While these are great on paper, I think the part that needs solving is how to stop them from becoming dens of people who have checked out (voluntarily or not) of life/society.

Getting a place to live in for $350/mo would be absolutely game changing for low income (and even middle income) people trying to build wealth. The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as.

I have been sharing house with a roommate for years now (in Portugal), and I prefer it to living alone. Even with a girlfriend, I highly prefer to live in a house with more people.

I come from a "big" family, and I am used to movement where I live. And living alone or just with one person, makes my energy go down.

Now that I plan on moving to Paraguay, I am looking for co-living options or someone to rent place with. Different people have different preferred ways of living.

For me, it's cheaper, and I am happier, when I share place with other people. Also, you get to learn from others, have people to talk with, at the expense of a bit of privacy. But depending on the roommates you choose the privacy thing is usually not an issue.

> The downside though is that these places will invariably turn into social crack houses, rather than the sunny smilely communal life ideals they are sold as.

Ok, get rid of them, now the streets are social crack houses? What are we to do now? Perhaps the woodchipper?

I thought the entire goal was to get to a point where you're checked out? Retirement. The issue is income hasn't kept up with inflation and definitely not the rents required for older gen folks to survive on their own.

Perspective: My mother owned a home in a wealthy area of Virginia, her mortgage was $1200/mo for 30 years. When she sold it (for double what she paid for it) she thought she was rich. Then came the assisted living rent bill of $8k/mo. She realized she only has a few years to live on her life savings. It's a generational rug pull and kicking the ladder out from those climbing. It's going to end very badly.

Is it any better that somebody checks out within a SRO than a tent?

I have to imagine that at 10% of the rental market there had to be tons of drugs being done within SROs. But also that a lot of drugs were being done in the other 90% of the rental market ...

The Bay Area has lots of these places, running under the radar, which are not turning into anything bad, as they are occupied by young people working at startups.

My cousin helps run one of these as an intentional community for homeless people in New Orleans and it is not at all a social crack house.

That "problem" seems to rest within you and not them. Ugly patternalism combined with classism and a view of work more appropriate to an aristocrat towards their serfs than an inhabitant of a free country.

I think it's well and good to try to address that problem too, but it does seem like a different, although not entirely unrelated issue. What you're describing is already happening now, it's just happening in public spaces (transit stations, parks, etc) where it affects everyone.

Do we really want the government to dictate how people live their lives?

If someone wants to waste his life away, sitting around doing drugs, that should be up to him.

I mean that just sounds like bollocks to me. I house shared for years and it was just perfect. If I was going to become a crack addict just because I got cheap accommodation I mean what chance have I got?

hahahaha. A room in a house is going to cost you $1,800/month in San Francisco.

"Cheap rent sounds good on paper... but why would you work?"

[flagged]