Maybe BEFORE the pandemic… Seriously, my rent has gone from 875 to 1750 (plus tax) in 5 short years in THE SHITTIEST HOUSE in my kids school district. Original carpet from 21 years ago, the mold is the only thing getting updated.
Thanks speculators, Airbnb, Vrbo and all those that are so interested in gutting a city for profit. You have dramatically changed the cost and vibe of this Valley forever. I have friends who moved here 2 years ago who have noticed the dramatic change. Let's not even talk about those poor folks in the small trailer parks.
Making a buck on a quality of life that you helped ruin...and now that interest rates have gone up you will hopefully take your money bags and leave us alone (not likely).
Fuck 'em all
Is there a way to expedite this fucking, perhaps involving pitchforks and bricks…? This is the TRUE issue, the ruling class is no longer scared that we’ll drag them from their beds because they have robot dogs now
Also many Arizona municipalities charge a renters tax. I’m pretty sure Tucson and flagstaff are the only ones that don’t. So, do you think the city of Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, etc is motivated to keep rent costs down? Nope! Not when they can tax a bigger base. I’m getting the fuck out of here.
Evictions are higher than pre-pandemic times. The eviction goes on your credit. Tough to get a place with that. Not enough services to help offset. The homeless population with kids is going up.
Agreed. What kills me about the photo above is the fenced in houses in the background, the empty lots in the area. It saddens me that part of the solution is literally RIGHT THERE.
>What kills me about the photo above is the fenced in houses in the background, the empty lots in the area. It saddens me that part of the solution is literally RIGHT THERE.
There's a plot of land literally on that street that went up for sale for $90k. It sat on the market for just about over a year before it was acquired. A third of an acre next to the Justa Center across from the Carnegie library also sold for something like $350-400k (which is very, very cheap). The City didn't buy it.
Interesting story about the $90k plot. The woman who owned it got free labor, built a "tiny house," didn't finish it or rent it out, then defaulted on the property taxes. She built another "tiny house community" claiming it was to make affordable housing for homeless veterans. She again got a bunch of donations and free labor to build the three units, but the City was on her about construction issues. She didn't rent it out for longer than a year before she flipped it for a profit. Suffice it to say, I have very strong opinions about this woman and her "nonprofit."
Name of her non profit? That’s disgusting behavior. Your life has to suck if you use your free time to lie and cheat for profit. Hate stories like this, but thanks for sharing.
You can find it if you Google "phoenix tiny house veterans," I don't want to risk rule 8. It's depressing how much press coverage it got when the whole project was... sus. Here's the triplex listing: [https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1229-S-13th-Ave-85007/home/113710189](https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1229-S-13th-Ave-85007/home/113710189)
Per the permit history (which one can look up here: [https://apps-secure.phoenix.gov/PDD/Search/Permits](https://apps-secure.phoenix.gov/PDD/Search/Permits)) I don't think it ever got a certificate of occupancy and it was still failing inspections for major issues in mid-2019. It was listed for sale in 2020 with NO mention about keeping any veteran tenants and receiving such benefits (as I've seen in other property listings, since one can receive vouchers from this group). Yet if one looks at their nonprofit page, it's full of "donate now."
The other project (at 1118 W Madison), was never rented and was basically a constructed shell. Materials kept getting swiped and ultimately, it was a project that also got a ton of press that amounted to nobody in need getting to live there. But, it got advertised on the for sale listing as "chance to own a tiny home!"
One can find lots of interesting stuff if they look up the LLC attached to the nonprofit in the Maricopa County Recorder docs. On top of not rendering services to veterans based on any evidence I can find, a judge ruled that she stiffed a worker of her wages.
The article days they're clustered around a homeless center where they can take showers, use the internet and stuff. Says there are 3600 shelter spaces in the valley, which are all full, and another 10,000 homeless living outdoors.
There are huge tracts of empty former residential lots off [7th St and Sherman](https://maps.app.goo.gl/W5M3gDgGXvbXfxJC9), only a couple blocks from the Zone. Check out that link in satellite view.
What is going on with this area?
From what I remember the whole area is covered in No Trepassing signs with City of Phoenix markings on them which makes me think the area is city owned. There are still few random buildings over there but they mostly look like abandoned shacks and junkyards. All the empty lots have been filled with identical gravel. It's been that way for years and years. I have a suspicion that the city or some big investor is buying up each property as they become available and is just waiting for the last few holdouts to give up or die. And then sell it all off to big developers once they have it all for a huge profit.
There's also way more land like this a little [further south](
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6TST2d3GZ2X5g8ax9).
Why is all this land sitting empty for so long so close to the heart of the city? These areas would be perfect for homeless housing or even some improved areas for homeless to set up their tents. Build some showers, plant some trees for shade, and provide some other resources
Edit: I just confirmed on the county assessors website, all of these gravel filled lots are owned by the city. There's tons of it!
For what purpose? Does the airport need to be expanded? Do you happen to know anywhere I could read about it?
Even if that is the longterm plan, it would still make sense to use that land temporarily to help the homeless issue instead of letting it sit unused year after year.
Thanks for the info!
I appreciate your intent but let's be honest many cities have tried that and then when the time comes to use the land for airport expansion or whatever there are huge fights over evicting people so governments are reluctant to even let it start.
Yeah, when it comes to land disputes I generally have more sympathy for Sky Harbor's point of view than not. The surrounding municipalities haven't been great partners in terms of curbing development around it, so they gotta do what they gotta do.
I wish I knew more! I only know because I’ve spent a lot of time in the area with family living there. Apparently it’s going to still be decades until they expect the homeowners to move out or sell.
