I'm sorry to be unkind, but I see that Ms. Demsas is a former debater. That would explain why she talks so fast, and why I am so stressed out listening to her speak.
Logging on to make the exact same comment. Most of it was her ratio of content to time, but Josh also let her talk for unusually long stretches. I had to listen to this podcast in three shifts.
Great interview Josh! As you pointed out, because the housing shortage is worst in left wing places we hear a lot of left wing language. (POC bodies face a disparate impact in access...)
But the common sense answer to me lines up well with old school conservative instincts. People should be able to do what they want with their own land!
I'm all for building more housing, but I'm sorry people living in encampments are very unlikely to be able to hold down jobs, pay rent, obey the laws or otherwise avoid making life miserable for their neighbors regardless of whether there are "affordable" apartments for them or not. What they need is a much more realistic social support system, institutionalization in some cases or overall a legal and social environment that doesnt indulge their deviant and self destructive behaviors. There is an abundance of homeless on the west coast because guilt addled liberals and progressive masochists there refuse to set limits, enforce laws and defend public spaces and public order.
I think one of the primary arguments for abundant and less expensive housing with respect to homelessness is that it makes it harder for those who don't own or rent to slide from a transient state of homelessness to a more permanent one. It's easier and more tolerable to crash in your parent's spare bedroom or at a friend's house when the marginal cost of said bedroom isn't insanely high.
Agreed. It might also be the case if we're looking for just so stories that shelters (ceteris paribus) are harder to build where housing costs are really really high. So in that way, high RE prices "lead to" homelessness.
But we've got to recognize the correlation is weak here. Many many things have to be true about a person who ends up in an "encampment" besides "can't afford rents". Normal mentally healthy non drug addicted people down on their luck or out of options don't go there.
They'll try to live out of their car for a time or camp out out of town in a public woods or even a cheap campground if available. (Most campgrounds have stay limits for just this reason!) There's all sorts of youtube videos and even movies about living this lifestyle.
Maybe those sorts of homeless benefit from housing first policies. But a major criticism of those policies is that those kinds of people are much less likely than the severely mentally ill or drug addicted to need permanent housing. Unless they really like the romance of the nomadic lifestyle they can usually get themseves back on their feet.
I suppose one could argue that high housing prices make it harder for a person living in their car to afford an apartment. But won't those people eventually get back on their feet and get a job and a room somewhere or drive somewhere they can afford?
This seems like an entirely different problem than the hard-core problem.you see in Tenderloin which has little or nothing to do with housing prices but almost everything to do with the fact that we have too few realistic options to deal effectively and humanely with severely mentally ill and substance abusers.
I think you're party right. But a lot of the people in the camps would have lived in an SRO (or an old-fashioned flophouse) in years past. Those places could be 90% as scary as a camp.
It's just not convincing to blame homelessness on housing costs. If people can't afford SF or Seattle rents, they move in with relatives or leave the area entirely. What they don't do is move into homeless encampments which are for drug addicts or severely mentally ill who would be institutionalized if liberal cities were run effectively. This guest was really annoying to listen to and very unconvincing on this point.
This doesn't make sense to me. Is the gap between the homeless rates in California vs Mississippi/West Virginia because the red states have some enormous number of people forcibly institutionalized? I think it's reasonable to suggest that lack of affordable housing can set people on a path that leads to homelessness, especially because drug addiction/mental illness also occur in lower-cost states that have lower homelessness rates.
No it's because other states make it harder to be homeless. Even New York tries to force homeless into shelters or did. California just indulges them all but inviting them to come and camp out on the streets.
Thanks not exactly true. There are homeless shelters in California, at least in the Bay Area where I live. The issue is 1) there are more homeless than can fit in the shelters and 2) many people in that homeless situation are not well suited to a massive congregant settings. It also helps that the weather is more amenable to living unsheltered here. Winter is the worst time where the tempatures drop to almost freezing, and the only time of year we can get significant rain.
