If supply outpaces demand, then its a buyers market. If supply and demand are equal, then it’s an optimal situation. A high demand satisfied is not a demand heavy situation. Makes no sense.
From the article:
" “Concerns expressed by individual citizens and neighborhoods with regard to overbuilding of apartments in areas where schools are already overcrowded, road congestion, waste control, overburdening and destruction of natural resources, etc. appear not to have swayed the County Commissioners and Department of Planning and Development to use caution to guard against rapid expansion,” the document reads. “ This has led to empty strip malls, partially filled office buildings, half-filled apartment housings and an outrageous number of trailer buildings surrounding schools due to overcrowding.”"
This article just came up in a Canadian newspaper. The city in question has a during academic year population of about 400k and supposedly several hundred homeless people.
They seem to be using a multipart approach to make it not such a disaster using drop in centres, there are some youth agencies and co-signing of leases in some cases to get at least some into regular housing.
I am left to wonder who really pulled up the concrete slabs; the homeless or people trying to make it difficult for them.
This is the same city about which in my Opiates thread there has been some strong nimbyism about safe injection sites. At seems in some ways at least they are doing something positive.
24 BILLION for Toronto alone. To help 300k+ people.
I was catching flak upthread for thinking it would cost CA hundreds of billions. CA has what? 6x the people of the Toronto area? 144B is pretty damn close
18 Billion USD still seems like a pretty large number considering the population
I think most versions of throwing money at a housing issue are to make use of already built areas, but it’s why CA would cost so much more per capita. Higher values hurt a lot as well.
It’ll be interesting to see how that shakes out. Those housing stimulation packages tend to work really well for the local communities. It’s still the ultimate fix to housing issues.
As a tax payer in CA and now the Seattle area I’m pretty tired of people saying to just throw more and more money at the same programs that don’t seem to be working.
I’m fine with large taxes, but I need to see a benefit. And I don’t see increases in my tax money improving the homelessness situation.
If we knew what to do, we’d be doing it. It shouldn’t take $100k/homeless person to get them off the street and turn them into a contributing member of society.
I have no problem tanking every program that currently exists and starting from scratch.
My comment has always been, that to fix California’s housing problem, you need a very authoritarian minded socially funded redistribution of wealth.
CA needs to figure out their mathing.
Garcetti adds that 21 projects are now in the works because of voter approved measure HHH. The measure is a $1.2 billion bond to be allocated to the construction of 8,000-10,000 units of clean and safe affordable housing for the homeless, according to LA Chamber of Commerce.