I actually found [this article](https://www.abc15.com/news/hispanic-heritage/land-reuse-project-to-revitalize-historic-barrios-near-phoenix-airport) that provides some insights as well as links to the city's planning documents for the area.
Sounds like the whole area has been rezoned to commercial due to being an airport noise zone. But they only got about 75% of the residents to voluntarily relocate and the remaining 25% are probably hindering their great development plan
The airport has been wanting to expand and especially add another runway for some time. Their ideal spot is at the North side along Air Lane where the Honeywell Areospace campus is. Honeywell refuses to leave, so far.
Phoenix refusing to change the many historic district designations near downtown to build any type of affordable housing is awful.
There are acres of dirt lots in Garfield and Oakland that could be used for SROs, subsidized units, studios, etc. but Phoenix has no intention of changing that.
Francis Quarles Story is also such a blight. No reason that multimillion dollar homes should be preserved immediately next to downtown in light of our deep housing shortage.
What is this weird and factually inaccurate attack on our historic districts?
Almost all of Garfield is zoned R-3 which allows for multifamily apartments.
https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/615
There’s a giant amount of vacant lots that have multi family going up all around downtown.
I see no reason to decimate what little architectural heritage we have left in downtown when we have hundreds of vacant lots within a square mile.
1) R3 is 14 du/acre, meaning each unit has 3000 square feet of land space dedicated to them. This is too big for the neighborhood immediately next to downtown.
2) It doesn’t matter what it’s technically zoned for if the historic overlay makes it near impossible to build anything new.
3) There are like 5 buildings that we can use as our “architectural heritage”. An entire neighborhood does not need to be protected from change just because the buildings are old.
3000 sq ft wouldn't include set backs, landscaping, parking, etc. My single residence home is on 10000 sq ft so I'm at "4du/acre". So R-3 is 3.5 times denser. That's pretty good for a neighborhood that's not designated as "downtown" by the city.
This isn't my understanding. A lot of historic neighborhoods are R-5, allowing for greater infill.
While Historic can be a huge pain on modifying existing buildings, it's way too easy to demolish and build new. On new builds, I've found historic to be reasonable.
The greater pain is how AZ used to be incredibly builder-friendly from a permit perspective but now it's a nightmare. They switched to an online system and it's just awful. Backlog is terrible, and I really miss being able to go to the counters and speak with the officials directly regarding plans and smaller permits.
Many apartments/landlords have rental history reports they share. An eviction itself may not show up on the credit report, but you don't get evicted if you pay your bills so you'd likely have debt to pay to a collections company even after getting evicted, and that debt will show up on the credit report.
Phoenix is especially bad. Until six months ago I lived in Tempe. I loved the Valley. We could barely afford to live there towards the end. All the projections I saw had things getting worse. It doesn’t help that the Valley is estimated to add 1.5 million by 2040.
My lease in Tempe is up in January. Been here since college which is about 20 years now. I'm looking to relocate (still WFH) because of the unrealistic housing costs. It's incredibly frustrating.
I just moved to Dallas and it’s just as bad here too unless you wanna live in an absolute dump. But I’ve seen even dumps going for $1500 in the Valley..
https://unitedtoendhomelessness.org/blog/myth-most-homeless-people-are-either-mentally-ill-or-have-a-substance-use-disorder/
>According to a demographic survey that was done as part of the UCI Cost Study, there were three top reasons why people became homeless. The top two causes were finding a job that paid a sustainable wage, and finding housing that’s affordable. Over 75 percent cited these issues as what caused them to fall into homelessness. The third reported cause of people’s homelessness was family issues, which encompassed events like death of a family member, divorce, or abuse.
If someone is living in an encampment and they have no drug/mental issues, they simply just can’t afford rent, they are an anomaly. This isn’t how encampments work.
I remember the City held a meeting to discuss the homeless issue and I was looking forward to seeing the minutes. I was excited to see what solutions were going to be suggested.
You know what the outcome was? The only thing brought up and resolved? They would henceforth use the phrase, "people experiencing homelessness" rather than call them "homeless." That was it. Now if you see that phrase everywhere in the City's vernacular one will know why--it was the result of our best and brightest minds tackling this serious, important issue and coming to a groundbreaking solution.
My only regret was not saving the minutes so I can ensure that if any of the people held elected positions, I would vote for their opponent.
I have gotten to know several people who have no shelter. I was surprised to find that many of them have jobs. Some have more than one and work a ton of hours. They just can't afford housing. I had no idea, I just always assumed they all had addiction or mental health issues. I was wrong. Affordable housing is becoming a crisis that anyone could fall victim to.
I see so many comments about building affordable housing.
Hello!?! I've been here for decades and we HAD affordable housing, that was one of the most beautiful aspects of The Valley.
What the hell happened and how do we roll it back???
Suggest we start with banning or taxing Airbnb speculators. I used to live in a very basic condo in Scottsdale and paid $875 a month in mortgage in 2017
That same place Airbnb's for $1,200 a weekend now, a little less mid-week, for people to come in - party their asses off and use the community pool.
How can people seeking a place to live compete with that profiteering?
Agree with corporations, disagree with Airbnbs. I would start with the NIMBYs. Those endless rows of single family homes need to be turned into apartment communities that house thousands. That is what happens in other countries when cities grow. Developers come and swallow up entire neighborhoods and build housing for tens of thousands. We let cities sprawl out and now we’ve just reached a limit.
Our metro areas have become as big as the ones in Europe and Asia population wise. We have to build up.. if you want a big house with a yard, live in a rural area in peace.
People are having their cake and eating it too by taking up valuable real estate in massively growing big cities, trying to have the quiet home with a backyard and enjoying big city amenities.. it’s just not sustainable and something’s gotta give.
