patrick.net

Then we would have to give them money for utilities, taxes, HO insurance, home repairs and mortgage.

Homeless people suck at making ANY money.

Stop propping up housing prices and rents and there will be fewer homeless.

Dan8267 says

Stop propping up housing prices and rents and there will be fewer homeless.

I see this a lot, but I see no evidence that any entity is propping up housing prices. Or could prop up housing prices.

Low interest rates do not correlate with higher prices. Bailing out banks and modifying mortgages didn't prop up prices or rents. They kept the home owner occupied rather than a rental, but both home and rental prices are determined by supply and demand. The best (only?) way to reduce housing prices is build more.

tr6 says

And it's why the simplest solution to ending homelessness — giving them homes — makes so much sense.

If this is the case, I'll become homeless to get my home. That will be cheaper than what I'm doing now (working to be able buy one).

tatupu70 says

The best (only?) way to reduce housing prices is build more.

Not always true. Look at China. They have an oversupply of housing and prices still went up in a bubble.

The point of the article is some homeless are costing 100K a year and there could be a better way to deal with it.

tatupu70 says

The best (only?) way to reduce housing prices is build more.

I agree with that, but contrary to the rest of your comment the unprecedented federal intervention in 2010 had the express purpose and direct effect of causing housing prices to rebound. Read PatNet from that era, I'm not going to link everything again and play trolling games, but it's obvious that government at every level intervened to prop up house prices.

curious2 says

I agree with that, but contrary to the rest of your comment the unprecedented federal intervention in 2010 had the express purpose and direct effect of causing housing prices to rebound. Read PatNet from that era, I'm not going to link everything again and play trolling games, but it's obvious that government at every level intervened to prop up house prices.

The intervention definitely had stabilizing housing prices as one of its goals, but I am of the (granted, minority) opinion that it had very little effect. I've been on pat.net since before that era so I'm well aware of what was being written at that time. Most are convinced that low rates cause housing prices to rise or that the Fed sets mortgage rates--I think both of those "accepted truths" are patently and provably false. Additionally, most believe that housing prices would have continued falling dramatically had their been no intervention in the housing market despite the huge numbers of investors buying large numbers of houses to rent. Those same investors stated publicly that their biggest obstacle was finding more houses to buy--clearly those investors set a floor on housing prices with or without any intervention. When the ROI on housing got high enough--there was more enough demand to stop it from falling any further.

The comment I answered was w.r.t. both housing prices and rents. While prices may rise faster than rents or vice versa over the short term, they will eventually even out.

And enough with your trolling nonsense. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a troll. Even if they ask a rhetorical question.

tr6 says

They have an oversupply of housing and prices still went up in a bubble.

Were you asleep in real estate class? "Location Location Location"

Plus a nation of 1.3 billion people is not going to have an oversupply of housing, LOL

tatupu70 says

Most are convinced that low rates cause housing prices to rise or that the Fed sets mortgage rates--I think both of those "accepted truths" are patently and provably false.

I agree with this, with the caveat that the mass ejection of bubble homeowners 2008-2010 put upward pressure on the rental market and thus prices.

ceteris paribus, low rates cause home prices to rise, since the price we pay is derived from the monthly loan payment.

if rates were 0%, home prices would rise a lot.

if rates were 20% like 1981, home prices would fall a lot.

but rates are not set in a vacuum so nothing is ceteris paribus.

tr6 says

The point of the article is some homeless are costing 100K a year and there could be a better way to deal with it.

Cut police, hospitals, and other services salaries?

Round them up and ship them to Detroit. Plenty of houses to give there.