Garcetti planning to sell city buildings to house the homeless (Los Angeles: transporting, lease)

[jm1982]

Mayor Garcetti’s $8.7 billion Los Angeles budget includes big commitment to fight homelessness

Several developers praised Garcetti’s plan on Wednesday but said his proposal only makes sense if the city land is free or leased at a deep discount.

It costs about $400,000 to build a unit for a homeless person, a price that includes the cost of land, affordable housing developers say.

Jeremy Sidell, chief development officer and communications director at Los Angeles-based PATH Partners, an affordable housing developer and services provider, said finding affordable land in Los Angeles is a major problem.

...Sorry this might sound politically incorrect...but why are we going to build $400,000 housing units for the homeless when middle class people can't even afford to live in L.A?...

[MordinSolus]

Wouldn't a smarter approach be to buy the dilapidated buildings on the outskirts of DTLA and renovate them to house the homeless? Some of those old warehouses and factories could probably house 1,000 homeless each, and they're just sitting there in disrepair because they're too close to the bad areas of DTLA to be worth much and too big to suit the needs of many businesses. Just renovate those old ****holes, put food banks and counseling services in the area, and start transporting the homeless there from the rest of the city. There's no way that wouldn't be cheaper than building entirely new structures on fresh land and there isn't a better location than the outskirts DTLA.

[Joe Van Fossen]

Originally Posted by jm1982

It costs about $400,000 to build a unit for a homeless person, a price that includes the cost of land, affordable housing developers say.

This is an absurd figure.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

Wouldn't a smarter approach be to buy the dilapidated buildings on the outskirts of DTLA and renovate them to house the homeless? Some of those old warehouses and factories could probably house 1,000 homeless each, and they're just sitting there in disrepair because they're too close to the bad areas of DTLA to be worth much and too big to suit the needs of many businesses. Just renovate those old ****holes, put food banks and counseling services in the area, and start transporting the homeless there from the rest of the city. There's no way that wouldn't be cheaper than building entirely new structures on fresh land and there isn't a better location than the outskirts DTLA.

If you concentrate the homeless in one area all you do is create a terrible ghetto. The buildings and essential services for them should be scattered throughout the region.

Also since downtown LA has undergone a resurgence there is absolutely no way it's developers and business interests will allow the outskirts of LA to become a new dumping grounds for the homeless.

[Big-Bucks]

I would hate to live near these housing units. Haven for crime. There goes the neighborhood.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by Big-Bucks

I would hate to live near these housing units. Haven for crime. There goes the neighborhood.

Not necessarily. If it's strictly supervised and violators are thrown out it will work very well.

[MordinSolus]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

If you concentrate the homeless in one area all you do is create a terrible ghetto.

What do you think Skid Row is? At least if the homeless are all concentrated in an area where they're no longer homeless the problem will be easier to manage. And if services for those with substance and/or mental health problems are within walking distance they would be much more likely to be used.

The buildings and essential services for them should be scattered throughout the region.

Why? What advantage does that yield? Seems like it would just cause homeless people to wander around the city and lead to less of them taking advantage of the housing.

Also since downtown LA has undergone a resurgence there is absolutely no way it's developers and business interests will allow the outskirts of LA to become a new dumping grounds for the homeless.

Only a few areas of DTLA are being revitalized. Have you seen all of the slums on the outskirts? They're horror movie settings, not development opportunities. They're too far from the hip, safe spots of DTLA to be worth "revitalizing" and they're a lot further away from those spots than Skid Row is.

[boulder2015]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Also since downtown LA has undergone a resurgence there is absolutely no way it's developers and business interests will allow the outskirts of LA to become a new dumping grounds for the homeless.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense...

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Mayor Garcetti’s $8.7 billion Los Angeles budget includes big commitment to fight homelessness

Several developers praised Garcetti’s plan on Wednesday but said his proposal only makes sense if the city land is free or leased at a deep discount.

It costs about $400,000 to build a unit for a homeless person, a price that includes the cost of land, affordable housing developers say.

Jeremy Sidell, chief development officer and communications director at Los Angeles-based PATH Partners, an affordable housing developer and services provider, said finding affordable land in Los Angeles is a major problem.

...Sorry this might sound politically incorrect...but why are we going to build $400,000 housing units for the homeless when middle class people can't even afford to live in L.A?...

Welcome to dystopia.

[NewbieHere]

I think he is preparing for the $15 minimum wage. Some will be homeless.