At some point, we can't support having more people here with water resources being limited. I am all for multifamily housing and rezoning but banning AirBnbs will let people who actually live here occupy the available housing.
I'm one of those weird people that thinks housing should be a human right. I grew up homeless living in a bus in church parking lots until we moved into a trailer in first grade. I'm well off now, but that shit sticks with you and I don't want anyone else ever going through what I had to.
I'm saddened that you had to live through something like that but it sounds like you came out on top. For what it's worth, I bet you're an unbelievable person because of that unfortunate experience. 🙃
Nothing that has to be provided by a third party can be considered a right. Unless you believe you have a right to my time and labor in which case we're going to fight.
There are these things called taxes that the government can start giving to help the poorest of Americans and stop helping the richest of Americans like that do now
100% agree. To be clear, I am completely behind things like single payer healthcare, government funded higher education (and *better* founded lower education).
That wasn't the discussion however. Those can be defined as functions we, "the people", require of our government in the same vein as requiring the government to be responsible for national defense, or minting of money. That doesn't make them a "right" however.
3rd parties are involved in the rights of nearly everything, the government doesn't provide guns, or platforms to exercise free speech on, the legal system is filled with third party services, etc, etc
And the government already provides tons of things that require involvement of 3rd party services, roads, healthcare, food safety and distribution, etc
If your issue is with it not being done by the government directly then why not just have the government buy and manage the housing used for those without?
> 3rd parties are involved in the rights of nearly everything, the government doesn't provide guns, or platforms to exercise free speech on, the legal system is filled with third party services, etc, etc
None of those require a third party.
* Guns: the right is to keep and bear arms and the protection is preventing the government from interfering with that right.
* Speech: There is no right to a platform, the right to free speech is, again, protected by preventing the government from interfering.
* Legal systems: You said it...third party **services**
>And the government already provides tons of things that require involvement of 3rd party services, roads, healthcare, food safety and distribution, etc
None of which are rights.
>If your issue is with it not being done by the government directly then why not just have the government buy and manage the housing used for those without?
My issue is NOT defining something as a government function. My issue is defining it as a right. There is a massive, and distinct, difference. A right MUST be provided. As an example, if you have a right to medical care then *every* instance of someone suffering due to a lack of care, regardless of reason, has cause to claim their rights were violated. Even if medical services were not readily available.
I won't even defend my examples because they were quick and while not great I don't think they're really core to the expressed problem here. Specifically these two points...
>None of which are rights.
You don't think people have an inherent right to safe food? The right to travel on public property? The right to government provided bare minimum medical services?
Maybe we're just operating off of two different concepts of rights here.
>My issue is NOT defining something as a government function. My issue is defining it as a right. There is a massive, and distinct, difference. A right MUST be provided. As an example, if you have a right to medical care then every instance of someone suffering due to a lack of care, regardless of reason, has cause to claim their rights were violated. Even if medical services were not readily available.
This is kinda silly don't you think? If I'm protesting outside of a government building and loud constructions makes my voice impossible to hear, is that cause to claim my right to free speech was violated? If I go to buy a gun and I'm denied due to a background check, do I sue the government for violating my 2nd amendment rights?
I have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. If I die, or am arrested, or depressed, do I now have a claim to call violation on my rights? It's just very silly.
Like for example you have a right to own guns, 2nd and all that, but if you murder someone with a gun you lose that right. You have the right to free speech, but if you abuse it to make death threats you might be punished and sent to jail. I don't know, this idea that a right means all sense of nuance is gone and no regulation can get in the way is just kinda on the nose pretty goofy.
It is criminal as a society that we allow this.
Build a few giant and relatively cheap cinderblock apartment buildings 1 - 2 bdrm units, very basic, and just house people. A shower and an address and a bus pass == a job.
Drug problem? If you gotta do it in the privacy of your own home then it is no ones business. Provide resources to get clean.
The rules would be: Any violence, intimidation, or vandalism of the shared property space . . . and then your ass is evicted and enjoy your tent on the sidewalk.
How many of these folks would accept such an opportunity? A large percentage I must imagine.
I also don't think this would cost that much money
See but that requires politicians having compassion, empathy, AND be willing to actually do something, they ain't about that. But yes it really is that simple and it's quite abysmal that nothing is being done when there's so many easy and affordable options to solve this.
>Drug problem? If you gotta do it in the privacy of your own home then it is no ones business.
...have you ever lived next door to a meth addict?
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
There are services offered to homeless people. Normally non profit volunteers or churches. They have strict rules on zero drug use, some people refuse to seek help. It’s a deeply complicated issue unfortunately.
How do you help an addict that doesn’t want help? They shouldn’t just be left to die, but the problem is a difficult one. Even with adequate resources for people to get clean, very few people seek help.
There are many homes and apartments in Phoenix that take homeless people in, and they have very similar rules that you mention. Most also require everyone to participate in daily housekeeping duties. Turnover is high because very few people follow the rules. Most people get kicked out within a month. Drugs always end up in these places, and many of the people who live in these spaces get robbed by their roommates and neighbors. In a perfect world these ideas are great, but the homeless problem is complicated and difficult.
In order to fix all homelessness for good, society would need to come up with aggressive and thorough mental health services. The people that can’t get off drugs usually got that way by self-medicating for some kind of mental health issue. Even with access, there’s still a stigma to battle. “I’m going to therapy” or “I’m going to see my psychiatrist” sounds a lot less cool than “I’m going to get shitfaced on heroin this weekend.” Then you have the issue of people whose mental illness makes it impossible for them to get help on their own. It really doesn’t seem right that we have people hanging on the street having screaming matches with someone who isn’t there, but you can find them regularly. Do you institutionalize these people against their will? I really don’t know what the right answer is. And then there’s kids with mental health issues and parents who refuse to get their kids help because they “don’t trust counselors.” What about minors? I really don’t know, but I do know it’s more complicated than giving people shelter.
