
Turns out claims Airbnb was taking houses out of the rental market were right - doener
https://twitter.com/whimsley/status/1241425945686429699
======
poulsbohemian
I live in a place with a lot of tourists and second homes. AirBnB was
beginning to reduce the lack of supply in the local hotel market, which caused
the hotels to petition the city council to put an end to non-owner occupied
short-term housing. This was done under the guise of improving the
(admittedly) tight rental market.

The problem is, the following things happened as a result:

\-- Existing short-term rental properties were grandfathered, which
artificially has made those properties more valuable.

\-- A lot of properties that might have previously been purchased and
renovated by investors sit idle because the investors can't turn them into
short-term rentals.

\-- We have a lot of cottages / really small properties here, that are good
short-term rentals but not great regular rentals. so basically a lot of
garbage rentals came available that did nothing to actually help our rental
market.

\-- The hotels knew they now had a more captive market than previously.

So while I appreciate the sentiments of those who wanted to end short-terms
rentals in the name of affordable housing, at least in our local market it has
not been a good thing.

~~~
ipodopt
I get the sense that a better solution would be to make home ownership as
simple as renting. A few ideas:

\- One page contract

\- Ban loans for private home ownership (or socialize them but you would have
to do that in a a very particular manner)

\- No property taxes for up to two homes

~~~
willio58
I think the first idea alone would be highly beneficial. If someone could read
one page and actually understand what they are getting into.

Maybe an additional required indicator on that page of “is purchasing this
home a good financial decision for the purchaser given their income” on a
scale from 0-10.

Just a month ago I saw a coworker get screwed financially on a home purchase.
And now with a recession knocking on the door, oof.

~~~
poulsbohemian
As I look at home purchase contracts every day, to me they are really simple -
in most states, they are a standardized fill-in-the-blank form. So is it the
contract or the mortgage docs that are concerning here?

I’m curious to better understand your co-workers situation as well - was it a
case if overextending themselves or caveat emptor on some part of the
transaction?

------
djannzjkzxn
If we restricted the manufacturing of cars, soon there would be articles about
how car rental services are taking cars out of the car market.

~~~
gamblor956
Car rental companies purchase large numbers of cars each year (look up "fleet
cars"). They are generally automakers' biggest, best, and most reliable
customers.

If you restricted car rental services from buying cars, you might very well
cause the collapse of the automobile industry.

In contrast, killing AirBnB does not negatively effect the housing market,
because people still need places to live. AirBnB generally increases the cost
of housing in every housing market in which it operates because it reduces the
number of housing units available. (Example: once LA and Santa Monica cracked
down on AirBnB and began regulating short-term pseudo-hotel stays, rents
plateaued and began dropping, benefiting thousands of people in the LA area.
The only people harmed were the investors who bought multiple residential
properties and illegally converted them to unregistered hotels.)

~~~
leereeves
Why kill Airbnb instead of simply building more housing?

Cities should allow enough housing to meet demand for both short term and long
term rentals.

~~~
stevenicr
I my similarly affected local area it's many factors that are prevented new
housing that is needed / being taken out by investors around the globe buying
chunks of the market for short term rentals and others who are slated to move
here it seems.

All the builders are busy. Getting construction help around here is a crazy
process these days (referring to the year BCP / before covid pandemonium) -

builders that have the ability to build are generally focused on building more
expensive houses to get more money (not average homes that were built long
ago).

the ones that have the money (from whatever sources) to build the minimum code
skinny homes that do well for maximizing cost for arbnbs seem to be gobbling
up any and all possible property that fits in the zoning places that these can
squeeze into - limiting the market for others who want to build their own (who
already live here)

The part of town I currently live in, the neighbor groups are NIMBY NIMBY - a
recent meeting I sat in where a local developer was exploring putting in a
dozen townhomes / condos into a larger development with single family homes -
everyone there just wanting to complain about the effects of other development
in the area.

The price of land is going up, and the cost to develop the land. Building
affordable is not as easy as it was some time ago.

Some of council is telling citizens to downzone property en mass in order to
prevent more affordable options from popping up in their neighborhoods. I
heard our last council meeting they attempted a county-wide zone change.

It's become clear to me that some of these council folks really are 'our
neighborhood character, the children!' type people.. however it seems that
many of them are spouting similar types of scare mongering things while really
just propping up the value of all the Marriot properties in the city (by
trying to limit the airbnb and similar).

