great historians and social scientists
not on the side of Israel you couldn’t
If you have Netflix you can get Into the Breach and Dead Cells.
That’s such a cool keyboard.
Honestly this picture looks more like bad photoshop than AI.
Do you think that building more housing will cause the percentage of non-market vacancies to increase? I expect that number is pretty inelastic wrt supply for a given area and you can consider it a measurable inefficiency of the market.
So if we assume that rate is static at roughly 3% for LA, to me it seems that getting that number down to 2% or less is the real wasted effort. There need to be more homes. Whether 97 or 99 of every 100 new units built enter the market doesn’t seem like it’s worth focusing on over just getting those 100 new homes built in the first place.
By all means, if vacancy taxes or more radical measures get passed to get those non-market vacancies available I’m all for it, I just feel like non-market vacancies are orders of magnitude fewer than the number of homes not built for other reasons (zoning, land speculation, etc).
My main point being that when people make the argument “there are enough homes in desirable places to house every homeless person” it’s usually deployed as ammo for the further argument that new housing construction is unnecessary, or that new market-rate housing construction is unnecessary, which I disagree with.
In unrelated news I watched the Vanilla Ice movie Cool as Ice (1991) recently.
I want Biden to federalize the Texas National Guard so bad.
I don’t disagree that these units exist, but the report you mentioned only discusses one point in time, which doesn’t give much context. If you look at the historical data from the census (8 and 8a) rather than just one year of it, you’ll see that the vacancy rates have been basically steady in LA, never moving by much more than a percent (excepting 2008) since 2005.
I’m sure we both agree that the homelessness crisis has intensified over the same timeframe, but if the vacancy rate isn’t changing, I find it hard to accept as the cause.
Obviously it is unjust for there to be those who have two (or more) homes in a place where many have none, but if we’re talking about systemic changes that need to be pursued, more housing seems like an obvious one that can produce more units than just things like a vacancy tax or even requisition (not that those should not be pursued). And your report advocates for that too, specifically pointing out land speculation or land held vacant by the city.
I think that’s because most people omit the very important “in places where people want to live” which makes it a lot more valid.
That’s the same argument people on here make about how there are 3 homes in the US for every homeless person.
Greatest city on earth, baby.
They really are just like us!
For a city that has so few cars it’s disappointing that bikes seem to be relegated to the sidewalks, especially because the sidewalks seem much busier than the streets.
Does anyone know if bikes aren’t allowed on streets or if this person was just riding on the sidewalk out of an abundance of caution?
nah it’s fine
Look. There’s a pocket universe connected to Santa Monica where Barbie lives, and there’s a pocket universe in the basement of Mattel’s headquarters where an eternal Ruth Handler lives. What’s not to get?
It’s a story in the same way draft legislation is a story in the US. There’s nothing too shameful about this.
finally someone who actually saw the movie
I welcome the Tokugawa Clan’s efforts, and I encourage them to go further.
As someone who hates musical theater, I gave it a try, and I do not enjoy it for the same reasons I don’t like most musical theater. It seems by and for theater kids, though, so if that’s you, I imagine you’ll enjoy it.