The fast way to solve California homeless?

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes in My Backyard'

Yes in my back yard

Solution?

Rent control.

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy cities short of bombing them. Maybe it can destroy states just as fast.
Rent Control is Worse than Bombing - Econlib

Nobody can afford 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom. There are not enought hours in a day to work 3 jobs just to pay that, plus utilities, plus gas to get to work, plus food, plus health insurance. The only way that kind of money can be made on rent is to put bunk beds in each bedroom and charge rent PER HEAD, which is what is being done in college towns. For the regular joe and jane, its impossible to find something affordable. This lays on the home owner wanting as much as they can possibly get and that is set by others doing the same thing with their properties..hence, high rents nobody can afford as single or as families even with a job.



Rent control is needed. I stand by that.

Plenty of people stand by wrong ideas. Rent control leads to slums. Eventually the property has an accidental fire or just gets abandoned.

In Carson, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente rent control is used to keep mobil home space rent low. Landowners can still raise rents or the property taxes would soon eclipse the rent. Apartments didn't fare so well. They fell to condo conversions.

 

[Andylusion]

Homeless people are employed!

A 2017 survey of the homeless population in San Francisco
found 13 percent of respondents reporting part or full-time employment.
That's in a city with an estimated 7,499 people experiencing homelessness.

This year, an estimated 10 percent of the 4,990 people living unsheltered in San Diego
said they were currently working.

Working While Homeless: A Tough Job For Thousands Of Californians

WHY if they are working, can't they find a home?
Hmm... Rent for a 1 bedroom apt in San Francisco:
The average rent for an apartment in San Francisco is $3,733, a 3% increase compared to the previous year.
Average Rent in San Francisco & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RENTCafé

What about San Diego:
The average rent in San Diego is around $2,400/month.
Average Rent in San Diego, CA: Median Prices + Trends

In fact there are nearly 1,500 homeless in these two cities that are working!

Solution?

Flush the 10 million illegal wetbacks in Mexifornia back to Mehico and TA-DA!...problem solved.

Most homeless I see with my owns in SM and we get the most are whites.

What? Engrish pleeese.

I have no idea what you were trying to say, because it wasn't coherent.

Didn't double check my typos.
I said most of the homeless i see with my own eyes here are mostly whites.

Ah ok. Makes more sense.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Sure. Depending on where you are, you will mostly see white homeless.

Statically, while whites make up 73% of the population, and blacks only make up 12%....

Only 41% of the homeless are white, while over 37% are black.

I would attribute this, to a particular counter-culture prevalent in the Black community, combined with left-wing ideology.

Between the counter-culture, where you buck social norms, and the victim mentality, being told you are unable to succeed in this country without help from your democrap overlords, the break down of the family where men are taught not to take responsibility, and women are taught they don't need a man, a level of moral-relative belief that evil isn't evil and that is just your opinion, plus am "I am owed something" view in the community....

the result is naturally poverty. And while this is particularly damaging to the black community, anyone including whites that fall for this ideology also end up in poverty.

 

[Andylusion]

Taxes...
California's state level sales tax rate remains the highest in the nation as of 2018 at 7.25 percent.
Combined with local sales taxes, the rate can reach as high as 10 percent in some California cities, although the average is 8.54 percent as of 2018.
You'll pay an extra 33 percent if you buy fruit from a vending machine here.
A pack of cigarettes will cost you an extra $2.87 cents here.
Gasoline will run you an additional 53.49 cents a gallon under legislation that began increasing the tax incrementally effective November 1, 2017
Unfortunately, the state's homeowner and rental assistance program, which effectively reimbursed qualified taxpayers for a portion of property taxes paid on their homes or as part of their rental payments, has been discontinued.
The state also has some of the highest income tax rates in the country. California has 10 personal income tax rates ranging from 0 to 13.3 percent as of 2018. The state's standard deduction, however, is a fairly decent $4,236 per person.
If your sale is such that you must also pay the federal long-term capital gains tax rate of 20 percent, you'll end up paying the second-highest capital gains tax rate in the world—a combined 33.3 percent.

