Relocating from California to Idaho (Boise: home, vs, statistics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can only hope the lessen gets learnt and states do what's needed to get contractors building houses as fast as they can. Every state is behind the curve and next in line for increased homelessness.
Yeah, your home might not increase as fast, but the homeless population won't either.
I don't think there will ever be enough new construction to relieve the problem of the homeless.
If every state is behind the construction curve now, who will be the first occupants of every new home that's build?
The person who can afford to buy the house. And that guy won't be homeless before the house is purchased.
I tend to think the only way to put the homeless into permanent shelter is to re-purpose the empty Big Box stores that have been emptied out due to bankruptcy. If their parking lots are included, that's a lot of unused land that could be used for housing.
I don't think there will ever be enough new construction to relieve the problem of the homeless.
If every state is behind the construction curve now, who will be the first occupants of every new home that's build?
The person who can afford to buy the house. And that guy won't be homeless before the house is purchased.
I tend to think the only way to put the homeless into permanent shelter is to re-purpose the empty Big Box stores that have been emptied out due to bankruptcy. If their parking lots are included, that's a lot of unused land that could be used for housing.
You're right about the occupants of any new homes.
The empty big box stores is a great idea.
(I apologize for straying off topic, got caught up replying to a post 3-4 posts ago)
What I'd love to see, but almost assuredly won't is to see the homeless completely off all streets across the nation placed in some form of organized housing with the basic necessary facilities. Clean the streets back up and get things back to what they once were. But in "reality" I don't think it will ever actually happen. Imagine the scale of such a move in places like LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and many other cities back East. It would be a near insurmountable task, let alone cleaning up and restoring all the streets and areas these folks totally messed up at this point.
I don't think homelessness is all that related to the physical availability of housing. It's mostly down to the fact that some people for various reasons can't hold down jobs or take measures to avoid destitution - with mental illness and substance abuse high on the list. Homeless people often cluster in wealthy urban areas not because they can't afford a place there (they couldn't afford one in the cheap rural town 50 miles away either), but because there's better services and facilities, less danger and more money to be made as a beggar/hustler.
I think the CA problem of homelessness and the CA problem of domestic out-migration are related only in so far as the presence of the homeless and the 'collateral damage' caused by them reduces QOL for others who may see this as a contributing factor in their decision to leave CA.
If you ask me, the CA domestic out migration is primarily caused by the fact that the demand pressure generated by the extremely economically successful (and institutional investors who want to take advantage of it) and the inability to create supply to meet it throws the basic economics of home buying out of whack as it ripples down the economic food chain. In other words, no matter where you are economically - unless it's the top 1% - the place that'd make you happy is probably always too expensive.
And this is partly caused by CA having so many micro locales with very different circumstances each with their own supply/demand ratio. If you look at places like TX, FL and AZ you can see that there's vast expanses of pretty similar land. You could fill up the entire corridor from Dallas to OKC with identikit suburbia and whatever differentiates them (distance to amenities) can easily be rectified by building more amenities. In FL, an ocean view is a form of differentiation (somewhat moderated by hurricane risk) but beyond that you can really fill up the state with large quantities of similarly positioned housing.
Not so in CA where distance to the coast is a massive differentiator because the climate and scenery shifts so much. Many of the world's richest want to live right on the CA coast which may have the world's greatest climate/natural beauty equation. But three valleys and mountain ranges further inland the situation is very different, and that difference can't be 'fixed'. You can build a million 'affordable' homes in the Antelope Valley and it wouldn't make people stay in CA. History shows that housing too far inland and thus affordable will not satisfy the lifestyle or environmental criteria of middle-class people and thus socioeconomically tank (people want to cluster to their peer group or better, never worse.)
In addition, you have a political mix in CA where very little attention is paid to the 100k to 200k household income group. Too wealthy to benefit from much government assistance - especially when not meeting victim group criteria in non-economic ways - or be given any policy consideration. I'm not saying people with that income need charity, but in practice it certainly means that other states can provide more attractive overall packages for those people. If your choice is between a financial stretch to buy a house in Riverside or San Bernardino counties or pay less to get a much nicer house in a relatively much nicer neighborhood in another state, many will pick the latter option. It's not like whatever world class amenities and attractions Los Angeles (or San Francisco or San Diego) can offer are very accessible to people in those far-flung suburbs.