It's been an interesting show to watch. I don't think supply and demand is
going to turn all these, now mostly empty, hotel properties back into
affordable housing for the locals. They will just sit there and maybe be
traded as distressed properties and be rebranded as some other brand new basic
like the self storage places.

At least that's how I see it around here in a nutshell - there are many other
interesting dynamics going on. Quite the complex play to watch actually, with
characters from all over vying to push norms wherever they can get away with
it - while the average families try to figure out where they can afford to
live.

The things the surrounding counties are doing to prevent the people from here
moving there is also another interesting set of things to watch with wonder.

------
cletus
Can we change the submitted post? I didn't see any sources quoted on that
Tweet, just an animation. Side note: please stop submitting or otherwise
citing "Twitter threads". They're terrible.

But there does seem to be some basis for this eg [1] [2]. And I can believe
it.

I've long since held the opinion that Airbnb is a cancer on society. While
Uber allows you to get value from a vehicle you may already own (at the cost
of wear and tear, mind you) and there are many, particularly those in the US,
who seem to hold this view that "it's my home, I can do what I want with it",
the reality is that neighbours of that Airbnb bear the externalities and the
cost of your listing and it's not easy for most people to up and move.

Another way of putting this is that it is a tragedy of the commons as Airbnb
"hosts" extract value from a community that bears the cost with little choice
in the matter.

This lazy (and typically selfish) twisted version of "free market" thinking
quickly erodes when, for example, I propose using my house that's next to
yours as a tannery or a toxic waste storage site.

My only complaint about jurisdictions trying to crack down on this is that
their efforts have been too slow and anaemic. NYC is plagued with what are
essentially illegal hotels. There are a reason that hotels exist in the
current form and place. It's for the safety of guests (eg compliance with fire
codes) and the benefit of residents (ie zoning).

[1]: [https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/homes-
for-...](https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/homes-for-rent-
climb-as-airbnb-market-tumbles-39063281.html)

[2]: [https://www.balls.ie/the-rewind-news/something-
interesting-h...](https://www.balls.ie/the-rewind-news/something-interesting-
happening-dublin-rental-market-428463)

~~~
golergka
> the reality is that neighbours of that Airbnb bear the externalities

What toxic waste, exactly, do Airbnb listing dump on their neighbours?

Professional Airbnb investors buy up whole properties, renovate them, run them
as a hotel with regular cleaning and services provided. Their shot-term
residents use the same amout of public transit, water and utilities services
as long-term renters next door.

The only real inconvenience is that it's driving property prices up - but
that's not an externality. That's just a reality of a market where some type
of customers agree to pay a higher price for something, and it's price goes up
for everybody. I don't see any reason why market should be artificially tilted
towards long-term renters as opposed to short-term.

~~~
kelnos
The issue is that of trust; if you have a full-time neighbor (renting or
owning), you generally trust that they will respect the building/neighborhood,
and over time will grow to trust them as people. They're more accountable.
When you have random people flowing in and out every few days, that trust is
not there. For example, Airbnb guests won't go out of their way to be sure to
honor quiet hours... why bother if they're just there for a few days and don't
have to deal with the neighbors on an ongoing basis?

I absolutely love using Airbnb and prefer it over hotels in nearly every place
I visit, but I won't pretend it's somehow good for the neighborhood or
neighbors.

~~~
golergka
It's hard for me to respond to this, because personally, in I don't think I've
ever met a single neighbour and never had "trust" to any of them - and if
there was a noise above a certain level, I just called the police to deal with
it instead of going out of the apartment myself. "Trusting them as people"
even sounds weird because I don't even know who those people are. I guess it's
a cultural thing.

------
seisvelas
Good. Rentals charge 2 months rent and a deposit. The only reason I can afford
housing is because of airbnb. It's the only place I can find housing that
doesn't do that BS.

That's here in Merida, at least. I wish the rental market would crumble. It's
absurdly difficult for a normal person to rent a decent dwelling. The hostel I
rent at is full of people in a similar situation. The more conventional
rentals get replaced with airbnb's that allow monthly stays, the better.

The supposed legal protections of conventional renting don't exist, and airbnb
is actually a better enforcer of agreements than my government.

~~~
koolba
> Good. Rentals charge 2 months rent and a deposit. The only reason I can
> afford housing is because of airbnb. It's the only place I can find housing
> that doesn't do that BS.