Prepare to Pay Hefty Taxes in California If You Live, Work, or Play There

With California sales tax, local sales tax, gas tax, and personal income tax taking about 41.22% before Federal taxes.
So all these taxes (excluding property taxes which are 16th lowest in US) and then with the average 1 bedroom apt going for
$3,733/month in San Francisco..Average Rent in San Francisco & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RENTCafé

It is no wonder California has Almost half (47 percent) of all unsheltered homeless people are found in the State of California, about four times as high as California’s share of the overall U.S. population.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-State-of-Homelessness-in-America.pdf

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there were roughly 554,000 homeless people living somewhere in the United States on a given night last year
California accounts for most of the country’s homeless population, and it’s growing.
In 2018, there were 129,972 people (nearly 24% of all homeless in America) on california streets on any given night statewide.
California has the most homeless people of any state. But L.A. is still a national model

This is one of the things that drives me crazy about left-wingers, when they talk about taxes in left-wing states. Because on paper if you just look at the plain tax rates, it does not seem that bad.

But then you look into it more deeply, and they have a special tax on this, and a special tax on that, and a tax on emissions on your car, and fruit in a vending machine, and a tax there, and here, and everyone.

The same is true in Europe. I'm always baffled by these morons who say that the taxes are not 'that much' higher than in the US.

Oh really? Do you pay a yearly tax for every single TV in your home like in the UK? It's the exact same problem. Everything is taxed at a much higher rate.

Do people even know that the average price for a gallon of gas in the UK right now.... is $8/gallon? All tax. The cost of oil is the same there, as here. The difference is the taxes.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes in My Backyard'

Yes in my back yard

Solution?

Rent control.

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy cities short of bombing them. Maybe it can destroy states just as fast.
Rent Control is Worse than Bombing - Econlib

Nobody can afford 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom. There are not enought hours in a day to work 3 jobs just to pay that, plus utilities, plus gas to get to work, plus food, plus health insurance. The only way that kind of money can be made on rent is to put bunk beds in each bedroom and charge rent PER HEAD, which is what is being done in college towns. For the regular joe and jane, its impossible to find something affordable. This lays on the home owner wanting as much as they can possibly get and that is set by others doing the same thing with their properties..hence, high rents nobody can afford as single or as families even with a job.



Rent control is needed. I stand by that.

And that will work great for the people who already own the apartment, at least until the build is destroyed and they are forced out. The problem is, no one else will get an apartment. Apartment buildings will close, and no new apartments will open.

The result is, people won't have to worry about $1,200 a month for a studio... because there will not be any studio apartments to rent at all.

You need to go read up on what happened in New York. They ended up with Hollywood elites renting apartments in New York, to use whenever they visited. So while home population was increasing in the city, rent controlled apartments spend 11 months of the year empty.

Why did they do this? Because these business and media people found it was cheaper to lease a rent controlled apartment, than to book a room at a hotel.

Here's the difference between you and me....

Both of us agree that 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom, is insane.

Both of us want to change that.

You want to try and change it with more government intervention, more regulations, more screwing with the economy.

I know that this does not work, and never has. It has never worked. Anyone who reads the history of rent control, knows the result is fewer apartments.

Rent control, explained

This is well documented throughout history.

Rent control results = more homeless. This is unavoidable.
Now if you are all for more homeless, then put in place all the rent control you want.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Yes in My Backyard'

Yes in my back yard

Solution?

Rent control.

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy cities short of bombing them. Maybe it can destroy states just as fast.
Rent Control is Worse than Bombing - Econlib

Nobody can afford 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom. There are not enought hours in a day to work 3 jobs just to pay that, plus utilities, plus gas to get to work, plus food, plus health insurance. The only way that kind of money can be made on rent is to put bunk beds in each bedroom and charge rent PER HEAD, which is what is being done in college towns. For the regular joe and jane, its impossible to find something affordable. This lays on the home owner wanting as much as they can possibly get and that is set by others doing the same thing with their properties..hence, high rents nobody can afford as single or as families even with a job.



Rent control is needed. I stand by that.

Plenty of people stand by wrong ideas. Rent control leads to slums. Eventually the property has an accidental fire or just gets abandoned.

In Carson, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente rent control is used to keep mobil home space rent low. Landowners can still raise rents or the property taxes would soon eclipse the rent. Apartments didn't fare so well. They fell to condo conversions.

Living in slums, run down apartments seems like a better solution to the poor lower wage earners who are struggling. Having more affordable housing even if the heat don't work, you get bug infestations now and then, mice once in a while, A/C don't work, ceiling leaks, mold. ETC. Some house is better than no house in my opinion. I'd rather have a lot more slums and lower cost apartments available for low-income earners and less homelessness.

