I find the comments on the site that it would have no economic demand laughable. Everything has demand the question is at what cost. If an SRO could cost 500$ a month in NYC people would jump on it.

And don't get me wrong SROs were not happy places, people living in them should just try not being to poor to have real housing (sarcasm). I think homeless issues would not be solved but at least partially mitigated if SROs with regulations could exist. I think we need to look serious at whether people living and shitting on the streets is more or less dignified than SROs

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ecconomics always depends on the situation of the person in question. I want a 100 room mansion with my own pipe organ, and whatever other "scoopy-doo" things I can dream of. I want servants to take care of it. I want... I can't afford that, but I can afford a single family house so that is what I have.

Most people living with roommates don't want that situation (here I distiguish roomates from someone you have a romantic tie with), but it is the best compromise. Roommates save money which is important when you don't have enough (hint almost nobody has enough money - even billionairs sometimes have to not buy something they want because their budget can't afford it)

SRO would solve a lot of problems. There are some people that is the only living situation they could afford. There are some people who want to spend their money on other things and so the savings from SRO enables that other thing they want. Many of those latter will "settle down and get married" in a few years thus changing their life situation, that is okay, life is not static.

	▲	bombcar 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think it's also correct (and important) to acknowledge the problems that SROs were causing, and why people turned against them in general. If you refuse to acknowledge the problem, you're doomed to repeat the cycle again when the problems start happening again. (Many of the problems can be mitigated against if you admit they exist, and work with them.)

▲

imgabe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> people living in them should just try not being to poor to have real housing

Yes, unironically, they should. And most would be trying to do exactly that.

I don’t know why some people treat economic status as some immutable property outside of your control. People move up and down in economic status all the time. And most people move up as they get older and get more work experience and higher paying jobs.

Having a stable place to live with a physical address instead of a tent, and possibly being around other people who are trying to improve their lives instead of a bunch of drug addicts would absolutely help people “not be poor”.

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most homeless have "mental issues". On a good day they will try, but they have bad days often enough. Sometimes mental issues are caused by 'hard drug' use, but there are plenty of other causes. Society has not found a good answer to these people (many of the things tried have been worse than living on the streets - despite a few freezing to death)

Some of the homeless could live in a roommate situation. Others are "so far gone" that no reasonable person would want to live with them, and they would destroy a room if allowed in one without supervision.

Homelessness is a hard problem. Anyone claiming they have a solution is wrong. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't try - just because you can't solve the problem doesn't mean you can't make things better for a subset.

▲

xphos 3 days ago | parent [-]

I appreciate not being defeatist just because people might be homeless because of drugs or mental issues. I agree that there is a good chance they might destroy a room but I think SROs as a step up from shelters would be respected by like 80% of the people in that situation at that point you can start to price in and adjust the costs of things. Common area's can be managed reducing the overall risk not to zero but even in full appartements you can get really bad tenants that can pay.

My uncle once had a tenant smear feces on the wall before leaving it was nasty but that person was homeless and I don't think think that had mental illness beyond having a break down. I think they lost there job and it was a hard time for them. Still the wall was nasty.

Ultimately SROs do not solve homelessness hence the mitigating it factor if it solves 30% of the homeless problem that would be amazing

▲

SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent [-]

My town has built several "transition" apartment buildings for the homeless to give them a "stable" place to live while they in theory get their lives together. They quickly became shitholes, residents destroyed the apartments and especially the common areas/hallways/elevators. They also let any number of acquaintances into the buildings and the apartments, further contributing to the destruction. Half the units are uninhabitable as a result.

If they had to pay rent they would at least be filtering for people who have enough stability/responsibility to have some kind of job or income.

"Just give them housing" does not work for people who have no idea how or desire to live in a house.

Living/loitering/begging/shitting on the streets should not be permitted. Institutionalization may be needed if addictions or severe mental health issues are involved. But expectations need to be higher. Sympathy for and tolerance of antisocial behavior have been utter failures.

▲

imgabe 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The thing with a boarding house is it's not targeted specifically at people who are currently homeless. It's just for anyone who wants to save money on housing. Maybe people who just moved to a new city and haven't found a place to live yet, or people who are just starting out and not making much money. It gives them a place to live before they become homeless.

It would also usually have the landlord living there, and they would be invested in the place because it's their source of income, so they aren't going to tolerate people smearing crap all over the walls or tearing out the wiring to sell for drugs or ranting and raving all night long.

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Instituions are full of terrible abuse. Freezing to death on the streets is better than institutions - that is how bad instituions end up being in practice.

I don't have a good answer to the problem.

	▲	bombcar 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It seems there has to be some amount of institutional supervision that would make them at least not as bad as freezing to death in the streets. But one of the big problems is that almost all of them forbid drugs, the very high they want, so they're a non-starter. You probably need something like "drug towns" in the California desert that provide comfortable places to overdose to death. Good luck running on that!

▲

sznio 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>People move up and down in economic status all the time.

Entropy. The fact that change happens doesn't prove that we control it.

Your wealth and health are randomized when you're born. What you do later has miniscule influence.

▲

imgabe 3 days ago | parent [-]

Do you think you could deliberately become poorer if you wanted to? If you do, why do you think you couldn't deliberately become richer?

▲

krisoft 3 days ago | parent [-]

Imagine someone running on a long conveyor belt. The belt is just fast enough that they can keep up with it, but any small mistake, hesitation, or fall means they are dragged behind. On that conveyor belt falling behind is the default state. To stay in one place one must do the right things at all times and also be lucky enough that no bad things happen to you.

This is the experience of many. The speed of the conveyor belt is why people can easily imagine falling behind (thats the diffult state!) while moving ahead is almost impossible. (It doesn’t mean that you can’t do it. From time to time someone finds a jetpack and propels themselves onto places where the conveyor belt is working slightly differently, but thats not going to be the experience of everyone.)

▲

imgabe 3 days ago | parent [-]

In reality, you choose the speed of the conveyor belt. You choose what expenses you take on and therefore how much you need to make each month. To a large part, you can slow the belt down if you like. Options like boarding houses would allow people to slow it down even more precisely if they wanted without falling off entirely.

> To stay in one place one must do the right things at all times and also be lucky enough that no bad things happen to you.

"do the right things" is really not that hard. It mostly involves not doing things like getting arrested, getting addicted to drugs, or otherwise making bad choices. It's not some crazy delicate balancing act that you're making it out to be.

	▲	bombcar 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's an almost immutable part of human nature to get into a position where you're "just getting by" - but if there's someone out there in a similar situation making less than you, you could match them dollar for dollar and have some to save. Which means that for many it's not a financial problem, it's a self-control problem. I can't afford to save, but I can afford to pay 10-20% extra on everything through credit cards.

▲

potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>if SROs with regulations could exist

Regulations are why they don't exist. Once you pile on everyone's additions to the bike shed it's an economic non starter.

	▲	xphos 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes for a reason, perhaps we got the regulations wrong and they need to be looked at. I don't think its an economic non-starter just a complex issue. SROs existed before precisely because they were economically viable. Ultimately we need to reform zoning (in the US) significantly because it has major issues related to local power having inverted incentives to solving zoning and housing concerns at the state level

▲

kmeisthax 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]