Security deposits and upfront rent address the problem of deadbeat tenants who
may destroy the property or simply not pay the rent. It’s skin in the game to
show you’re responsible.

~~~
seisvelas
Upfront rent is totally fine, Airbnb itself charges upfront. But 3 upfront
rents? Ive never gotten a deposit or the extra rent back at the end. Airbnb
isnt a real solution but i dont think landlords ever were either

~~~
kelnos
As a counterexample, I've lived in ten different rentals over the past 18
years, and I have _always_ gotten my deposit (minus reasonable cleaning fees,
and in rare instances the cost of damage that was legitimately my fault) and
any extra rent back at the end. Sure, there are shitty landlords out there who
screw over their tenants, but it's not universal.

~~~
cvlasdkv
I have always been under the impression that they can only take money out of
your deposit for _unreasonable_ fees. There is an expectation that wear and
tear occurs from living in one spot.

------
joejohnson
Good to see hard data supporting this, but this was always obviously the case.
Only reason there was even a conversation was because Airbnb lobbied and
placed ads in specific markets to mislead renters about their economic impact.

------
dehrmann
This doesn't prove it at all. There's an increase in available hotel rooms,
too.

That doesn't mean there aren't Airbnbs that would otherwise be longer-term
rentals. Of course there are, the logic is just bad. This also doesn't
necessarily mean rentals used for Airbnbs are inherently "bad," either. It's
complicated.

~~~
Jommi
Yeah, lots of people have been forced to prematurely leave to go back to their
home country.

------
jgwil2
Was this ever seriously debated? As far as I know the only question ever was
the size of the effect, not whether there was any effect at all.

~~~
claudeganon
Go read any of the old HN threads on AirBNB. Saying this had these kind of
effects was decried as “hotel industry propaganda.”

~~~
omnimus
I've never seen "hotel industry propaganda" but the effects on market were
debated and often very doubted.

Now it seems there is evidence.

------
ornornor
To be fair, only Airbnb and Airbnb landlords were thinking that Airbnb didn’t
hurt the local rental market. The rest of us knew.

~~~
DoreenMichele
To be fair, it started out more like paid couch surfing and then pivoted. The
original idea was sharing your home part-time, not dedicating a private
residence to short term rental use, which is what it has mostly become.

This is probably not where the founders really meant for it to go.

------
hocuspocus
I honestly don't understand why European cities don't go nuclear against
AirBnB. There's so much money to be made in fines and instant political
approval from virtually every tenant.

~~~
umeshunni
Most European cities are heavily dependent on tourism and tourism directly and
indirectly contributes >5% of GDP of many countries[1]

A large part of the growth in tourism over the last 15 years can be attributed
to cheap flights and cheap housing, via Airbnb and the likes (I.e hotels have
not added the number of rooms needed to support this tourism boom).

Given the tepid economic growth in the Euro-zone over that period, I doubt
they want to kill the golden goose.

[1]
[https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/tnt.tot.contrib.g...](https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/tnt.tot.contrib.gdp?country=BRA&indicator=24693&viz=line_chart&years=1995,2028)

~~~
hocuspocus
When I lived in Berlin, there were 5 apartments in my building on AirBnB,
owned by a single landlord. Within 2 minutes of my place there were 3 hotels
and 2 serviced apartments complexes. Maybe some cities lack hotel rooms, but
in most cases it's just taking advantage of tourists trying to save a couple
bucks.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
But that's what you want -- if the tourists save a couple bucks on lodging
then you get more tourists, who buy more food and merchandise etc. If they
have to stay in an expensive hotel where you are but can get a cheap room in a
competing country, many will go there instead.

And if you're worried about losing housing to rentals, now you've got some
disused hotels you can turn into apartments or condos.

~~~
mxfh
That's just not true, most importantly it's not sustainable. Hotels are
regulated for a reason and are in taxation, need insurances and permits for
whatever makes sense to the host city, although they constantly lobby against
it. In thebest case the city can plan their infrustructure accordingly, with
unregulated and unregistered hotels that's near impossible. Too much tourism
is not what most people who live in those cities want to begin with, they want
to live there. People who save bucks on usually one one thing are usually not
just frugal in that dimension.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
How is it not _sustainable_? Tourism is profitable.