My wife and I been low income earners almost our whole life, with the exception of last few years. We are fine living in run down places. I have lived in places that had spider infestations, bugs, no heat, no a/c, leaky ceilings, gas leaks, missing/broken front doors, dangerous electrical outlets, mice we have had to kill now and then, bed bugs, roaches, etc. I have put up with these living conditions most of my life because had no choice and only thing could afford. Most people would stay away from those kind of places, but to me it sure is a hell a lot better than being homeless and after a while you get use to living that way and it becomes really not a big deal.

Right now we live in a very run down trailer that is falling apart for $350/ month and we are happy to call it home and are happy with that.

So I think rent control and increasing the amount of low cost housing in areas where there is a lot of homelessness is an excellent solution.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes in My Backyard'

Yes in my back yard

Solution?

Rent control.

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy cities short of bombing them. Maybe it can destroy states just as fast.
Rent Control is Worse than Bombing - Econlib

Nobody can afford 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom. There are not enought hours in a day to work 3 jobs just to pay that, plus utilities, plus gas to get to work, plus food, plus health insurance. The only way that kind of money can be made on rent is to put bunk beds in each bedroom and charge rent PER HEAD, which is what is being done in college towns. For the regular joe and jane, its impossible to find something affordable. This lays on the home owner wanting as much as they can possibly get and that is set by others doing the same thing with their properties..hence, high rents nobody can afford as single or as families even with a job.



Rent control is needed. I stand by that.

Plenty of people stand by wrong ideas. Rent control leads to slums. Eventually the property has an accidental fire or just gets abandoned.

In Carson, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente rent control is used to keep mobil home space rent low. Landowners can still raise rents or the property taxes would soon eclipse the rent. Apartments didn't fare so well. They fell to condo conversions.

Living in slums, run down apartments seems like a better solution to the poor lower wage earners who are struggling. Having more affordable housing even if the heat don't work, you get bug infestations now and then, mice once in a while, A/C don't work, ceiling leaks, mold. ETC. Some house is better than no house in my opinion. I'd rather have a lot more slums and lower cost apartments available for low-income earners and less homelessness.

My wife and I been low income earners almost our whole life. . We are fine living in run down places. I have lived in places that had mice, no heat, no a/c, leaky ceilings, gas leaks, missing/broken front doors, dangerous electrical outlets, mice we have had to kill now and then, bed bugs, roaches, etc. I have put up with these living conditions most of my life because had no choice and only thing could afford. Most people would stay away from those kind of places, but to me it sure is a hell a lot better than being homeless and after a while you get use to living that way and it becomes really not a big deal.

So I think rent control and increasing the amount of low cost housing in areas where there is a lot of homelessness is an excellent solution.

Right.... but... rent control doesn't do that. With rent control the total amount of housing available.... will go DOWN. So MORE homelessness. Not less.

If you want to increase the amount of low cost housing.... rent control will result in the exact opposite of that. It always has. There has never been a time in the last 200 years, where rent control resulted in more housing for low income people.

ALWAYS it has resulted in less.

Because the bottom line is, with rent control, there is less and less incentive to make new low income housing, and less incentive to keep low income housing. The result is always LESS housing.

Rent control = more homelessness.

 

[danielpalos]

Homeless people are employed!

A 2017 survey of the homeless population in San Francisco
found 13 percent of respondents reporting part or full-time employment.
That's in a city with an estimated 7,499 people experiencing homelessness.

This year, an estimated 10 percent of the 4,990 people living unsheltered in San Diego
said they were currently working.

Working While Homeless: A Tough Job For Thousands Of Californians

WHY if they are working, can't they find a home?
Hmm... Rent for a 1 bedroom apt in San Francisco:
The average rent for an apartment in San Francisco is $3,733, a 3% increase compared to the previous year.
Average Rent in San Francisco & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RENTCafé

What about San Diego:
The average rent in San Diego is around $2,400/month.
Average Rent in San Diego, CA: Median Prices + Trends

In fact there are nearly 1,500 homeless in these two cities that are working!

Solution?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let markets, correct themselves.

 

[miketx]

Pay them a decent wage perhaps.

For what?

