, the subsequent ones, till they are clean.
Unfortunately, this creates a system, where the homeless become a " base line buyer" , similar to getting a government contract, for drug dealers, in order to escape there situation.
To fix this, simply have them pick up there mail at the police or sheriff's station.
With the secure mailing address, it becomes far more reasonable to go to the shelters, as, they just kick a person out the next morning anyways, and, use the police station as a central location, to get there documents and bills together, for gainful employment.
As well, there needs to be a state law, requiring any place that has account biased payment processing, by card, to accept such arrest reports, the same way they would accept a utility bill or piece of mail, to open an account, so, the homeless can ACTUALLY get jobs.
3. Allow a locker service for the homeless at the police station, similar to vehicle holding or evidence holding, but, without the charge , pick up, or drop off restrictions.
Many homeless shelters expose the homeless to rampant theft, if not by other residents, then, by the staff themselves. This can even be under some bizarre form of " virtue signaling" , like " removing them from modern technology" , as an excuse to confiscate and destroy phones, laptops, and repair tools.
There are even shelters which refuse to allow people to seek employment, while staying there. Anyone should be able to see the insanity with that.
Having a secure place for there belongings and work tools, like the station, will allow people to seek out the shelters FAR more easily.
4. All shelters must now have TWO set times to enter, sleep, and exist, consisting of 10 to 12 hours, to enter , sleep, get there things, and leave. As well, there needs to be a tax break, for any retail, restaurant, cafe, or other shopping business with at LEAST 4 unskilled labor positions available, who stays open at least 22 hours a day, at least 6 days a week.
That way, the shelter space is doubled, while, job opportunities for the homeless, at different hours, are increased, allowing them to get jobs while out of the shelter more easily .
5. Per resident rents are now banned, allowing up to at LEAST 4 people, per rental property, to contribute to the rent.
This will allow people living on minimum wage, to ACTUALLY rent properties, allowing them to have a place to live, a mailing address, a job, and, due to splitting the rent, a better take home pay, letting them move forward with life more easily, even if they have to live with roommates for a few years.
With these steps in place, it will be FAR more easy, to reduce the number of homeless, to only those with chemical, and, not traumatic mental disorders. : )
where i live in canada there are a ton of regulations that basically make modest homes illegal. You want to have a roof over your head and a wood stove for heat? maybe can't afford the electricity yet? your ok with settling for less while you build yourself up? well guess what, daddy government doesn't consent to you living in a frontier style cabin, instead you are much better off freezing on the cold canadian streets.
Why is it like this you may ask? so that current home owners investment in the value of their own property doesn't risk going down.
“What if the something they have to do is not do the things that already are working?”
From what I understand from other video's is Environmental Impact surveys are on the biggest problems in California. Every project needs them, and almost any one involved in the area can demand one to be done. Some projects have been delayed by decades because of all the Environmental impact surveys they have to do, even Govt projects like building Water Reservoirs. Even when a project finally gets finished, the builders and companies involved just pass that cost onto the buyers.
As an 8th generation Washingtonian let me correct this. We rarely have had any earthquakes. In fact the first my gramma born in 1917, and myself, experienced was in the 2000s and made her bed shake a little. I voted San Francisco a year before and in the hotel felt a strong bed shake, looked out the window, and saw cars pulled over as the road moved up and down like it was alive.
Californians moved here in the 80s and brought their phobia of The Big One with them. This is why former governor, and lawyer, Christine Gregouire, a Democrat, used that fear to get people to back her idea to destroy all unique and architecturally historic bridges and replace them all with plain cement ones with light rail….to feel safer, and to move the homeless around.
"Washington State, a place with similar natural disasters"
WHOA. Sorry Seamus, but as a Washingtonian who used to live in California, we have _far_ fewer in Washington. That doesn't justify California's ridiculous policies, but there's no way they have similar levels of natural disasters. The biggest earthquake I've ever seen in Washington was barely enough to make my desk wobble.
Never forget that an "efficient" government budget has a mere 80% of the money go to "overhead expenses."
imagine...more supply brings prices down. Now who could have predicted that?
If you build new house's doesnt matter unless you build smaller less expensive houses
1:46 The not in my backyard people.
Zoning laws are horrible! ☠💀
Can't have European corner shops in a neighborhood
Zoning laws are not the only issue. Keeping things "up to code" really means building houses that don't last as long while paying your local government thousands of dollars. Just for them to send someone out to say, "Bribe me." And it's all under the lie about making the house better for the environment.
They do keep things like pig farms from residential neighborhoods, or strip clubs from opening up next to elementary schools.
@@Grabthar191 They actual real issue is zoning banning multifamily residential housing and impose height limits which puts a HARD cap on the number of people who are allowed to live in any given area.
@@8is It's to make sure that the property that other people have purchased don't lose value. I certainly would not purchase a home that had an apartment nearby where people could stare down into my backyard.
I'm in Bremerton, WA, looking at a new 14 unit "low income complex" going up. It's going to be at least $1500 a unit. I'm making $1000 a month with a steady job, before taxes (highest in the nation), and have been attacked by the homeless (most of them by choice) SIX times this month. I'm sharing a house with NINE guys just to afford rent. WA has given millions of dollars to the homelessness problem, yet it's far worse than four years ago. Lack of housing up here isn't the problem, it's lack of drive to do better mixed with government handouts which create a dependent population. I myself was homeless just a few months ago, and had to spend the entirety of my savings and max out my credit cards just to survive for two weeks, then got help from my church and the Freemasons to move in where I'm at. In Bremerton, there is a large amount of low-income housing, but it's constantly filled with addicts and undesirables who either don't pay or rely on government to pay, and the wait-list is currently at FOUR YEARS of waiting.
Homelessness is an industry. People are making their living from it. The news is their advertising.
What you subsidize you get more of. What you tax, you get less of.
Spend money on homeless, get more homeless. CA proved it.
Therefore, *if we tax homeless, we will get less.*
Seriously, make every homeless person pay $20/night for "urban camping" permits. If they don't pay, they get arrested and processed for:
- warrants - if they have them, they go to jail
- drug abuse - if they use drugs, they go to non-voluntary detox/rehab until the facility says they are okay to leave
- psychological problems - if they do, they go to non-voluntary psych wards until the facility says they are okay to leave
- abuse / trafficking / etc. - if they suffer from this, they go to a shelter & support system to help them escape and start a productive life
The homeless will say "F*** this s***" and leave.
Then, the remaining homeless will be much easier to manage, meaning put through the above process.
And if it doesn't have enough of a result, increase the "urban camping" fee until it does.
If we incentive homelessness, we get more homelessness.
If we incentive single motherhood, we get more single motherhood.
If we incentive shoplifting, we get more shoplifting.
If we incentive illegal migration, we get more illegal migration (and child sec trafficking).
Who'd have thought that not punishing bad actions, and even giving people free stuff for doing them, would create more of those bad actions.
The animation sure got better over the years.
actually me and my mom were talking about this issue great timing
One of the big reasons certain people want to keep housing prices so high is that they see their homes as an investment. Thus, anything that would realistically reduce the cost of housing is seen as a direct threat to their "investment".
its a busniess and that sucks if they find a solution who's going to have the job to help homeless people.