It's regulated because of suffrage arbitrage -- most of the local population
doesn't care what the government does to tourists and the tourists can't vote
in local elections. But that's just taxation without representation. It tends
to be inefficient, because it suppresses the natural amount of tourism by
over-taxing it to the detriment of the local economy. It also hurts everyone
when everyone does it because then you're the victim of it on the day when
you're the tourist and it's you who has no vote in unreasonable lodging
restrictions or taxes.

And cities don't need to regulate the amount of housing in order to build
infrastructure for it, all they have to do is observe it. If you build more
buildings they need more sewers, but you shouldn't need their _permission_ to
build more buildings, they should just build more sewers with the property tax
you'll be paying on the new buildings.

> People who save bucks on usually one one thing are usually not just frugal
> in that dimension.

That sounds dangerously close to an argument that poor people are undesirable
and should be excluded.

And it isn't even accurate -- poor people have to eat too, and better that you
get their business than somebody else. Plus, rich people will take a good deal
on a room (see also: how they got rich), doesn't mean they don't have money to
spend when they get there.

~~~
mxfh
Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris,
Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor
is it of hyper-essential economic importance. Tourism for itself only works
for purpose built resorts and specialized, not so urban destinations (Coastal
Towns, Ski Resorts).

If uncontrolled, tourism takes over those places, eventually, there is little
left for tourists to come to, what made the place interesting to begin with.

Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the social
core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it.

Tourism for a few bucks cheaper in not human right, right to housing is,
disproportionally more relevant to the economically most vulnerable people of
each neighborhood.

My family travelled France on a budget in the early 90s just coming out of
GDR. Doing Housesitting, Camping or Hotels in the outskirts, it was perfectly
fine travelling into Paris for 45 Minutes to do sightseeings and Museums.

Doing this on a daily basis, because you were pushed out of your old
neighborhood, because of indirectly rising rents or direct airbnb-repurposing,
where your job and friends are still, is a whole nother story.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris,
> Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor
> is it of hyper-essential economic importance.

Then why would you expect it to have any major effect on housing availability
there?

> Tourism for itself only works for purpose built resorts and specialized, not
> so urban destinations

Disagree. Look at New York City. It's full of tourists who come there for the
city itself. And it has hardly destroyed the city.

> Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the
> social core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it.

This is only true if building new housing is prohibited, because otherwise
_conversion_ isn't necessary. If tourists want to come, converting existing
housing only makes sense if it's unoccupied, otherwise it's more profitable to
carry on collecting rents from existing housing and build new housing for
tourists so you can get their money too. (There may be cases where it makes
more sense to build new housing for long-term residents while converting
existing stock for tourists depending on the nature of the existing stock, but
that still isn't a reduction of housing stock for existing residents.)

What deprives people of housing and makes it cost more is refusing to build
more in respond to higher demand.

------
jacquesm
Did anybody even doubt this? In cities like Amsterdam, Barcelona and Berlin
this was blatantly obvious.

~~~
acdha
There are plenty of people who have financial incentives to doubt it since
it’s more profitable. Any time some city tries to restrict it you’ll reliably
see people dismissing it as a minor non-issue.

~~~
jacquesm
"And nobody was really poor. At least, nobody worth speaking of".

------
blackrock
I’m rather torn about the Airbnb model.

One, hotels charge way too much money. When a hotel room costs $300 to $500
per night, then this will quickly burn your travel budget.

Two, Airbnb hosts are often, rather dishonest with their listings.

But, Airbnb is the only way to rent someone’s house in a distant location,
where your family and extended family can stay together to get away. It’s
impossible to do this with a hotel, and very expensive too.

Initially, some people got enterprising, and rented out their homes to help
pay their mortgages. And they charged a modest fee for it. For a while, this
seemed ok, as you were helping out someone to pay off their expensive
mortgage. Like, Yeah! Stick it to the rich bankers, and all the jackasses that
contribute to expensive housing.

But then, soon others, turned it into a hotel operation, where investors would
team up to buy houses and apartments, only to rent it out on Airbnb. And when
this happened, everyone else started doing it, and so the initial Airbnb
business model was no longer socially or morally acceptable.

You and I, as an individual, cannot compete against a team of 5 investors that
buys the property outright. Our individual goal, is to put down roots, build a
family, and contribute to the community so our children can have a stable
place to live.

Their goal, is to make a profit, and later flip the house for an even larger
profit.

For better or worse, maybe this coronavirus will destroy the Airbnb business
model. Its initial thesis, is no longer socially acceptable.