The bar to be be homeless in the Bay Area is much lower than most places in the country. I have known a number of working homeless. People who are working full time, and still living on the edge without permanent housing. Most people making minimum wage in this region (which in most cities around here is about $15-$17/hour) can only afford to live here by renting a room in someone's home, or sharing a home or apartment with someone. If you don't have the social skills to manage such tight quarters, you will find ourself on the street. Many use vehicles as their housing, but (unlike the suggestion California coddles the homeless), most cities restrict 'car camping'. The one thing that has eased things a bit was the push during the pandemic to aquire old hotels and start housing people there. Most of these programs set rents based on the person's income. This works, because like I said, we have a very large working homeless population. If we had enough housing stock, we wouldn't need to have these programs. If there were places you could get a studio apartment for $600/month we could reduce the homeless issue back down to those with mental issues, and the temporary homeless who were just down on their luck for 6 months before they got back on their feet. Right now that studio figure is closer to $2000/month.
(I should note that for home ownership you will need to carry close to $1,000,000 mortgage -- that's with a healthy down payment. That's why house rents are $4000-$6000/month. A mortgage on that house is going to be $10,000/month).
Since in some quarters second homes are considered especially disgusting, and Fire Island has many second homes, can we count on Josh to support building high-rise public housing there?
Fire Island has no sewer system and vehicular access is only possible by driving oversand on the beach. Building a road is impossible because the area between the towns is federally-protected national seashore. So, any kind of high-rise development would be impractical given the infrastructure -- before even discussing the hurricane risk.
But I do think Provincetown is under-zoned and under-developed.
Many expensive places on the coast use similar justifications to ban anything they don't like. Sounds awfully close to a NIMBY defense of Fire Island from Josh! I'd like to hear more about this since *duplexes are banned.*
> (2) Prohibited uses. (i) The construction or expansion of an apartment building or other building with multiple dwelling units or conversion of an existing building into a multiple family home is prohibited.
There's no question rents and too high and wages are too low. And I would support some form of subsidized housing for non-addicts who can genuinely hold down jobs, though I seriously doubt that is a significant portion of homeless in CA.
But look, you find people on the streets of SF who came from all over the country for the effectively decriminalized drugs, the non-enforcement of camping laws and other petty crime and the hundreds of dollars a month in welfare and food stamps you get. In that scenario, talking about rents and housing costs is absurd--it's like public spaces must be held hostage to this army of squatters until progressives achieve their demands for whatever the latest utopian social goal du jour is. As a result, SF has turned itself into a homeless magnet through its warped sense of "compassion"; because of progressives, it has made itself the dumping ground for human debris that other sane parts of the country are fed up with.
Truth is most of want the same thing so here me out...
the reality where I live is that some homeless people here are given tickets from big cities, to get them out of their city (or solve their homeless issue). I know this because I have asked some homeless people I have seen through my work how they got here. Allot of mental/drug/traumatic past issues.
Some are just people who choose too, because they don’t mind living in their car when rent is so high
I see this issue broken down as:
There will always be people in society who can’t/won’t work will need assistance and generally is dependent on society from choice or from circumstance
We pay for them through services police/hospitalization/ in view (live in public spaces) wether we help them or not, what is more expensive but also what is least expensive for society
But their are also people who if helped could have productive lives and could contribute to society sometimes not always monetarily but maybe in other ways arts (life shouldn’t be determined by just money)
I think the best statement here is that politicians need to do more to support these communities from public health/housing etc and as a society we need to also find ways to support one another for those who are friends or family
Your gonna have to pay for it wether you like it or not blue or red state
There will always be people if given the choice will live on our beach with their trash while your family tries to enjoy the space as well, you pay for their hospital stay, and often they take up police time
So what do we do?
Cuz nothing sounds cool but truth is that isn’t an option you or we already are
I appreciate the rapport you guys have and enjoy the fast delvery from both of you. I pause from time to time so my brain can catch up but am happy to dive back in.
I'm sorry to be unkind, but I see that Ms. Demsas is a former debater. That would explain why she talks so fast, and why I am so stressed out listening to her speak.