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Yes in My Backyard'

Yes in my back yard

Rent control.

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy cities short of bombing them. Maybe it can destroy states just as fast.
Rent Control is Worse than Bombing - Econlib

Nobody can afford 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom. There are not enought hours in a day to work 3 jobs just to pay that, plus utilities, plus gas to get to work, plus food, plus health insurance. The only way that kind of money can be made on rent is to put bunk beds in each bedroom and charge rent PER HEAD, which is what is being done in college towns. For the regular joe and jane, its impossible to find something affordable. This lays on the home owner wanting as much as they can possibly get and that is set by others doing the same thing with their properties..hence, high rents nobody can afford as single or as families even with a job.



Rent control is needed. I stand by that.

Plenty of people stand by wrong ideas. Rent control leads to slums. Eventually the property has an accidental fire or just gets abandoned.

In Carson, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente rent control is used to keep mobil home space rent low. Landowners can still raise rents or the property taxes would soon eclipse the rent. Apartments didn't fare so well. They fell to condo conversions.

Living in slums, run down apartments seems like a better solution to the poor lower wage earners who are struggling. Having more affordable housing even if the heat don't work, you get bug infestations now and then, mice once in a while, A/C don't work, ceiling leaks, mold. ETC. Some house is better than no house in my opinion. I'd rather have a lot more slums and lower cost apartments available for low-income earners and less homelessness.

My wife and I been low income earners almost our whole life. . We are fine living in run down places. I have lived in places that had mice, no heat, no a/c, leaky ceilings, gas leaks, missing/broken front doors, dangerous electrical outlets, mice we have had to kill now and then, bed bugs, roaches, etc. I have put up with these living conditions most of my life because had no choice and only thing could afford. Most people would stay away from those kind of places, but to me it sure is a hell a lot better than being homeless and after a while you get use to living that way and it becomes really not a big deal.

So I think rent control and increasing the amount of low cost housing in areas where there is a lot of homelessness is an excellent solution.

Right.... but... rent control doesn't do that. With rent control the total amount of housing available.... will go DOWN. So MORE homelessness. Not less.

If you want to increase the amount of low cost housing.... rent control will result in the exact opposite of that. It always has. There has never been a time in the last 200 years, where rent control resulted in more housing for low income people.

ALWAYS it has resulted in less.

Because the bottom line is, with rent control, there is less and less incentive to make new low income housing, and less incentive to keep low income housing. The result is always LESS housing.

Rent control = more homelessness.

I read the research myself and rent control is not all doom and gloom as you claim it is. According to the research I read online it did help tenants afford rent more. Yes it said it does slightly decrease amount of rent available and the quality of the apartments being rented. I don't think this necessarily means it will results in more homelessness.

From what I read about rent control the pros in my opinion for it seem to over rule the negatives. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment that is up to city code, has all the latest and greatest is of high quality etc.

 

[Andylusion]

Rent control is the fastest way to destroy cities short of bombing them. Maybe it can destroy states just as fast.
Rent Control is Worse than Bombing - Econlib

Nobody can afford 1200 bucks a month for a studio; 2500 a month for a 1 bedroom; 3500 a month for a 3 bedroom. There are not enought hours in a day to work 3 jobs just to pay that, plus utilities, plus gas to get to work, plus food, plus health insurance. The only way that kind of money can be made on rent is to put bunk beds in each bedroom and charge rent PER HEAD, which is what is being done in college towns. For the regular joe and jane, its impossible to find something affordable. This lays on the home owner wanting as much as they can possibly get and that is set by others doing the same thing with their properties..hence, high rents nobody can afford as single or as families even with a job.



Rent control is needed. I stand by that.

Plenty of people stand by wrong ideas. Rent control leads to slums. Eventually the property has an accidental fire or just gets abandoned.

In Carson, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente rent control is used to keep mobil home space rent low. Landowners can still raise rents or the property taxes would soon eclipse the rent. Apartments didn't fare so well. They fell to condo conversions.

Living in slums, run down apartments seems like a better solution to the poor lower wage earners who are struggling. Having more affordable housing even if the heat don't work, you get bug infestations now and then, mice once in a while, A/C don't work, ceiling leaks, mold. ETC. Some house is better than no house in my opinion. I'd rather have a lot more slums and lower cost apartments available for low-income earners and less homelessness.

