Topic: California attempts to solve student housing crisis with-- students in cars? - page 2. (Read 460 times)

Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice.

REVISION.

There could be circumstances where a student was required to go to some place that he was in fact unable to afford.

Sometimes there is a four year program where for six months or even two years, the student is required to go to XYZ. Ocean biology is one example I know of. But there could be other cases where due to circumstances beyond his control, a student found himself in difficult circumstances.

Similar cases occur with graduate education, although there there are more commonly stipends or jobs which pay significant fraction s of the cost, unlike in undergraduate.

Of course that happens to all of us. One way or another.

Well its a matter of knowing the details of the situation.  There isn't a lack of availability of real estate or rental housing on the market.  There is plenty of supply out there.  The homeless students aren't unable to find housing near their campus.  They are unable to AFFORD housing. 

Who says the issue is how or if the government does yet one more thing for one subgroup of society?

You. Only you.

Frankly I don't see the problem. The students can go to college somewhere else. Let colleges close that are not competitive, and many of them are not.

Its because all of your "solutions" are about making conditions better for builders.  None of them actually solve the problem by providing housing for students.  If builders are only looking for profit, there is no way they will house broke students.  Also, we already have millions of vacant homes. Building more homes to be put up on airbnb is not .going to help the homeless. 

The homeless are homeless because they cannot afford housing. 

Japanese pods could work in place of dorm style housing but thats not the issue. The issue isn't what to build or how much to build.  The issue is how to fund it, and how to provide it to the students.   

You are out of touch if you think homeless college students will be able to buy or rent anywhere near market value. 

"I know most of you may not like FoxNews, but I do browse it alongside the other platforms that I'll listen to during the day. Saw this very weird headline, and in my mind this is one of the more bizarre things about California -- instead of easing regulations in an attempt to get builders to build new housing in areas -- California has announced a bill to allow homeless college students to sleep in cars on campus' (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-bill-would-let-homeless-college-students-sleep-in-cars-on-campus-amid-housing-crisis)

This seems like a pretty horrible solution to a problem that could be solved through other means. I'll list some potential solutions, and I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on it!

1. Make it easier to build - Obviously.
This is just easing the regulatory process, reducing taxes, fees, and paperwork constraints on those that want to develop within California. Speed up the approval processes for licenses and LET PEOPLE BUILD. I'm not saying to abandon safety standards or anything, that's not smart, but if you're holding up projects to hold up projects then nothing is working.

2. Don't force new builders to set aside a certain amount of units towards Rent Control. (OR LOWER THE AMOUNT NEEDED)
Rent Control is practically a naughty/bad word in the industry of builders. They don't want to be constrained with this sort of thing, as they know it's just going to bring profits down and less real estate investors are going to want to buy the properties.

3. Mandate Certain House Goals
If local government isn't going to act, the state must set a mandate to achieve a certain amount of housing by x point. Attach this sort of requirement to federal funding and force the governments to comply, or lose funding.

I'd like to see what the rest of you think about this, I'll also link the FoxNews article up above."


  California (I'm a Californian by the way) makes the most foolish decisions politically on a consistent basis.  The previous Governor of the state Jerry Brown said of one of his policies "it doesn't makes sense economically but it makes sense politically."  That about sums up how CA politicians think and act. 

Back to the students' problems.

How about Japanese style Pods?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhBiw9pgUo

You definitely haven't read Marx. Cause Das Kapital is one hell of an incredible book. As smart and interesting as it's badly written.
Very similar to Orwell without any writing ability ^^

The solution is to move to a nicer place to go to school.

Leave the idiots squabbling about their made up problems.

But the Danish government takes the property of Danish people thru taxes to give it to the students. Some of the Danish people don't like this. Many of them move out of the country.

Why not just attach housing to pursuit of first degree?  Seems like an easy way of solving the problem by doing Z instead of doing X and hoping X triggers Y which you believe encourages Z.  

Or you could look to other countries as case studies

I was simply using the data you supplied before, from the chart / site that was cited before. Though I do notice my error of failing to use the individual cities, and instead using the state as a whole. I'll come back and edit this with a real response shortly!

Does this mean that the wealthy students don't get motor homes?

 

OoooOOooo scary. Preserving death threat for posterity.

3.  I divided the 92 by 3 to arrive at 30 hours with rent being 90% of your income.  Thats assuming they really stretched their money. The numbers you have are not realistic in high demand areas of California.  Not even rent control can get you those sort of prices in the big cities.  Your numbers are more appropriate for Anaheim and Long Beach where people sleeping in cars is not as much of an issue.

The median 1BR apt:
$3600 in San Francisco
$2500 in San Jose
$2400 in Oakland
$2400 in Los Angeles

and for 2BR
$4600 in San Francisco
$3000 in San Jose
$2800 in Oakland
$3200 in Los Angeles

https://www.zumper.com/blog/rental-price-data

So you're looking at least around 900 for a 2BR split 3 ways and as much as 1500 each.  

But we are talking about money they already don't have.  We are talking about kids who can't even afford the college to begin with and its supposed to be their only way out of poverty.  The way you think college students could live in this situation (sharing apartments) is actually the way working class professionals are getting by today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIq8PO18Eso
Check out this video.  Entire new developments go to Chinese investors before they are even built.  No reason for developers build practical housing for Americans when they can build luxury condos or large family homes and collect all the cash up front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFcsFOKXsFU
Longer documentary

2. I don't see the same research on rent control personally, I think I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

3. Interesting chart, never seen something like this. Though I do think the part of this that is flawed, and not advertised (too largely) on the graph is the fact that " In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more
than 30% of income on housing" I think that's a pretty large portion of this, as most college students expenses are going to mostly be food, housing, tuition, and entertainment (which they should cut anyway if their struggling to make ends meet) To meet the current prices in California, you have to work 121 hours in the month to JUST cover this rent expense. I do think that if you were to have roomates though, as most college students do (in dorms, and apartments), this would be more feasible.