Logging on to make the exact same comment. Most of it was her ratio of content to time, but Josh also let her talk for unusually long stretches. I had to listen to this podcast in three shifts.
.75x speed made it a lot easier to digest
lol I'll give it another shot
Great interview Josh! As you pointed out, because the housing shortage is worst in left wing places we hear a lot of left wing language. (POC bodies face a disparate impact in access...)
But the common sense answer to me lines up well with old school conservative instincts. People should be able to do what they want with their own land!
Just really hard to watch/listen to these periodic hard left turns.
A redefining of "democracy" to make a point does not make it so.
I'm all for building more housing, but I'm sorry people living in encampments are very unlikely to be able to hold down jobs, pay rent, obey the laws or otherwise avoid making life miserable for their neighbors regardless of whether there are "affordable" apartments for them or not. What they need is a much more realistic social support system, institutionalization in some cases or overall a legal and social environment that doesnt indulge their deviant and self destructive behaviors. There is an abundance of homeless on the west coast because guilt addled liberals and progressive masochists there refuse to set limits, enforce laws and defend public spaces and public order.
I think one of the primary arguments for abundant and less expensive housing with respect to homelessness is that it makes it harder for those who don't own or rent to slide from a transient state of homelessness to a more permanent one. It's easier and more tolerable to crash in your parent's spare bedroom or at a friend's house when the marginal cost of said bedroom isn't insanely high.
Agreed. It might also be the case if we're looking for just so stories that shelters (ceteris paribus) are harder to build where housing costs are really really high. So in that way, high RE prices "lead to" homelessness.
But we've got to recognize the correlation is weak here. Many many things have to be true about a person who ends up in an "encampment" besides "can't afford rents". Normal mentally healthy non drug addicted people down on their luck or out of options don't go there.
They'll try to live out of their car for a time or camp out out of town in a public woods or even a cheap campground if available. (Most campgrounds have stay limits for just this reason!) There's all sorts of youtube videos and even movies about living this lifestyle.
Maybe those sorts of homeless benefit from housing first policies. But a major criticism of those policies is that those kinds of people are much less likely than the severely mentally ill or drug addicted to need permanent housing. Unless they really like the romance of the nomadic lifestyle they can usually get themseves back on their feet.
I suppose one could argue that high housing prices make it harder for a person living in their car to afford an apartment. But won't those people eventually get back on their feet and get a job and a room somewhere or drive somewhere they can afford?
This seems like an entirely different problem than the hard-core problem.you see in Tenderloin which has little or nothing to do with housing prices but almost everything to do with the fact that we have too few realistic options to deal effectively and humanely with severely mentally ill and substance abusers.
I think you're party right. But a lot of the people in the camps would have lived in an SRO (or an old-fashioned flophouse) in years past. Those places could be 90% as scary as a camp.
It's just not convincing to blame homelessness on housing costs. If people can't afford SF or Seattle rents, they move in with relatives or leave the area entirely. What they don't do is move into homeless encampments which are for drug addicts or severely mentally ill who would be institutionalized if liberal cities were run effectively. This guest was really annoying to listen to and very unconvincing on this point.
This doesn't make sense to me. Is the gap between the homeless rates in California vs Mississippi/West Virginia because the red states have some enormous number of people forcibly institutionalized? I think it's reasonable to suggest that lack of affordable housing can set people on a path that leads to homelessness, especially because drug addiction/mental illness also occur in lower-cost states that have lower homelessness rates.
No it's because other states make it harder to be homeless. Even New York tries to force homeless into shelters or did. California just indulges them all but inviting them to come and camp out on the streets.
Thanks not exactly true. There are homeless shelters in California, at least in the Bay Area where I live. The issue is 1) there are more homeless than can fit in the shelters and 2) many people in that homeless situation are not well suited to a massive congregant settings. It also helps that the weather is more amenable to living unsheltered here. Winter is the worst time where the tempatures drop to almost freezing, and the only time of year we can get significant rain.