My wife and I been low income earners almost our whole life. . We are fine living in run down places. I have lived in places that had mice, no heat, no a/c, leaky ceilings, gas leaks, missing/broken front doors, dangerous electrical outlets, mice we have had to kill now and then, bed bugs, roaches, etc. I have put up with these living conditions most of my life because had no choice and only thing could afford. Most people would stay away from those kind of places, but to me it sure is a hell a lot better than being homeless and after a while you get use to living that way and it becomes really not a big deal.

So I think rent control and increasing the amount of low cost housing in areas where there is a lot of homelessness is an excellent solution.

Right.... but... rent control doesn't do that. With rent control the total amount of housing available.... will go DOWN. So MORE homelessness. Not less.

If you want to increase the amount of low cost housing.... rent control will result in the exact opposite of that. It always has. There has never been a time in the last 200 years, where rent control resulted in more housing for low income people.

ALWAYS it has resulted in less.

Because the bottom line is, with rent control, there is less and less incentive to make new low income housing, and less incentive to keep low income housing. The result is always LESS housing.

Rent control = more homelessness.

I read the research myself and rent control is not all doom and gloom as you claim it is. According to the research I read online it did help tenants afford rent more. Yes it said it does slightly decrease amount of rent available and the quality of the apartments being rented. I don't think this necessarily means it will results in more homelessness.

From what I read about rent control the pros in my opinion for it seem to over rule the negatives. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment that is up to city code, has all the latest and greatest is of high quality etc.

But from your own words, it decreased the amount of rentals available.

So not all people are going to be living in any apartment, up to code or not.

If the population increases, and the amount of rentals decreases... that means not only does it not help the millions of homeless you already have, but even some that currently have homes, will end up without homes.

Now it's true, that in the extreme.... EXTREME short term... rent control does provide immediate help to those who already rent an apartment.

People who already have a place to live, will have lower rents.

Everyone else in the area is screwed. Rent control helps the extreme few, at the expense of the rest of society.

And by the way, it will screw over literally everyone else. Because rent control as you yourself said, will drop the number of rentals available. What this does, is create additional demand elsewhere in the market. That means while low income apartments drop in availability, those looking for living space will be forced into other markets. This will drive up demand for all other accommodations.

So demand for a townhouse that is not rent controlled, will increase, driving UP rentals on everyone else.

So again, those who get the rent controlled apartments will benefits. But the price for all other rentals will increase even more, because the supply of low-price apartments will decline.

Once again, this will push more people to homelessness.

And by the way, eventually the rent controlled apartments end up in the hands of the wealthy, rather than the poor who supposedly the rent-control is for.

This is rather normal. I mentioned in another post, where they found dozens of Hollywood elites, had rented rent-controlled apartments in NYC, because rent control made it cheaper to simply rent out an apartment that was empty most of the year, than to book a hotel when they needed to go to NYC.

Rent Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback

Serial experimentation with this policy has repeatedly shown the same result. Initially, tenants rejoice, and rent control looks like a victory for the poor over the landlord class. But the stifling of price signals leads to problems. Rent control starts by producing some sort of redistribution, because the people with low rents at the time that controls are imposed tend to be relatively low-income.

But then incomes rise, and rents don’t. People with higher incomes have more resources to pursue access to artificially cheap real estate: friends who work for management companies, “key fees” or simply incomes that promise landlords they won’t have to worry about collecting the rent. (One of my favorite New York City stories involves an acquaintance who made $175,000 a year, and applied for a rent-controlled apartment. He asked the women taking the application if his income was going to be a problem; she looked at the application and said, “No, I think that ought to be high enough.”)​

People with $175K incomes, getting rent-controlled apartments. Management companies that have "key fees".... which are fees the person with a high income pays, to get bumped to the top of the list when a rent-controlled apartment comes available.

Routinely, over time, the poor end up pushed out of the rent control apartments, by the elite. Those poor people, end up either homeless, or back paying the now even higher rentals fees for non-rent-contolled apartments.

There has never been a rent control law ever, that had a long term good result. Never.

 

[eagle1462010]

5 ways to solve California’s housing crisis

Yes, the experts say.

Provided Californians are willing to ease local and state barriers to development, build more high-density and affordable housing and — at least one economist dared to say — scale back Prop. 13.

