The answer to homelessness and homeownership is supply, with Jerusalem Demsas
www.joshbarro.com
Listen now (52 min) | Dear readers and listeners, A few weeks back, I wrote about the ethic of homeownership, and how I think it is unlikely to be dislodged from American society. If we’re going to improve our housing policy and ensure more adequate supply, we’re going to have to work
I'm sorry to be unkind, but I see that Ms. Demsas is a former debater. That would explain why she talks so fast, and why I am so stressed out listening to her speak.
Great interview Josh! As you pointed out, because the housing shortage is worst in left wing places we hear a lot of left wing language. (POC bodies face a disparate impact in access...)
But the common sense answer to me lines up well with old school conservative instincts. People should be able to do what they want with their own land!
I'm all for building more housing, but I'm sorry people living in encampments are very unlikely to be able to hold down jobs, pay rent, obey the laws or otherwise avoid making life miserable for their neighbors regardless of whether there are "affordable" apartments for them or not. What they need is a much more realistic social support system, institutionalization in some cases or overall a legal and social environment that doesnt indulge their deviant and self destructive behaviors. There is an abundance of homeless on the west coast because guilt addled liberals and progressive masochists there refuse to set limits, enforce laws and defend public spaces and public order.
It's just not convincing to blame homelessness on housing costs. If people can't afford SF or Seattle rents, they move in with relatives or leave the area entirely. What they don't do is move into homeless encampments which are for drug addicts or severely mentally ill who would be institutionalized if liberal cities were run effectively. This guest was really annoying to listen to and very unconvincing on this point.
Since in some quarters second homes are considered especially disgusting, and Fire Island has many second homes, can we count on Josh to support building high-rise public housing there?
There's no question rents and too high and wages are too low. And I would support some form of subsidized housing for non-addicts who can genuinely hold down jobs, though I seriously doubt that is a significant portion of homeless in CA.
But look, you find people on the streets of SF who came from all over the country for the effectively decriminalized drugs, the non-enforcement of camping laws and other petty crime and the hundreds of dollars a month in welfare and food stamps you get. In that scenario, talking about rents and housing costs is absurd--it's like public spaces must be held hostage to this army of squatters until progressives achieve their demands for whatever the latest utopian social goal du jour is. As a result, SF has turned itself into a homeless magnet through its warped sense of "compassion"; because of progressives, it has made itself the dumping ground for human debris that other sane parts of the country are fed up with.
Truth is most of want the same thing so here me out...
the reality where I live is that some homeless people here are given tickets from big cities, to get them out of their city (or solve their homeless issue). I know this because I have asked some homeless people I have seen through my work how they got here. Allot of mental/drug/traumatic past issues.
Some are just people who choose too, because they don’t mind living in their car when rent is so high
I see this issue broken down as:
There will always be people in society who can’t/won’t work will need assistance and generally is dependent on society from choice or from circumstance
We pay for them through services police/hospitalization/ in view (live in public spaces) wether we help them or not, what is more expensive but also what is least expensive for society
But their are also people who if helped could have productive lives and could contribute to society sometimes not always monetarily but maybe in other ways arts (life shouldn’t be determined by just money)
I think the best statement here is that politicians need to do more to support these communities from public health/housing etc and as a society we need to also find ways to support one another for those who are friends or family
Your gonna have to pay for it wether you like it or not blue or red state
There will always be people if given the choice will live on our beach with their trash while your family tries to enjoy the space as well, you pay for their hospital stay, and often they take up police time
So what do we do?
Cuz nothing sounds cool but truth is that isn’t an option you or we already are
I appreciate the rapport you guys have and enjoy the fast delvery from both of you. I pause from time to time so my brain can catch up but am happy to dive back in.
I'm sorry to be unkind, but I see that Ms. Demsas is a former debater. That would explain why she talks so fast, and why I am so stressed out listening to her speak.
Great interview Josh! As you pointed out, because the housing shortage is worst in left wing places we hear a lot of left wing language. (POC bodies face a disparate impact in access...)
But the common sense answer to me lines up well with old school conservative instincts. People should be able to do what they want with their own land!
Just really hard to watch/listen to these periodic hard left turns.
A redefining of "democracy" to make a point does not make it so.
I'm all for building more housing, but I'm sorry people living in encampments are very unlikely to be able to hold down jobs, pay rent, obey the laws or otherwise avoid making life miserable for their neighbors regardless of whether there are "affordable" apartments for them or not. What they need is a much more realistic social support system, institutionalization in some cases or overall a legal and social environment that doesnt indulge their deviant and self destructive behaviors. There is an abundance of homeless on the west coast because guilt addled liberals and progressive masochists there refuse to set limits, enforce laws and defend public spaces and public order.
It's just not convincing to blame homelessness on housing costs. If people can't afford SF or Seattle rents, they move in with relatives or leave the area entirely. What they don't do is move into homeless encampments which are for drug addicts or severely mentally ill who would be institutionalized if liberal cities were run effectively. This guest was really annoying to listen to and very unconvincing on this point.
Since in some quarters second homes are considered especially disgusting, and Fire Island has many second homes, can we count on Josh to support building high-rise public housing there?
There's no question rents and too high and wages are too low. And I would support some form of subsidized housing for non-addicts who can genuinely hold down jobs, though I seriously doubt that is a significant portion of homeless in CA.
But look, you find people on the streets of SF who came from all over the country for the effectively decriminalized drugs, the non-enforcement of camping laws and other petty crime and the hundreds of dollars a month in welfare and food stamps you get. In that scenario, talking about rents and housing costs is absurd--it's like public spaces must be held hostage to this army of squatters until progressives achieve their demands for whatever the latest utopian social goal du jour is. As a result, SF has turned itself into a homeless magnet through its warped sense of "compassion"; because of progressives, it has made itself the dumping ground for human debris that other sane parts of the country are fed up with.
So glad to see the pod back on my feed! Great conversation with Jerusalem.
I loved this episode.
I live in Hawaii so label me whatever you want...
Truth is most of want the same thing so here me out...
the reality where I live is that some homeless people here are given tickets from big cities, to get them out of their city (or solve their homeless issue). I know this because I have asked some homeless people I have seen through my work how they got here. Allot of mental/drug/traumatic past issues.
Some are just people who choose too, because they don’t mind living in their car when rent is so high
I see this issue broken down as:
There will always be people in society who can’t/won’t work will need assistance and generally is dependent on society from choice or from circumstance
We pay for them through services police/hospitalization/ in view (live in public spaces) wether we help them or not, what is more expensive but also what is least expensive for society
But their are also people who if helped could have productive lives and could contribute to society sometimes not always monetarily but maybe in other ways arts (life shouldn’t be determined by just money)
I think the best statement here is that politicians need to do more to support these communities from public health/housing etc and as a society we need to also find ways to support one another for those who are friends or family
Your gonna have to pay for it wether you like it or not blue or red state
There will always be people if given the choice will live on our beach with their trash while your family tries to enjoy the space as well, you pay for their hospital stay, and often they take up police time
So what do we do?
Cuz nothing sounds cool but truth is that isn’t an option you or we already are
What could we do to make it better for everyone?
I appreciate the rapport you guys have and enjoy the fast delvery from both of you. I pause from time to time so my brain can catch up but am happy to dive back in.