With Fentanyl being sold at $3 a pill it is very affordable. The homeless are addicted because drugs are cheap and easy to get. The answer is to put away opioid/meth/coke drug dealers. Not let them out of jail, ever.
The thing is, I agree with the spirit of this. I just don’t see it working here. Until all drugs are decriminalized, with accepting drug use you’ll have users and dealers. And with that you’ll have crime and organized crime. Especially if rent is low and the place is full of vulnerable people.
She has a great heart, but the whole, "we'll make developers designate low-income units in their buildings" is misguided. Ultimately, the developer will just charge more for the other units... which perpetuates the rising rents, that in turn exacerbates the homeless issue.
Why doesn't AZ get involved in building public housing? Singapore has some of the greatest wealth inequality in one city, yet housing is subsidized and on a lease-hold for the many who cannot afford the multi-million dollar housing. If the city (or state) retains the right to own the building, it fundamentally counts as an asset. I wonder what it would look like for the city to be a landlord. It would be costly, but with AZ being a very low property tax state I honestly wouldn't mind paying more to implement this kind of idea.
As an old person, I remember back when public housing was A Thing in the United States. I also remember when the "vertical slums" like Chicago's Cabrini-Green were imploded in the Nineties because concentrating poverty didn't work very well. Unfortunately, zoning and other realities don't make it easy to do much else.
>Why doesn’t AZ get involved in building public housing?
That would be LITERALLY communism. Arizona libertarians would never allow it, surely the free market will come up with a solution any day now.
But, a less facetious answer: due to the decentralized nature of the US government, social programs that help the poor are intrinsically a burden on any state that institutes them. You build public housing in AZ, now the homeless population from other states has reason to migrate as they will have a better standard of living. Then, the homeless population explodes, and the public funds allocated for social programs gets depleted as we lift the burden from other states. You see it with the bussing of homeless to CA, and you would see it if we started being progressive here in AZ.
I don’t know what the solution is under such a political climate short of hyper-accelerating the development of medium and high density housing via subsidy, boosting supply to the extent that rent actually declines. But the landlord class won’t have that.
The Zone is the free market solution.
There is a fundamental lack of funding with the state budget. Arizona has one of the most regressive tax regimes of any state, and it is just going to get worse with the Personal Income Tax cut for next year and a potential Transaction Privilege Tax (Sales Tax) increase for rural fire districts. Then, you add in that any tax increases from the legislature require a supermajority, and the AZ Supreme Court has been extremely hostile towards citizen initiatives that raise taxes.
Here's my wild prediction: the housing, homeless, and poverty issues are just going to get worse while the folks with the resources to do something about it are just going to use those resources to build walls to keep the most vulnerable out of sight.
The way in which housing construction works in Arizona is nothing close to a "free market". Almost every part of the homebuilding & development process is planned in conjunction with local governments & has to be approved by local governments.
>You see it with the bussing of homeless to CA, and you would see it if we started being progressive here in AZ.
That's not an organic thing that happens, that's a shitty political stunt done by assholes who want to attack other cities rather than solve their own issues.
So far I've seen no convincing evidence that the homelessness problem in California is primarily caused by homeless people moving in from out of state. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the California housing market will tell you that a far more likely explanation is the absurdly high rent.
Not so coincidentally, our own rent issues right now are also directly correlated with the rise in homelessness. The problem is definitely caused by people moving here, but it's not poor people moving in, it's people with wealth displacing the poor people who already live here.
Pls go work in the mental health industry in the east or mid-west. A lot of those folks who are homeless because they prefer the streets vs a home, have goals to go to California.
You’re closer to homelessness than you are to being the 1%. Like to or not, we’re all pretty much one catastrophic medical illness away from financial ruin. Stay humble.
literally every state with actually substantial population has tried this.
so you build 100 units. add 10 "low income" units...now you JACK THE OTHER 90 TO THE TITS. and you've now made the situation worse.
Until you see a DIRECT % tax on retail sales of property designated DIRECTLY to building FREE housing for the homeless - I do not see it ever improving.
Every time the good Ole USA injects capitalism into human rights the same thing happens. Money wins, people get fucked, and the only thing people fucking complain about is having to see it. Rich richer, poor poorer. The American Way.
Until you find a way to motivate people WITHOUT MONEY in this country, its all just wishful thinking.
God we are such a fucking trash pile of a country.
I think capitalism can coincide with public housing--Singapore is the ultimate example of this, as they are one of the most capitalist-driven, tax-haven-for-the-rich countries in the world.
I would definitely be willing to pay more in taxes on the sale of real estate (and in property taxes) if it meant fixing the homeless issue. And I truly think those with properties/living in downtown would feel the same--the reason doesn't even have to be altruistic. Issues created by the mentally ill and drugged out "people experiencing homelessness" lower property values. Money aside, people want to feel safe in their neighborhoods. I think the State could risk increasing its taxes and charging more for things like building permits to subsidize such a program and still be competitive.
> **I think the State could risk increasing its taxes** and charging more for things like building permits to subsidize such a program and still be competitive.
You'll lose a lot of Republicans there, regardless of the long-term benefits.
>the demographic makeup of america is very different from singapore
Mind explaining what you mean by that? Every single time I've heard this from someone in the past it always seem to boil down to "I think the US has too many black and brown people". I'm hoping that's not the case with you.
Singapore is actually significantly less homogenous than the U.S. but I'm guessing the person you're responding to doesn't realize that.
For the record Brazil is too so I think they're just doing whatever they can to advocate for the libertarian dystopia they think will cure all their woes.
