[B0ycey]

Ignorance is bliss! San Francisco is a peninsula with no room to grow. They have to build elsewhere. Why not build free homes in cheap states where land is abundant?

There are plenty of derelict buildings in San Francisco. You buy them up and build upwards. Or you build from the outskirts. Again that is just common sense and what happens in every city around the world. Also I have told you what you can do to move demand out of the city anyway. Build a new town and subsidise business to move there. People go where jobs are. You really do need to move out your mothers basement. There is no way your knowledge of life goes beyond Reddit and Conservative social media platforms.

[B0ycey]

This wins the award for most crazoid post of the month.

Sure, because Capitalism has done so well for America and their housing needs.

[Julian658]

Sure, because Capitalism has done so well for America and their housing needs.

Sadly the major US cities are under the control of the American left. And they need victims to obtain votes.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide evidence that the homes built by private developers are in a worse state than the NYCHA ones.

No.

I am not going to do all the work for you.

If you want to argue that the NYC example is actually bad, provide evidence. Then show it is typical of rent control systems or social housing, whichever your argument is.

Your incentives argument can easily be turned against by the counterarguments I provided. From governance issues, to the incentives politicians face.

No. I replied to every counterargument you had and explained that they are all based in your lack of knowledge concerning building construction and maintenance.

I showed they caused issues in SF. As the paper says, they benefited those living in the rent-controlled properties in the first few years while harming people who are not living in those properties and who are now finding themselves with trouble finding affordable housing.

As the NYT article I linked above suggests, rent control is far from the only problem. There are also zoning regulations, including the fact that it's easy for incumbent residents to veto new development under NIMBY arguments, and that there are all sorts of fees involved in the process that make the whole thing more expensive. It's a very dysfunctional system all in all.

What do you mean by “they” here?

And again, I quote the actual text that shows that the positives were actually observed and verified, while the drawbacks were only “likely” if we assume certain things.

This is why I actually read, copied and pasted the article. You, on the other hand, provided a link and an article that dishonesty portrayed the findings of said study.

——————

@Julian658

Still waiting for evidence.

[Julian658]

There are plenty of derelict buildings in San Francisco. You buy them up and build upwards. Or you build from the outskirts. Again that is just common sense and what happens in every city around the world. Also I have told you what you can do to move demand out of the city anyway. Build a new town and subsidise business to move there. People go where jobs are. You really do need to move out your mothers basement. There is no way your knowledge of life goes beyond Reddit and Conservative social media platforms.

Most jobs in SF are high tech. Most middle to upper class people with good paying jobs cannot afford San Francisco. The concept of building homes in SF so they can work in the city is not sound.

I am fine with free homes (maintenance included) and UBI in states where the cost of living is low. I am not against the idea of a high rise building outside of town with cafeteria services and UBI. How come this is not a reality. Why must they insist to house the homeless in tents downtown? Why do they provide free drugs, syringes, alcohol, and marihuana? HOw come they do not punish petty crime by the homeless? It is a scandal of major proportions.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

You still have not supported your claim about the impossibility of building homes for the homeless in SF.

Do so now.

[Julian658]

@Julian658

You still have not supported your claim about the impossibility of building homes for the homeless in SF.

Do so now.

SF is an overcrowded peninsula and and Real Estate is very expensive. It is more practical for the environment and the homeless to live in an area where the cost of living is much less. These guys do not have jobs in the city.

[Pants-of-dog]

SF is an overcrowded peninsula and and Real Estate is very expensive. It is more practical for the environment and the homeless to live in an area where the cost of living is much less. These guys do not have jobs in the city.

This is not evidence.

Provide the evidence now.

[Rancid]

The homeless are more numerous in woke cities. But, we could say correlation is not causation.
The only thing that reduces homelessness is giving them a free home with maintenance included and UBI.

Providing free syringes drugs, alcohol, and marihuana promotes homelessness.
Allowing tents in the city promotes homelessness.

So you are saying that you don't have data saying the homeless services create more homelessness?

OF course "woke" cities will have more homeless, as they tend to offer more services for the homeless. However, that does not mean that those services CREATE homelessness.

[Julian658]

So you are saying that you don't have data saying the homeless services create more homelessness?

OF course "woke" cities will have more homeless, as they tend to offer more services for the homeless. However, that does not mean that those services CREATE homelessness.

This graph says otherwise.

[B0ycey]

Most jobs in SF are high tech. Most middle to upper class people with good paying jobs cannot afford San Francisco. The concept of building homes in SF so they can work in the city is not sound.

