• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Putting aside your confusion on monthly versus annual rent, the pricing you are thinking of has baked in the assumption that the homeless are not participating. Every value is based on supply and demand, and there’s no such thing as a true objective numerical value for “a month of rent”. If hypothetically you have housing for a 1,000 but 1,500 people to house, then the rent is going to go up so long as 1,000 can afford what’s available, and 500 would be left out.

    Of course with more incentive, construction can happen, but just saying it’s not that simple.

    See also cost of college. Well intended measures to make financing available to everyone caused massive cost increases in universities. Any measure to try to secure these resources for everyone requires more than just throwing cash at the problem.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Yeah my math was way off.

      Putting people in tents is just ridiculous. You need to get that thought far out of your mind.

      No need for construction though as there are already more empty homes than homeless by a large margin.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I would wonder about the distribution of available housing stock. If you can place every homeless person, but to do so you tell them they have to move 80 miles to the empty house you find for them, that is likely not going to work.

        Also, they likely need more than just a roof over their heads to have a safe, healthy life. There’s a high likelihood of that housing stock being mismatched with the capacity to provide those services.