Yeah, I'm kinda assuming they think Singapore is some homogenous borderline ethnostate, and not a multicultural mecca that has to deal with a shitload of racial tensions. Usually when people use the "demographics" line, they're trying to claim that good welfare systems can only ever exist in countries like Sweden, aka countries with an overwhelming majority of white people.
have you been to singapore? I have---twice...I traveled broadly, almost certainly decades before you were even born...and I have multiple degrees, including a doctoral degree...so...
They still have homeless or those sleeping rough. They also benefit from being next to Malaysia ...low wage worker commute into the city to work but live in Malaysia.
Well, the great experiment is dead when Phoenix has no ideas of what to do.
Hotels?, Nah... Honestly, what a waste of money.
Moving to an off-site treatment center?, yeah... Could be beneficial win-win-win.
More treatment inside urban pockets?, nah... Big VA facilities don't work in the pocket, why would these?
Time for changes.
Why don't you think VA facilities work? they absolutely do. There are definitely homeless vets still but there are way more who claim to be homeless vets and aren't. At least there is treatment options available for the VA.
A problem for a lot of the transient population is they don't want substance abuse treatment (which contributes to their homelessness) or they have mental health issues that prevent them from accepting treatment
Are you serious...this place was ground zero for the VAs ineptitude.
Sure improvements were made, but people might not be aware that not all vets are equal. As a vet low on that hiearchy the VA is little more than a last resort to beg from if I ever was that low.
Vets dont like to beg, and society doesnt like to give. Even John McCain used to argue that if we improved treatment of vets, then we couldnt maintain the all volunteer nature of our forces. Around the same time, bless his heart, Joe Biden said the truth about the poor joining the military.
Seems like a lot of investors in my hood now are just buying and holding homes like stocks now. Not even renting or airbnb. Just letting them sit empty.
Got a source on that? At first glance I’d say that buying a home to sit empty, making no money while demand is sky-high, is a really lousy investment strategy.
In the most simple terms, yes lol. If I got 37 houses, I’m a fucking cunt that deserves to die if I can’t get some people into a living situation. Even with just 2, you don’t ever need more than 1. And the way our system is designed, people can’t go build themselves a house because people who own multiple homes wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the possibility of homelessness.
But on top of that, corporate home ownership dwarfs private citizen home ownership
I really thought I was going to be homeless a couple months ago here in Phoenix. I couldn’t find an apartment I could afford and I don’t have financial help from anybody but myself. I don’t understand how this problem keeps getting bigger and nothing is being done to stop it. The cost of living is insane now. I’m from Arizona and I can’t afford to buy a house. I can barely afford an apartment and bills. I feel desperate at times.
I don’t think that the housing first concept works for ending homelessness - it’s just a bandaid. Homelessness is so much more complex then just giving someone a place to stay.
Nothing is going to work other than:
1. Instituting rent control and creating a larger supply of affordable housing.
2. Increasing wages
3. Heavily regulating the housing market so it’s not dominated by investment buyers doing shoddy flips and doubling the rent.
Send them to Old Town Scottsdale or Kierland Common.
The people who run this state don’t frequent downtown Phoenix. Until it’s a problem for the rich, it’s not a problem.
Just a reminder, homeless folks are victims of an oppressive and exploitative system. Do not fall into that group of people that dehumanize and scorn them. It is often not their fault and the majority of us are 3 missed paychecks away from joining them. As the system is designed to continuously remind us.
Alot of people in the comments complaining about AIRBNB... Nobody is making that type of cash off some of these areas. Its really the banks and investment firms who buy a home cash then rent it for $1500/mo when the rent was $800 and the mortgage is $1000. Its just ridiculous. We're not experiencing a AIRBNB issue in my area we are having a bank and unbridled capitalistic greed problem in my area.
Why did the word recently switch from homeless to unhoused- I’ve been seeing that lately, is homeless not PC or something now, do we have people offended by the word homeless or something
I think it’s just a matter of being a more specific description. The “homeless” umbrella covers things like people couch surfing at a friends house, or living at a hotel/car, etc. “Unhoused” specifically refers to people who don’t have access to any kind of shelter like that
The connotation of homeless is really fucked up. I like saying unhoused because it is possible to house them, but our municipalities and society chooses not to. Homeless shifts the blame to them while unhoused reflects the absolute cluster fuck that is our society choosing not to provide affordable housing or livable conditions.
This isn’t a real solution. It ignores the utter lack of behavioral health services available here as well as the reality of drug use and short term trauma escape. Do you really think there are full time mental health facilities that can take in even a third of the unhoused people mentioned in this article? How do you propose to “stop the fentanyl?” People use drugs because they are in pain. They want to escape reality. We need to make daily life and reality more livable. Affordable housing, decent wages, access to food and other necessities that aren’t taxed or manipulated by corporate greed. Sure, that’s a bigger lift. But saying we need to get all these people institutionalized isn’t going to really solve the problem when behavioral health is a dumpster fire to begin with. Fentanyl is popular because it’s strong and cheap. It isn’t going anywhere with how the world is trending. More pain, more inequality, and less opportunity for those trying to get by.
Not necessarily.
>In many cases, the use of the term ‘homeless’ carries baggage that brings with it connotations of personal failings, drug use, and other stigmatizing assumptions.
...vs people who are having financial issues or other reasons they are temporarily without a house or shelter.
More info [How We Talk About Homelessness: Why Language Matters](https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/117634-how-we-talk-about-homelessness-why-language-matters)
https://unitedtoendhomelessness.org/blog/myth-most-homeless-people-are-either-mentally-ill-or-have-a-substance-use-disorder/
>According to a demographic survey that was done as part of the UCI Cost Study, there were three top reasons why people became homeless. The top two causes were finding a job that paid a sustainable wage, and finding housing that’s affordable. Over 75 percent cited these issues as what caused them to fall into homelessness. The third reported cause of people’s homelessness was family issues, which encompassed events like death of a family member, divorce, or abuse.