~~~
rahilb
Before AirBnB, you just had BnBs. In England at least they were often
farmhouses, and the owner literally makes you breakfast if you were staying in
their main house (this was a large part of it). I’m not sure what if any
regulation applies if you are a BnB like that. In fact, it’s such a part of
British culture, there is a game show where 5 BnB owners stay at each other’s
places and see who is ranked best. The show airs every week. AirBNB are
parasites.

~~~
pas
It's not AirBnB. It's again society kicking down. Many more people now travel
and use AirBnB, because it made travel cheaper. The downside is that housing
got even more complicated.

However, building new supply is very much demand driven. And AirBnB pushed up
demand, which lead to more units built. (Probably some hotels were not built,
etc.)

This "parasite" thinking is just impotent rage. The real problem is the lack
of housing supply. City dwellers are rather resistant to change. Development
is noisy, draws more traffic, casts a shadow, etc. Yet most of them are also
renters.

It's the classic participation asymmetry. The vocal minority trumps the silent
majority.

~~~
capableweb
> The real problem is the lack of housing supply

I guess one group of people are suggesting that we adjust the demand to the
local people who live and work in the city rather than allowing the demand of
tourists to take the supply. In some areas it's also simply not possible to
change the supply as all the land who could be built on, is already built.

I for one would love to see a re-prioritization for the local people in favor
of tourists, and we're slowly seeing that shift happening now.

~~~
pas
I have absolutely no problem with communities, cities deciding how they allow
basic usage of property that affects others. (The typical complaint is that
short-term rentals cause a lot of disturbance, new people every week, parties
every week, and so on.)

But directly prohibiting short-term rentals just because they take up units is
the same short sighted "solution" as prohibiting high-density mixed-use
development.

Cities that are growing/booming/trending are attracting people all over the
world nowadays. For work, for leisure, for simply living there. I'm not saying
just start building high-rises like there's no tomorrow. (Actually I think
simple quotas with lottery systems would work best.) Control the influx, not
just one symptom.

> land who could be built on, is already built.

Could you describe such an actual example? I can't really think of any place
on Earth where we can't easily increase population density by building up.

------
Udik
As someone observed in the Twitter thread, +64% only means a handful (about
150) new flats on the market, since there's so few at the moment. They are now
on offer for long term rental, so once they'll be taken they'll be out of the
market possibly for years.

This is why comparing long term rentals and airbnb makes little sense: yes,
half of the flats for rent at any given moment are for short term. But _they
're always the same ones_, over and over again. They could increase the long
term offer only for a few days before disappearing for good.

------
wolco
Anyone think Airbnb will take a hit after people become more concerned with
covid? Creating a less travel friendly society and if they have to travel for
business they will demand a properly cleaned hotel room?

~~~
jzl
Take a hit after? Heck, let's talk about right this second. It's already
happening: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbnb-racks-up-hundreds-of-
mil...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbnb-racks-up-hundreds-of-millions-in-
losses-due-to-coronavirus-11584723498)

Paywall, but even just the headline and first paragraph tell you what you need
to know.

And yeah, I don't see how this doesn't completely decimate their business
model. The likely coming worldwide recession will see far less spending on
travel, not even counting residual behavioral changes re: covid as you
mention.

UPDATE: Non-paywalled article: [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbnb-mulls-
cash-infusion-in...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/airbnb-mulls-cash-
infusion-investors-145507408.html)

------
omnimus
Market in Prague has been flooded with new cheap offers. The catch - It is
always just for maximum 6 months.

I doubt this will change anything longterm unless it becomes proof for policy
makers to ban airbnb.