Homelessness IS affected by the cost of housing. One has to ignore basic economics to argue otherwise. As the cost of housing increases it becomes more and more difficult for those on the margins to afford. As one study put it: "When housing prices force typical households to spend more than 32 percent of their income on rent, those communities begin to experience rapid increases in homelessness." For those in the Treasure Valley, I encourage you to drive out to BLM land near urban areas and notice the growing number of people living out of cars and RVs who've recently been priced out of what was once lower cost housing.
For sure, a significant percentage of chronic homelessness is caused by addiction and or mental illness, with many unwilling to accept help, and west coast cities are to blame for failing to establish any sort of reasonable accountability. But the hidden and episodic homeless populations are what increases as people get priced out. They start by couch surfing with friends/family until this becomes too burdensome. Then they sleep in vehicles or extended stay hotels. It's a stressful existence marked by insecurity and the threat of violence. These folks are in danger of becoming chronically homeless if there's no pathway to stable housing, which in large part is a function of affordability.
Yes, the US has a large oversupply of retail space. Turning vacant big box stores and malls into shelters makes a ton of sense. But not just shelters. Dense multifamily housing of all types should be included in these spaces. Same for undeveloped lots downtown such as surface parking lots and low 1-3 level office buildings/hotels. Build up, build dense. Make room for your neighbors to live dignified and thriving lives.
It doesn't really matter who is buying new construction. Building new housing doesn't cause wealthy buyers to materialize out of thin air, just as refusing to build housing doesn't cause people to simply disappear. If we don't build luxury condos or expensive new homes then wealthy folks buy and renovate/redevelope what was once older affordable housing. I would even argue that no/slow-growth policies are like a Bat Signal to the wealthy to buy up real estate, as this becomes an implicit guarantee by the local government to rapidly drive up prices. This is why you'll find uninhabitable shacks selling for well over $1M in parts of the Bay Area.
I'm stating obvious here, but apparently it needs to be said: The only way to fix a housing shortage is to build more housing. The US has a rather large deficit of millions of housing units and it's only going to get worse unless we build a lot more at every level. Large expensive homes, little starter homes, luxury condos, small efficiency apartments, homeless shelters, etc.
OK then, more houses. After WW2 the housing boom went full bore sparked by gov. action. So what's the problem with sparking it again ?
Oft the top of my head:
1. NIMBY. People (after WWII) have become more appreciative of their natural, open spaces, and seeing them disappear under new developments just doesn't sit right with a lot of voters (incl. myself).
2. Today's lack of interest in supporting the single family homes lifestyle, and pushing for mega-apartment buildings, 5-6 stories built like fortresses with a courtyard in the middle. If you grew up in a single family home, would you want to live in such a building which may become a future low-income nightmare? Single family dwelling neighborhoods are just not being developed anymore, as far as I've seen, having just traveled through California from border to border, Oregon, and parts of Washington and Idaho. Condos and apartments are the developers' vision of the future. Cram'em in.
3. Costs. A 21st century gov't supported housing boom similar to post-WWII would be so much more expensive today, relatively speaking. No nice little affordable ranch-style 3 bedroom homes with a front yard and a backyard, and walking distance to the school. Maybe never again.
Homelessness IS affected by the cost of housing. One has to ignore basic economics to argue otherwise. As the cost of housing increases it becomes more and more difficult for those on the margins to afford. As one study put it: "When housing prices force typical households to spend more than 32 percent of their income on rent, those communities begin to experience rapid increases in homelessness." For those in the Treasure Valley, I encourage you to drive out to BLM land near urban areas and notice the growing number of people living out of cars and RVs who've recently been priced out of what was once lower cost housing.
For sure, a significant percentage of chronic homelessness is caused by addiction and or mental illness, with many unwilling to accept help, and west coast cities are to blame for failing to establish any sort of reasonable accountability. But the hidden and episodic homeless populations are what increases as people get priced out. They start by couch surfing with friends/family until this becomes too burdensome. Then they sleep in vehicles or extended stay hotels. It's a stressful existence marked by insecurity and the threat of violence. These folks are in danger of becoming chronically homeless if there's no pathway to stable housing, which in large part is a function of affordability.
Yes, the US has a large oversupply of retail space. Turning vacant big box stores and malls into shelters makes a ton of sense. But not just shelters. Dense multifamily housing of all types should be included in these spaces. Same for undeveloped lots downtown such as surface parking lots and low 1-3 level office buildings/hotels. Build up, build dense. Make room for your neighbors to live dignified and thriving lives.