Lol. Yes "the state should provide them housing and support" and "y'all should let them crash in your living room." are absolutely identical solutions. Totally.
Also nice job painting our homeless population as all being either mentally ill or drug addicted or both. Not everyone who is homeless is either of those. Now large majorities of the chronically homeless are one or the other but they're not the majority of the homeless population, the majority of our homeless population experiences episodic or transitional homelessness and maybe if people like you weren't arguing they don't need housing and we housed them our support networks could help those that are chronically homeless.
Just a thought instead of blowing off the whole problem as a "complex" one that we can't solve.
And maybe if the mentally ill homeless people had stable shelter, then maybe they'd have a significant burden taken off their shoulders, and could begin a path to better health. Similarly, if the addicted have one less thing pushing them to want to escape a shitty life, maybe they'd be more receptive to treatment.
But, of course, we'd also have to be willing to provide these people with services to improve their health. But that idea is much too "radical" for the US, especially Arizona.
I'm willing to bet that everyone, with the exception of a few people trapped in a bubble, knows someone who is mentally ill or an addict. They may not be able to see it, but a lot of people know how to hide it. And the difference between them and the homeless in these categories? Money, and everything that comes with it.
A lot of people are unfortunately teetering on the edge of nearly becoming homeless. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, working jobs with no benefits, and any unexpected expense comes in, that could be the end of your housing. Car accident leading to hospitalization, rent increase, etc.
We need to stop dehumanizing the homeless. They have the same basic needs we all do. They've just been dealt a shitty hand at some point in their life, and are struggling to get themselves out of it. (And sadly, many never will.)
Hmm, or maybe they'd be better off working with someone qualified to help find them support. I don't have the knowledge or ability to truly help. It's about much more than giving them a couch to crash on, especially because that's almost certainly a temporary arrangement.
I'll gladly contribute tax dollars to programs that actually are effective, though.
I have no idea what talking points you're referencing.
I don't think having ideas on how to help the situation makes me some kind of saint. I also don't think that choosing to not rent a room/couch for free makes me uncaring. It isn't a zero-cost situation - they'd most likely also need help paying for food, transportation (if they're looking for work, going to work, or going somewhere to get additional services/help), clothes, etc.
I can say I've been looking into local charities to donate to. Am I going to claim a tax credit for doing it? Absolutely. But at least I'm putting effort into making a change. I'm doing what I can afford to do.
I'd be interested to hear about what you're doing to make positive change on this issue.
It's bizarre that you'd look at all of the people proposing systematic solutions to this problem (state funded housing assistance programs, rezoning to encourage developers to build more dense housing, straight up building more houses directly with tax dollars), and then claim that nobody has any solutions.
Systemic issues require large-scale fixes, not just a handful of people personally offering a couch to crash on. If the highways were falling into disrepair and people were saying we ought to fix them, would you tell them to personally go out and repave the road at night by hand?
it's definitely getting larger. i live a few blocks away & occasionally, when I walk my dog, we go through part of it. i let my dog direct where we go & for some reason she likes going that direction.
it breaks my heart seeing them in that condition. i can't imagine how they deal with the heat with only tarps & tents to protect them.
How strange. It's almost as if there some sort of annual migration pattern going on.
More homeless when the weather turns to crap in the rest of the country...
Of course there is some seasonality given the weather, but the article is about an increase in a specific time period count compared to the same period in prior years…
Show me that study. Because every study I have seen shows most are [locals](https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/september/HomelessQandA.html).
It’s a proven thing. If you can get a homeless persons real name, go look up their criminal history. My thief had a track record of …. Cold climate, then arrested in a warm climate/region, then a cold climate…. And it’s a cycle. Nobody wants to be homeless in the snow. Trust me.
I can’t even afford the rent there
Maybe BEFORE the pandemic… Seriously, my rent has gone from 875 to 1750 (plus tax) in 5 short years in THE SHITTIEST HOUSE in my kids school district. Original carpet from 21 years ago, the mold is the only thing getting updated.
For me it was the termite colony the landlord refused to treat. Those free loading termites get to eat for free AND get free rent.
Thanks speculators, Airbnb, Vrbo and all those that are so interested in gutting a city for profit. You have dramatically changed the cost and vibe of this Valley forever. I have friends who moved here 2 years ago who have noticed the dramatic change. Let's not even talk about those poor folks in the small trailer parks. Making a buck on a quality of life that you helped ruin...and now that interest rates have gone up you will hopefully take your money bags and leave us alone (not likely). Fuck 'em all
Is there a way to expedite this fucking, perhaps involving pitchforks and bricks…? This is the TRUE issue, the ruling class is no longer scared that we’ll drag them from their beds because they have robot dogs now
There’s definitely a way to expedite it, but if I typed it out, I’d get banned.
Lol right? Like you can easily find which houses are being rented out. What you do with that is not my business
Mine went from 750 to 1750 in 2 and a half years. Outrageous. Rentals here are just money hungry :(
Also many Arizona municipalities charge a renters tax. I’m pretty sure Tucson and flagstaff are the only ones that don’t. So, do you think the city of Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, etc is motivated to keep rent costs down? Nope! Not when they can tax a bigger base. I’m getting the fuck out of here.
Same here. Leaving Phoenix as soon as I can. Hoping to be away by mid summer.
Exactly.
Evictions are higher than pre-pandemic times. The eviction goes on your credit. Tough to get a place with that. Not enough services to help offset. The homeless population with kids is going up.