------
ghouse
Firsthand experience: My family was evicted from a two unit home in SF. We
lived in one unit, the owner in the other unit. One unit is now listed on
Airbnb.

~~~
rahimnathwani
IANAL.

What grounds did the landlord use to evict you? How long between you guys
leaving and the Airbnb business starting.

Did you receive any and all relocation payments required by law, and has the
landlord continued to file the required annual paperwork with SFRB?

If the eviction reason was either 'owner move-in' or 'relative move-in' then,
if the landlord subsequently decided to rent out the unit again with the next
few years, they are required by law to first offer the unit to you at the
original rent. If you decline, they can rent to someone else, but again only
at the original rent (plus the city-mandated max annual increase %). (And, no,
the landlord can't get around this by airbnb'ing the other unit, and moving in
to your unit.)

I'm less familiar with Ellis Act evictions, but my understanding is that these
also prevent the landlord from re-renting the property for a significant
period of time.

------
tempsy
It always bothered me how Airbnb never addressed its impact on the residential
housing market. Between the safety issues, Covid, stories on scams, and the
greater awareness around its impact on housing I hope local governments really
start regulating them more.

------
rsynnott
An important caveat here is that it’s from a low base; Dublin has a massive
property crisis and there are typically very few rentals on the market.

------
Bombthecat
On a side note : airbnb must be really happy to have all the profit, but no
risk right now.

------
ahupp
Note that 64% of new listings is very different than 64% of all properties.
e.g, last I looked 1.5% of SF properties were on AirBnB (down from 3% before
the recent regulations), though unclear what fraction were available for rent
full-time. So at least in SF I don't think removing AirBnB would really change
supply in a meaningful way.

~~~
as-j
It would make a big difference to me. :) But it would not change supply.

I have an airbnb off my garage. It's a granny flat, a bed, a small bathroom
and a kitchenette. A sink, but just a hot plate a fridge and no oven. It's not
somewhere you'd want to live for a long time, in my opinion. But it's a great
place to crash for a few days, have a cold breakfast, some oatmeal, reheat
left overs, etc.

There's people like me who it helps live in SF and offset property taxes,
price of the house, etc. Bad actors/bad markets/etc certainly do exist, but
like all things it's complicated.

~~~
claudeganon
It’s not really though. SF has a housing crisis. We would all be better off if
an unhoused person was living there or someone with lower paid but necessary
job (e.g. caretaker at a nursing home).

Making money off people on vacations is worse than providing stable housing
for people in the city.

~~~
as-j
The city prohibits from being rented long term since it lacks a full kitchen.
The SF rules are, I could not airbnb if I could rent it long term.

~~~
claudeganon
Is this still true under the all statewide ADU legislation that came into
effect this year?

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12/californias-
new-accessory-dwelling-units-laws-what-you-should-know/)

------
PeterStuer
If anything good comes of this crisis I hope it is the dismissal of the 'gig'
economy's nefarious cancerous business-models that rely on regulation dodging,
negative externality dumping and worker exploitation.

If we have to reboot the economy, let's get rid of the vilest anarcho-
capitalist and environmental destructive cruft we have allowed to fester over
the years.

------
torgian
I’ve always stayed at Airbnb’s for my short term stays, simply because they
were cheaper than hotels.

Hotels cost so much for a place that doesn’t even have a hot plate.

------
quotemstr
If Airbnb operators bid higher than long-term renters, why _shouldn 't_ they
get the apartments? This animus against Airbnb seems irrational to me.
Property should go to its most productive use, and the most productive use is
the one for which someone is willing to pay the most money.

~~~
DoreenMichele
We have lots of policies with adverse incentives and terrible outcomes. We
routinely spend more money in the US on homeless services than it would cost
to provide homes for free because homeless individuals wind up a lot sicker,
etc.

It's not sufficient to show that this makes more money for the owner. It
doesn't exist in a vacuum. If it costs the rest of the world too much, no, it
isn't the highest and best use by any stretch of the imagination.

Edit:

See for example this hospital decided to just house a few people to lower its
expenses:

[https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/homeless-patients-
get-n...](https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/homeless-patients-get-novel-
treatment-from-chicago-hospitals-housing/45aa031f-85b0-456f-b9fb-29b17f95e3e1)

Please note that I am not actually for "housing first models" or free housing.
I'm for market-based housing that makes sense. It's just a nutshell
description of the problem space to note that just giving people housing can
be cheaper than leaving them to fend for themselves.

~~~
Dylan16807
So just to counteract the dead account arguing with you:

"The original study that generated so much headlines in the press said this
was true for _temporarily_ homeless -- it would, in fact, be exorbitantly
expensive to house _all_ homeless people."

Nonsense. Over 80% of homeless people on a given night are temporarily
homeless. There's less than a hundred thousand chronic homeless in the entire
country. $100 a week would be enough funding for a hotel, but let's drill in
the point by doing the math for $200 a week. 90 thousand homeless * $200 * 52
/ 320 million people. Final cost: $3 per capita per _year_ to house every
single chronically homeless person.

And that's not even getting into the strawman they made about forcing
landlords to do anything.