San Francisco has numerous jobs for all pay grades. You think there are no shops or something or do you think that nobody works in them?

I am fine with free homes (maintenance included) and UBI in states where the cost of living is low. I am not against the idea of a high rise building outside of town with cafeteria services and UBI. How come this is not a reality. Why must they insist to house the homeless in tents downtown? Why do they provide free drugs, syringes, alcohol, and marihuana? HOw come they do not punish petty crime by the homeless? It is a scandal of major proportions.

Address homelessness and you solve all these problems that come with homelessness - drugs crime, alcohol... the whole fucking lot. That is just basic common sense. Also, I told you something that the UK did in the 60s that solved the problem of overcrowding in big cities if you don't like the idea of building upwards. Build new towns and subsidise businesses so they move there. People need to live in places that have jobs. Sticking them in the desert with no employment doesn't solve anything. It just forces people back into the cities where there are jobs once they have moved. You really are obtuse and ignorant on simple labor principles.

[Julian658]

This is not evidence.

Provide the evidence now.

A 1-2 bedroom tiny apartment in SF is minimum 750K

A 3 bedroom home with a back yard is 240k elsewhere.
The homes will be built at tax payers expense.

The source is The New York Times, the most woke newspaper in America
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/C ... costs.html

[B0ycey]

This graph says otherwise.

That just shows that an app highlighted that homelessness was a bigger problem than official reports, not a surge in homelessness. Read and understand your own sources thank you.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Julian658

Still no evidence for your claim.

[Julian658]

San Francisco has numerous jobs for all pay grades. You think there are no shops or something or do you think that nobody works in them?

Stop the silly platitudes. The homeless do not have jobs downtown. Meanwhile they could work as gardeners and cooks in the country side.

[wat0n]

No.

I am not going to do all the work for you.

If you want to argue that the NYC example is actually bad, provide evidence. Then show it is typical of rent control systems or social housing, whichever your argument is.

I already showed so. Just because you have no counterarguments but denial doesn't mean I did not.

No. I replied to every counterargument you had and explained that they are all based in your lack of knowledge concerning building construction and maintenance.

No, they are based on your wishful thinking on how these things ought to work like, which is very different. Again, you are yet to provide an explanation of why is NYC's publicly owned housing stock so ran down and so much worse off than the private one that the city has to invest $32bn before it becomes cheaper to just demolish those public housing projects and build new ones from scratch (as it happened in cities like Chicago in the 1990s and 2000s).

What do you mean by “they” here?

And again, I quote the actual text that shows that the positives were actually observed and verified, while the drawbacks were only “likely” if we assume certain things.

This is why I actually read, copied and pasted the article. You, on the other hand, provided a link and an article that dishonesty portrayed the findings of said study.

Funny, do you do know that "they" refers to rent controls after all. Yes, I already called your cherry picking out, further exposing the weakness of your position here.

@B0ycey SF could build upwards, but under California law people in the community can veto those densifying projects even if the city doesn't object.

[Julian658]

@Julian658

Still no evidence for your claim.

POD the BOT is cornered. His programming will now post the same sentence at infinitum.

[B0ycey]

Stop the silly platitudes. The homeless do not have jobs downtown. Meanwhile they could work as gardeners and cooks in the country side.

Ehhh no! How about you learn something for once outside Reddit and Thedonald.win. Who is doing all the unskilled jobs if you cannot afford to live there? Bill Gates.

[Rancid]

This graph says otherwise.

This graph does not show that city services creates homelessness. There's a massive difference between attracting homeless people, counting existing homeless people, and actually CREATING (i.e. counting new) homeless people. To be able to answer the question I'm asking you, you'd need a more rigorous set of metrics and analysis. It would require a level of analysis that I'm very sure, you nor I have the qualifications to do. You have thus far failed to produce evidence to show that these services create homelessness. Which means, you are still operating off an assumption that could very well be very false. Yet, you are deciding to just believe it without evidence.

Tossing out a graph and extrapolating a far far far reaching conclusion that the data you posted does not support just simply isn't good enough to answer the question I'm posing.

I wonder if any research has even been done that could answer my question.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey SF could build upwards, but under California law people in the community can veto those densifying projects even if the city doesn't object.

So a problem with Capitalism bureaucracy??? I already knew that. When you have real-estate sponsors backing politicians nothing gets done because ultimately that is why a veto exists. Besides, I am not saying build upwards. I am saying you build homes where the jobs are and if you have to build upwards then you have to build upwards. People don't choose SF for the bloody syringes. They choose it for opportunity.