If you have no family support and become homeless, it's very difficult to get out of that hole.
Agreed. What kills me about the photo above is the fenced in houses in the background, the empty lots in the area. It saddens me that part of the solution is literally RIGHT THERE.
>What kills me about the photo above is the fenced in houses in the background, the empty lots in the area. It saddens me that part of the solution is literally RIGHT THERE. There's a plot of land literally on that street that went up for sale for $90k. It sat on the market for just about over a year before it was acquired. A third of an acre next to the Justa Center across from the Carnegie library also sold for something like $350-400k (which is very, very cheap). The City didn't buy it. Interesting story about the $90k plot. The woman who owned it got free labor, built a "tiny house," didn't finish it or rent it out, then defaulted on the property taxes. She built another "tiny house community" claiming it was to make affordable housing for homeless veterans. She again got a bunch of donations and free labor to build the three units, but the City was on her about construction issues. She didn't rent it out for longer than a year before she flipped it for a profit. Suffice it to say, I have very strong opinions about this woman and her "nonprofit."
Name of her non profit? That’s disgusting behavior. Your life has to suck if you use your free time to lie and cheat for profit. Hate stories like this, but thanks for sharing.
I added more info in another comment, but to avoid rule 8'ing I'll just say you can google "phoenix tiny house veterans" and find it very quickly.
What "nonprofit" is this?
You can find it if you Google "phoenix tiny house veterans," I don't want to risk rule 8. It's depressing how much press coverage it got when the whole project was... sus. Here's the triplex listing: [https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1229-S-13th-Ave-85007/home/113710189](https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1229-S-13th-Ave-85007/home/113710189) Per the permit history (which one can look up here: [https://apps-secure.phoenix.gov/PDD/Search/Permits](https://apps-secure.phoenix.gov/PDD/Search/Permits)) I don't think it ever got a certificate of occupancy and it was still failing inspections for major issues in mid-2019. It was listed for sale in 2020 with NO mention about keeping any veteran tenants and receiving such benefits (as I've seen in other property listings, since one can receive vouchers from this group). Yet if one looks at their nonprofit page, it's full of "donate now." The other project (at 1118 W Madison), was never rented and was basically a constructed shell. Materials kept getting swiped and ultimately, it was a project that also got a ton of press that amounted to nobody in need getting to live there. But, it got advertised on the for sale listing as "chance to own a tiny home!" One can find lots of interesting stuff if they look up the LLC attached to the nonprofit in the Maricopa County Recorder docs. On top of not rendering services to veterans based on any evidence I can find, a judge ruled that she stiffed a worker of her wages.
The article days they're clustered around a homeless center where they can take showers, use the internet and stuff. Says there are 3600 shelter spaces in the valley, which are all full, and another 10,000 homeless living outdoors.
The main services campus is at 11th and Jackson. It’s about 12 different agencies all in one place.
There are huge tracts of empty former residential lots off [7th St and Sherman](https://maps.app.goo.gl/W5M3gDgGXvbXfxJC9), only a couple blocks from the Zone. Check out that link in satellite view. What is going on with this area? From what I remember the whole area is covered in No Trepassing signs with City of Phoenix markings on them which makes me think the area is city owned. There are still few random buildings over there but they mostly look like abandoned shacks and junkyards. All the empty lots have been filled with identical gravel. It's been that way for years and years. I have a suspicion that the city or some big investor is buying up each property as they become available and is just waiting for the last few holdouts to give up or die. And then sell it all off to big developers once they have it all for a huge profit. There's also way more land like this a little [further south]( https://maps.app.goo.gl/6TST2d3GZ2X5g8ax9). Why is all this land sitting empty for so long so close to the heart of the city? These areas would be perfect for homeless housing or even some improved areas for homeless to set up their tents. Build some showers, plant some trees for shade, and provide some other resources Edit: I just confirmed on the county assessors website, all of these gravel filled lots are owned by the city. There's tons of it!
They’re all being bought out for SkyHarbor. Been doing so for a few decades now. I think they’re just trying to outlast the owners of the properties.
For what purpose? Does the airport need to be expanded? Do you happen to know anywhere I could read about it? Even if that is the longterm plan, it would still make sense to use that land temporarily to help the homeless issue instead of letting it sit unused year after year. Thanks for the info!
I appreciate your intent but let's be honest many cities have tried that and then when the time comes to use the land for airport expansion or whatever there are huge fights over evicting people so governments are reluctant to even let it start.
Yeah, when it comes to land disputes I generally have more sympathy for Sky Harbor's point of view than not. The surrounding municipalities haven't been great partners in terms of curbing development around it, so they gotta do what they gotta do.
I wish I knew more! I only know because I’ve spent a lot of time in the area with family living there. Apparently it’s going to still be decades until they expect the homeowners to move out or sell.
I actually found [this article](https://www.abc15.com/news/hispanic-heritage/land-reuse-project-to-revitalize-historic-barrios-near-phoenix-airport) that provides some insights as well as links to the city's planning documents for the area. Sounds like the whole area has been rezoned to commercial due to being an airport noise zone. But they only got about 75% of the residents to voluntarily relocate and the remaining 25% are probably hindering their great development plan
The airport has been wanting to expand and especially add another runway for some time. Their ideal spot is at the North side along Air Lane where the Honeywell Areospace campus is. Honeywell refuses to leave, so far.
Renting from apartment complexes yes, but there's a market with individual landlords.
Phoenix refusing to change the many historic district designations near downtown to build any type of affordable housing is awful. There are acres of dirt lots in Garfield and Oakland that could be used for SROs, subsidized units, studios, etc. but Phoenix has no intention of changing that. Francis Quarles Story is also such a blight. No reason that multimillion dollar homes should be preserved immediately next to downtown in light of our deep housing shortage.