Think about a 2 bedroom, with 3 people inside which would be able to be split 3 ways now. So the Fair Market Rent (FMR) in California for a two bedroom is 1699, split 3 ways = $567(ish) for each person for the month. Working at minimum wage this would require approximately 52 hours of work to JUST cover rent. This sounds more feasible to me, though it is a large chunk of your income being spent on housing without a doubt -- which is why I think a decrease of EVEN 10 PERCENT for housing costs would be amazing to see. That would be a decrease in 10 percent of working income being spent on rent, and could either be used for other budgeting items (food, utilities, entertainment) or -- you could cut your hours for studies.

SIDE NOTE: I want to research the China thing before commenting further.

1. You are correct. I'm just saying that won't solve this particular problem of broke college students being homeless.  This would help people who are close to being able to buy a home. 

2.  Its not just a supply problem.  Its a demand problem as well.  Taking away rent controls will lead to an increase in supply, but will also allow upward movement of prices and price a lot of people out.  Rent control is the only way to have affordable housing in high-demand areas. 

3.  It sounds like you think the students are sleeping in their cars because there isn't any housing available near their schools.  Thats not the reason.  There is housing available near the school but it is far too expensive for students to afford.  Building housing near the school at market rate isn't going to affect them in any way.  Even if increased supply causes the market rate to drop a bit. 
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017_Min-Wage-Map_0.pdf

Maybe your solutions would best case scenario lead to a 10% decrease in housing costs across the board.  It would still take around 30 hours a week to allow 90% of their income to make rent.  This is based on the state average which is much cheaper than the major cities where the problem is much worse.

You have the Chinese situation wrong.  Chinese government owns all rural land and municipalities rezoned rural land to urban land and leased it to developers who built housing.  There was a TON of demand coming from people who already had homes.  These homes often sold out before projects were built.  Before the recessions, real estate was selling like hotcakes and the demand is what drove the building explosion.

IT all goes back to why houses are built.  They are built to be sold for profit.  They are not built to be occupied. 

There is demand in the US just like there was demand in China during the boom.  That demand is from professionals and investors, not from college students or working class people,  the people who need homes.

The solutions you speak of do not hurt people but they do not solve the homeless crisis.  Not one bit.

1.I understand that the properties are going to be sold, yes, but what I'm saying is that with more houses in the housing market -- prices are going to decrease. There's no way in my mind that I can be convinced that more supply, in a market which is obviously having a supply problem, is going to hurt people. I'm also not saying, in the least, that people are just going to build until everyone has their own house -- that makes little to no sense. But, builders WILL build in a market which has a supply problem and inflated prices.

2. Rent Control works if you define it a certain way. It only controlls the rents for the units it has designated, yes, can't fight you on that one. But the problem with that is that isn't the market rate for housing, so developers have less of an incentive to build in areas that have these policies which further hurts the supply problem in California.

3. My idea was more along the lines of being used in areas that have students in cars, emergency zones. Where you speed licensing and ease regulations for the ability to build more housing in an areas that desperatetly needs it.

My idea isn't like China, I'm not talking about giving lands to people -- seizing it, etc. There was little to no demand in China and an abundance of supply. -- there's demand in the US (California in this circumstance) with no supply.

1. They prefer to sell them before they even build the property but if they are rented its not going to bring the cost down so far that COLLEGE STUDENTS will be able to rent them.  Thats really preposterous.  I don't think you realize the cost of living and just how far college students are below it.  The price only comes down to the point where people are willing to pay.  There are plenty of working people who would occupy new supply before students.  There are people making 6 figures in SF who have to share rooms.  You seem to be under the impression that development will continue with sinking prices and rents until everyone has housing.  Developers don't have a goal of everyone getting housing. They would stop investing long before the supply got that high because at a certain point, commercial development and other types of investment would become more profitable.   It will never be profitable to house everyone.

2.  What do you mean it doesn't work?  The goal of rent control is not to give developers easier opportunities to make money.  The goal of rent control is to keep housing affordable for more people.  Its not the best idea but it most certainly works.  People who live in rent controlled units will attest.   There is a limited supply of land.  Letting a developer build units that will cost 5000 per month is not going to help anyone.    Those units are going to be vacation homes, AIRBNB, 2nd or 3rd homes, or investment properties.   

3. Local governments can't mandate people to build housing.  They could build housing or invest in housing but those actions require funds.  There is nothing else a government can do to make sure that housing is built.   There is no "unfunded mandate".

Your ideas are exactly what has happened in China.  Governments reallocated rural land to urban land which was sold to private developers.  These private developers built housing and wealthy people bought 1,2 or 3 homes with their savings.  Instead of holding Yuan or stocks, Chinese people have bet on holding real estate as social security with the idea that poor people will eventually afford it.   It has led to millions of homes owned but they are vacant homes that most people cannot afford. 

Chinese investors are also buying everything up in North American hot spots as well.

All they had to do to pay for it was continually devalue the yuan to compensate for all the dark money created via fraudulent inter-bank loans. All the surplus housing there and to a large degree the prices worldwide are driven up by this. Essentially it is just a mad grab for real assets before the yuan is again devalued via perpetual inflation. I am sure it is all Capitalism's fault though.

exactly communism in china has provided countless suprluss housing, they cant even fill their housing.