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

You can't have capitalism without capital. and since the  1970s the City of London bankers have been removing capital, and taking control of assets all over the world. Fractional reserve banking, and the removal of debt restriction have caused massive inflation in asset values. The sale of government assets to the CoL trusts held in tax havens has made it harder for local authorities to continue to provide subsidised services.

I wouldn't fancy living in a car, but a custom modified large van does have a lot of appeal for me at the moment. It would be a better idea for students than the converted sea containers that are on the increase in many areas.

Not sure private colleges mean what I think it means... I know that "private schools" in England aren't what I call private school in France 

Let's same I'm 100% against any educational institution owned by private individuals yup.

Ok I'll break it down for you:
With private schooling, ability to enter a school depends first on your ability to afford this school. Hence it depends on your parents wealth which is not related to your skills and abilities at all. Hence in private schooling, next generation receives an education depending not on their abilities but on unrelated factors (wealth).

It means that in the end, private schooling is not efficient in a meritocratic aspect and will produce a generation where education is not given towards the best able but the more wealthy.

If you don't see the link between capitalism and the choice for a private school to take a rich bad student rather than a good poor student, I can't really do anything for you.

And this is to add towards the fact that without help from the state poor people won't even be able to afford the cost of being a student (food, house, transports...).

So now you are against private colleges?

Except for a select few situations, I'm unable to connect any dots between capitalism and colleges. You are showing complete ignorance of how these systems work in the West.

Cool.

So you're ok for a system where your education don't depend on your abilities but on your parents wealth.

Please tell me again how capitalism is great at making the most out of human abilities?

Right, we should fix a problem created by government with .... more government.

More reason for government funded tuition. 

^^^ ... usually because they can't afford the drugs they are using. But a lot of the time government helps them with welfare checks.

We ALWAYS HAVE HAD such schools...

I recall considering Harvard and rejecting making an app because of the cost.

Numerous other schools, too. And housing cost was a big part of it.

duh....

The real problems with colleges are quite different than this piece of fake news, incidentally. It has to do with the way total college costs have zoomed out of sight, while, our friends in government made sure that the students could go on into debt accordingly. Feeding the monster. And the unlimited debt has encouraged colleges to increase costs.

America shows them a much developed country to the outside world. Within the nation they've got lots and lots of issues. Homeless in America keeps on increasing with more and more people on the streets with temporary tents. As a part students have now begun to lead their lives on cars. The reason for the crisis is the increased housing rents that low salaried users can't afford.

You kind of avoided the yes or no question here:

How about that. Ghettos are getting expensive too!

And all those whining students that think they deserve to live in Hollywood!

....somehow I can't buy this victim mentality, sorry....

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/C9QURbpQUF2CZAvFF3dkJEVT-RM=/0x0:1000x994/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1000x994):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8720935/LosAngeles_MonthlyPriceMedianMap_Summer2017.png
UCLA is in westwood.  USC is in south los angeles "south central" and that "ghetto" still costs well over 1100 for a 1 bedroom.  

The point is, it doesn't matter which part of the city you go to, broke college students cannot afford to live anywhere within driving distance of SF, Los Angeles, or any major city.  

I want to argue that students have a right to live near whatever school they are attending.

What's so hard to understand? Leave the market alone without any government intereference and you WILL have schools poor students can't afford to go. yes or no?

Sorry, reality differs.

Los Angeles.

UCLA is over by Hollywood.
USC is right in the ghetto.
U of LA is downtown.

You want to argue that the students have "a right" to live in Hollywood?

american capitalists have become just a bunch of losers and scammers that try to scam foreigners mexicans or other hard working people, crushing down every resistance with "political correctness"

if the germans and the japanese and later the chinese wouldnt have constantly funded their debt, and the arabs pay for their usd with oil

they would have never become as influential as they are now.

i am affraid that

everyone that trusts those urban shitcoin offerings will end up being their idiot.

and i seriously hate using that term "shitcoin" its to close assosiated with the bitcoin pow cultists

Yes you are...

When saying "don't do anything and just let the market do" you're simply saying "poor students will go to schools in poor areas".

In short you're saying that really poor students will never go to big city schools.

The rest only depends on what exactly you say with "poor" and "big city" but the idea is the same.

No nobody is saying "any school in a big city."

Well cost aside, its still an equity issue.  You are telling people they cannot go to any school in a big city which happens to be where most of the best schools and job opportunities are.

No, that's not what is happening. In the USA west coast some areas are way overpriced, largely because of pricing being bid up from foreign investors. Areas of and around Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Francisco. There are others, of course.

But there are many reasonably priced and low priced areas, great places to live, with low crime rates. Basically it's ONLY a few select areas that have the problem of the title of this thread.

It might be argued that someone in CA going to Oklahoma for college would be a victim because he would have to pay higher out of state tuition. But there are many areas in CA that are reasonably priced. It's a big state.

Yeah exactly. I mean who cares about poors not being able to chose their college adequatly to their skills and potential but adequatly to their geographical location because they're unable to pay a rent?

Let the poor go to the colleges close to their area. Which will be the worst possible colleges as they're colleges close to poor areas.

So poors will go to shit college and rich to the best college.

It seems like a pretty fair deal to me. They have "freedom of choice".

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.

1. You're, wrongly, thinking that real estate developers aren't going to go ahead and rent the properties out. This influx of supply will bring down cost for all properties, meaning that college students would be able to purchase properties in different areas.

Also, I would love to eliminate regulations so everyone has an equal playing field when it comes to building. I don't want big businesses having a larger influence over building authorities licensing department just cause they're able to lobby with more funds.

2. Rent Control doesn't work, it just deters builders from building in certain areas if they must have a certain # of units be rent controlled.

3. No. That's not what I said at all. What I was stating was that State governments, who already contribute funds to local governments for different things, must set up an unfunded mandated to increase housing -- attached to current funding to local governments.

True, California is just in the news the most for it.

Of course capitalism is at fault.  
Just like Bush caused all of Obama's problems.  
Just like Obama is responsible for all of Trump's success.  

Maybe if you keep telling the lie long enough it'll become truth.

California is my home.  When my parents immigrated here in the 70's it was the pinnacle of the American Dream.  Now middle class families are as rare as Uhaul trucks.  

1.  You are assuming that if new housing is built, students would be able to afford that new housing which is not the case.  New housing would mostly be gobbled up by investors and the remainder would be split between first time home buyers, and professionals currently living with roommates.  Just because new housing is built, doesn't mean students who cannot even afford to be in school to begin with, will suddenly be able to afford said new housing.  

This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects.  Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers.  

2.  Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up.  This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable.  Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.

3.  So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.  

 In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage.  All of your solutions are centered around building more housing.  It doesn't solve the actual problem.  

The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas.   This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US.  

I don't see this in the least, other parts of the USA don't have these sorts of issues (or at least to the same degree)

This is without a doubt an issue of over government regulation. Which could be solved by allowing Capitalism to thrive.

Interesting... most Socialist place in the US... "CAPITALISM IS AT FAULT!"

Marx was a functionally retarded, hypocritical, incompetent, boiled-assed, leech of a man with zero principles.

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

At this point I think we should just split Commifornia from the rest of the nation and push it off into the ocean.

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.