It doesn't really matter who is buying new construction. Building new housing doesn't cause wealthy buyers to materialize out of thin air, just as refusing to build housing doesn't cause people to simply disappear. If we don't build luxury condos or expensive new homes then wealthy folks buy and renovate/redevelope what was once older affordable housing. I would even argue that no/slow-growth policies are like a Bat Signal to the wealthy to buy up real estate, as this becomes an implicit guarantee by the local government to rapidly drive up prices. This is why you'll find uninhabitable shacks selling for well over $1M in parts of the Bay Area.
I'm stating obvious here, but apparently it needs to be said: The only way to fix a housing shortage is to build more housing. The US has a rather large deficit of millions of housing units and it's only going to get worse unless we build a lot more at every level. Large expensive homes, little starter homes, luxury condos, small efficiency apartments, homeless shelters, etc.
Destitution causes homelessness, which can be caused by a variety of factors, as I said. But it's by no means obvious that it's destitution which causes Californians to leave CA. If it was destitute people then I don't think they'd be pushing prices upward as much as they do in places like Idaho.
FWIW there are many communities in the Midwest, Northeast and Appalachia were there's vacant homes all over the place and there's programs to destroy housing rather than to build housing. It's one of the reasons why real estate has always escaped any attempt at being controlled by central government - there's places where a tiny studio costs 750k and there's places where you can't give away a 3 bedroom house for free. People say it's the weather - but really you'd rather live out of a car in the Pacific West than have a home in Eastern Ohio? Clearly there's a lot of complex factors at play here.
I don't think homelessness is all that related to the physical availability of housing. It's mostly down to the fact that some people for various reasons can't hold down jobs or take measures to avoid destitution - with mental illness and substance abuse high on the list. Homeless people often cluster in wealthy urban areas not because they can't afford a place there (they couldn't afford one in the cheap rural town 50 miles away either), but because there's better services and facilities, less danger and more money to be made as a beggar/hustler.
I think the CA problem of homelessness and the CA problem of domestic out-migration are related only in so far as the presence of the homeless and the 'collateral damage' caused by them reduces QOL for others who may see this as a contributing factor in their decision to leave CA.
If you ask me, the CA domestic out migration is primarily caused by the fact that the demand pressure generated by the extremely economically successful (and institutional investors who want to take advantage of it) and the inability to create supply to meet it throws the basic economics of home buying out of whack as it ripples down the economic food chain. In other words, no matter where you are economically - unless it's the top 1% - the place that'd make you happy is probably always too expensive.
And this is partly caused by CA having so many micro locales with very different circumstances each with their own supply/demand ratio. If you look at places like TX, FL and AZ you can see that there's vast expanses of pretty similar land. You could fill up the entire corridor from Dallas to OKC with identikit suburbia and whatever differentiates them (distance to amenities) can easily be rectified by building more amenities. In FL, an ocean view is a form of differentiation (somewhat moderated by hurricane risk) but beyond that you can really fill up the state with large quantities of similarly positioned housing.
Not so in CA where distance to the coast is a massive differentiator because the climate and scenery shifts so much. Many of the world's richest want to live right on the CA coast which may have the world's greatest climate/natural beauty equation. But three valleys and mountain ranges further inland the situation is very different, and that difference can't be 'fixed'. You can build a million 'affordable' homes in the Antelope Valley and it wouldn't make people stay in CA. History shows that housing too far inland and thus affordable will not satisfy the lifestyle or environmental criteria of middle-class people and thus socioeconomically tank (people want to cluster to their peer group or better, never worse.)
In addition, you have a political mix in CA where very little attention is paid to the 100k to 200k household income group. Too wealthy to benefit from much government assistance - especially when not meeting victim group criteria in non-economic ways - or be given any policy consideration. I'm not saying people with that income need charity, but in practice it certainly means that other states can provide more attractive overall packages for those people. If your choice is between a financial stretch to buy a house in Riverside or San Bernardino counties or pay less to get a much nicer house in a relatively much nicer neighborhood in another state, many will pick the latter option. It's not like whatever world class amenities and attractions Los Angeles (or San Francisco or San Diego) can offer are very accessible to people in those far-flung suburbs.
You are right on the $$$ on CA coast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