In short, the state must build 3.5 million more homes by 2025, the McKinsey report concluded. That’s roughly 350,000 units a year over the next seven years, versus an average of just 85,000 homes a year over the last seven years.

“This is a fixable problem,” Woezel said. “This is not impossible.”

Not impossible, but a bitter pill for those who say California already is too congested.

1. Make it easier to build.

Speeding up the permitting process: Some reforms adopted by the Legislature last year are geared to doing just that by streamlining development reviews. The McKinsey report maintains shortening the approval process by four months could cut housing costs by at least $12 billion.

Reducing developer or “impact fees” for new construction, among the highest in the nation. A UC Berkeley study released in March showed such fees ranged from $12,000 to $75,000 per unit for multifamily construction in six select cities and from $21,000 to $156,000 per unit for houses. Such fees represent 6 percent to 18 percent of the median home price.

2. Increase density.

The McKinsey report calculated California could add 3 million to 5 million new homes by building on vacant or under-used land already zoned for apartments; building mid-rise housing near public transit stations; and adding more granny flats to people’s backyards.

About 614,000 houses also can be built on open land near existing development, using small lots to keep the price down, the report found.

“This is about densifying suburbs,” Woezel said. “Think Paris. Think London. Don’t think Manhattan.”

5. Reform Prop. 13.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234966357.html

Chiu said his bill was an opportunity to fill the legislative gap to assist renters while lawmakers figure out a construction solution to California’s 3.5 million-unit deficit after the Legislature held a major housing production measure earlier this year.

Chiu said AB 1482 would protect the “millions of Californians who are one rent increase away from eviction and homelessness.”

“This bill will prevent egregious rent gouging and predatory evictions, while striking a balance to allow landlords to make a fair rate of return,” he said during Wednesday’s floor vote. “Until we build the 3.5 million units that will stabilize our state’s housing crisis, we need to help Californians stay in their longtime homes.”

The Assembly passed the bill on an 46-22 vote. Newsom has until Oct. 13 to sign the measure.

 

[eagle1462010]

While I'm not in favor of Rent Control.............I have to ask the question is it Rent Control or stopping PRICE GOUGING.........

Under a declared State of emergency, Price gouging is against the law........My main point here is that California as for a DECADE or more been in an EMERGENCY ON HOUSING............and the owners of the property are using the LACK OF SUPPLY to CHARGE THE LIVING HELL OUT OF RENTERS...........

While it does NOTHING to stop what is needed.........3.5 to 4 million new homes..........rent caps could be used to stop PERPETUAL GOUGING...........but ONLY FOR A LIMITED TIME..........

I HATE gov't interference...........I HATE giving them too much power........and I KNOW that the government there caused this problem...........with too high taxes.........too many regulations.........too high of fees........and taking to long to get a permit to build...............but the RENTAL OWNERS have taken MASSIVE ADVANTAGE of the shortage of housing............

So for temporary measures........I'm not against it..............

As I've been saying...........but the taxes, regulations, and the fees and start building MILLIONS OF NEW HOMES..............Apartments......and etc...........as the supply comes up WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.........then the demand will slow and prices will start falling.

 

[Issa]

Homeless people are employed!

A 2017 survey of the homeless population in San Francisco
found 13 percent of respondents reporting part or full-time employment.
That's in a city with an estimated 7,499 people experiencing homelessness.

This year, an estimated 10 percent of the 4,990 people living unsheltered in San Diego
said they were currently working.

Working While Homeless: A Tough Job For Thousands Of Californians

WHY if they are working, can't they find a home?
Hmm... Rent for a 1 bedroom apt in San Francisco:
The average rent for an apartment in San Francisco is $3,733, a 3% increase compared to the previous year.
Average Rent in San Francisco & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RENTCafé

What about San Diego:
The average rent in San Diego is around $2,400/month.
Average Rent in San Diego, CA: Median Prices + Trends

In fact there are nearly 1,500 homeless in these two cities that are working!

Solution?

Every single homeless I spoke to here came from out of state. I'd say the US is the only probably country that don't have mental institutions...build those institutions and send the homeless back to their states where they can be helped, same goes for the drug addicts. Those that dont have mental or drug issues they chose to live that way. Not everybody can live in a very desirable expensive area. Heck I want to live in Malibu too.

 

[Issa]

Homeless people are employed!