The bar to be be homeless in the Bay Area is much lower than most places in the country. I have known a number of working homeless. People who are working full time, and still living on the edge without permanent housing. Most people making minimum wage in this region (which in most cities around here is about $15-$17/hour) can only afford to live here by renting a room in someone's home, or sharing a home or apartment with someone. If you don't have the social skills to manage such tight quarters, you will find ourself on the street. Many use vehicles as their housing, but (unlike the suggestion California coddles the homeless), most cities restrict 'car camping'. The one thing that has eased things a bit was the push during the pandemic to aquire old hotels and start housing people there. Most of these programs set rents based on the person's income. This works, because like I said, we have a very large working homeless population. If we had enough housing stock, we wouldn't need to have these programs. If there were places you could get a studio apartment for $600/month we could reduce the homeless issue back down to those with mental issues, and the temporary homeless who were just down on their luck for 6 months before they got back on their feet. Right now that studio figure is closer to $2000/month.
(I should note that for home ownership you will need to carry close to $1,000,000 mortgage -- that's with a healthy down payment. That's why house rents are $4000-$6000/month. A mortgage on that house is going to be $10,000/month).
Since in some quarters second homes are considered especially disgusting, and Fire Island has many second homes, can we count on Josh to support building high-rise public housing there?
Fire Island has no sewer system and vehicular access is only possible by driving oversand on the beach. Building a road is impossible because the area between the towns is federally-protected national seashore. So, any kind of high-rise development would be impractical given the infrastructure -- before even discussing the hurricane risk.
But I do think Provincetown is under-zoned and under-developed.
Many expensive places on the coast use similar justifications to ban anything they don't like. Sounds awfully close to a NIMBY defense of Fire Island from Josh! I'd like to hear more about this since *duplexes are banned.*
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title36-vol1/pdf/CFR-2017-title36-vol1-part28.pdf
> (2) Prohibited uses. (i) The construction or expansion of an apartment building or other building with multiple dwelling units or conversion of an existing building into a multiple family home is prohibited.
There's no question rents and too high and wages are too low. And I would support some form of subsidized housing for non-addicts who can genuinely hold down jobs, though I seriously doubt that is a significant portion of homeless in CA.
But look, you find people on the streets of SF who came from all over the country for the effectively decriminalized drugs, the non-enforcement of camping laws and other petty crime and the hundreds of dollars a month in welfare and food stamps you get. In that scenario, talking about rents and housing costs is absurd--it's like public spaces must be held hostage to this army of squatters until progressives achieve their demands for whatever the latest utopian social goal du jour is. As a result, SF has turned itself into a homeless magnet through its warped sense of "compassion"; because of progressives, it has made itself the dumping ground for human debris that other sane parts of the country are fed up with.
So glad to see the pod back on my feed! Great conversation with Jerusalem.
I loved this episode.
I live in Hawaii so label me whatever you want...
Truth is most of want the same thing so here me out...
the reality where I live is that some homeless people here are given tickets from big cities, to get them out of their city (or solve their homeless issue). I know this because I have asked some homeless people I have seen through my work how they got here. Allot of mental/drug/traumatic past issues.
Some are just people who choose too, because they don’t mind living in their car when rent is so high
I see this issue broken down as:
There will always be people in society who can’t/won’t work will need assistance and generally is dependent on society from choice or from circumstance
We pay for them through services police/hospitalization/ in view (live in public spaces) wether we help them or not, what is more expensive but also what is least expensive for society
But their are also people who if helped could have productive lives and could contribute to society sometimes not always monetarily but maybe in other ways arts (life shouldn’t be determined by just money)
I think the best statement here is that politicians need to do more to support these communities from public health/housing etc and as a society we need to also find ways to support one another for those who are friends or family
Your gonna have to pay for it wether you like it or not blue or red state
There will always be people if given the choice will live on our beach with their trash while your family tries to enjoy the space as well, you pay for their hospital stay, and often they take up police time
So what do we do?
Cuz nothing sounds cool but truth is that isn’t an option you or we already are
What could we do to make it better for everyone?
I appreciate the rapport you guys have and enjoy the fast delvery from both of you. I pause from time to time so my brain can catch up but am happy to dive back in.