A 2017 survey of the homeless population in San Francisco
found 13 percent of respondents reporting part or full-time employment.
That's in a city with an estimated 7,499 people experiencing homelessness.

This year, an estimated 10 percent of the 4,990 people living unsheltered in San Diego
said they were currently working.

Working While Homeless: A Tough Job For Thousands Of Californians

WHY if they are working, can't they find a home?
Hmm... Rent for a 1 bedroom apt in San Francisco:
The average rent for an apartment in San Francisco is $3,733, a 3% increase compared to the previous year.
Average Rent in San Francisco & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RENTCafé

What about San Diego:
The average rent in San Diego is around $2,400/month.
Average Rent in San Diego, CA: Median Prices + Trends

In fact there are nearly 1,500 homeless in these two cities that are working!

Solution?

Flush the 10 million illegal wetbacks in Mexifornia back to Mehico and TA-DA!...problem solved.

Most homeless I see with my owns in SM and we get the most are whites.

What? Engrish pleeese.

I have no idea what you were trying to say, because it wasn't coherent.

Didn't double check my typos.
I said most of the homeless i see with my own eyes here are mostly whites.

Ah ok. Makes more sense.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Sure. Depending on where you are, you will mostly see white homeless.

Statically, while whites make up 73% of the population, and blacks only make up 12%....

Only 41% of the homeless are white, while over 37% are black.

I would attribute this, to a particular counter-culture prevalent in the Black community, combined with left-wing ideology.

Between the counter-culture, where you buck social norms, and the victim mentality, being told you are unable to succeed in this country without help from your democrap overlords, the break down of the family where men are taught not to take responsibility, and women are taught they don't need a man, a level of moral-relative belief that evil isn't evil and that is just your opinion, plus am "I am owed something" view in the community....

the result is naturally poverty. And while this is particularly damaging to the black community, anyone including whites that fall for this ideology also end up in poverty.

I judge but what I see in my area. Most homeless are white mostly have mental and drug issues and are not from California, heck most people in here are not even from here originally. California is jist a place for Americans to come and have a shot at the american dream many succeed and some fail. It is called life choices.
Everyone wants the best weather, best cars, best life style.

 

[ReinyDays]

San Diego has a steep sun tax ... everything there is more expensive than about anywhere ... extremely popular place to live for the wealthy ... the problem is wages are about the same as about anyplace ... it take three families working at McDonald's to afford renting a three bedroom house ... until some rich guy comes along and offers double the rent ... now we have three homeless working class families ... and there's a lot of rich guys who want to rent a place in San Diego ...

I was homeless in San Diego when I was a kid ... and it was definitely a destination spot ... sleeping out on the warm beach sand, getting fat on restaurant left-overs, public restrooms clean and abundant ... smoking pot with the hanger rats ... a wonderful lifestyle, some of my happiest moments was homeless there ... Dharmic Bum without the railroads ... but this is still Southern California, and in Southern California if a fella doesn't own a late model car, he doesn't procreate ...so I moved to Iowa ...

Sun tax ...

 

[Gracie]

ENTAL OWNERS have taken MASSIVE ADVANTAGE of the shortage of housing............

Exactly. And until this is solved, there will always be greedy owners taking advantage of the shortage.

RENT CONTROL!!! I will not budge on this opinion.

 

[Gracie]

Just for example.....

After the paradise camp fire, they were reporting that ANYONE gouging for gas, motels, food, etc would be held accountable for taking advantage of those affected by that fire. How is it any different that home owners....the very ones AGAINST rent control, and those who did/do the same on catastrophe victims? None. There is no difference.
And..that is exactly what happened then, and will continue to happen. Carpetbaggers will gouge because they CAN. This needs to stop.

 

[Dick Foster]

Pay them a decent wage perhaps.

A decent wage can't keep up with Cali's cost of living.
The rent is just too goddamned high!

That can only be because the left wing asshats that inhabit and own that city are greedy, selfish, lying assholes who say one thing but do another.

 

[Andylusion]

ENTAL OWNERS have taken MASSIVE ADVANTAGE of the shortage of housing............

Exactly. And until this is solved, there will always be greedy owners taking advantage of the shortage.

RENT CONTROL!!! I will not budge on this opinion.

Again... historical fact.... rent control results in less living space for people.

Are you fine with even more people homeless than before?
If you are good with that, then go for your rent control.