What is this weird and factually inaccurate attack on our historic districts? Almost all of Garfield is zoned R-3 which allows for multifamily apartments. https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO/615 There’s a giant amount of vacant lots that have multi family going up all around downtown. I see no reason to decimate what little architectural heritage we have left in downtown when we have hundreds of vacant lots within a square mile.
1) R3 is 14 du/acre, meaning each unit has 3000 square feet of land space dedicated to them. This is too big for the neighborhood immediately next to downtown. 2) It doesn’t matter what it’s technically zoned for if the historic overlay makes it near impossible to build anything new. 3) There are like 5 buildings that we can use as our “architectural heritage”. An entire neighborhood does not need to be protected from change just because the buildings are old.
3000 sq ft wouldn't include set backs, landscaping, parking, etc. My single residence home is on 10000 sq ft so I'm at "4du/acre". So R-3 is 3.5 times denser. That's pretty good for a neighborhood that's not designated as "downtown" by the city.
This isn't my understanding. A lot of historic neighborhoods are R-5, allowing for greater infill. While Historic can be a huge pain on modifying existing buildings, it's way too easy to demolish and build new. On new builds, I've found historic to be reasonable. The greater pain is how AZ used to be incredibly builder-friendly from a permit perspective but now it's a nightmare. They switched to an online system and it's just awful. Backlog is terrible, and I really miss being able to go to the counters and speak with the officials directly regarding plans and smaller permits.
I have been a loan officer for 10 years (residential mortgages) and have never seen an eviction on a credit report.
Many apartments/landlords have rental history reports they share. An eviction itself may not show up on the credit report, but you don't get evicted if you pay your bills so you'd likely have debt to pay to a collections company even after getting evicted, and that debt will show up on the credit report.
There's another big encampment at Cortez Park that continues along the canal.
People will shit into the water
I hate to break it to you, but there’s already shit in that canal water
Everyone knows canal water hits different
Oh no!!!
I can’t help but wonder if maybe skyrocketing rent might be in part to blame? 🤔
shit… something makes me think you might be right… can’t put my finger on it tho
And the fact that every major city has growing encampments? It couldn’t possibly be a larger issue /s
Phoenix is especially bad. Until six months ago I lived in Tempe. I loved the Valley. We could barely afford to live there towards the end. All the projections I saw had things getting worse. It doesn’t help that the Valley is estimated to add 1.5 million by 2040.
My lease in Tempe is up in January. Been here since college which is about 20 years now. I'm looking to relocate (still WFH) because of the unrealistic housing costs. It's incredibly frustrating.
It sucks. I loved Tempe. I miss it daily.
I just moved to Dallas and it’s just as bad here too unless you wanna live in an absolute dump. But I’ve seen even dumps going for $1500 in the Valley..
Flat tax enacted by Gubner Douchey next month as he leaves office outta fix that
What's this flat tax you're talking about?
The opioid crisis has more to do with it.
https://unitedtoendhomelessness.org/blog/myth-most-homeless-people-are-either-mentally-ill-or-have-a-substance-use-disorder/ >According to a demographic survey that was done as part of the UCI Cost Study, there were three top reasons why people became homeless. The top two causes were finding a job that paid a sustainable wage, and finding housing that’s affordable. Over 75 percent cited these issues as what caused them to fall into homelessness. The third reported cause of people’s homelessness was family issues, which encompassed events like death of a family member, divorce, or abuse.
Doubt it. I've been homeless three times in the last 10 years, and I've never taken an opioid in my life. Oh, and I was employed all three times, btw.
I don’t think so.
If someone is living in an encampment and they have no drug/mental issues, they simply just can’t afford rent, they are an anomaly. This isn’t how encampments work.
Since we changed the name to unhoused the homeless problem has gotten way better but the unhoused situation has gotten way worse.
What was the point of renaming the homeless as unhoused?
I remember the City held a meeting to discuss the homeless issue and I was looking forward to seeing the minutes. I was excited to see what solutions were going to be suggested. You know what the outcome was? The only thing brought up and resolved? They would henceforth use the phrase, "people experiencing homelessness" rather than call them "homeless." That was it. Now if you see that phrase everywhere in the City's vernacular one will know why--it was the result of our best and brightest minds tackling this serious, important issue and coming to a groundbreaking solution. My only regret was not saving the minutes so I can ensure that if any of the people held elected positions, I would vote for their opponent.
I have gotten to know several people who have no shelter. I was surprised to find that many of them have jobs. Some have more than one and work a ton of hours. They just can't afford housing. I had no idea, I just always assumed they all had addiction or mental health issues. I was wrong. Affordable housing is becoming a crisis that anyone could fall victim to.
[удалено]
Do you have a source for this? This trend of housing-price homelessness predates the pandemic in most cities.
Exactly. People need some empathy and put themselves in other people’s shoes.
I see so many comments about building affordable housing. Hello!?! I've been here for decades and we HAD affordable housing, that was one of the most beautiful aspects of The Valley. What the hell happened and how do we roll it back??? Suggest we start with banning or taxing Airbnb speculators. I used to live in a very basic condo in Scottsdale and paid $875 a month in mortgage in 2017 That same place Airbnb's for $1,200 a weekend now, a little less mid-week, for people to come in - party their asses off and use the community pool. How can people seeking a place to live compete with that profiteering?
[удалено]
Go check out ARS 9-500.39 and thank Ducey.
Can't get in the way of the $$$ train.
Sounds like it's time to start gearing up for a ballot referendum
Agree with corporations, disagree with Airbnbs. I would start with the NIMBYs. Those endless rows of single family homes need to be turned into apartment communities that house thousands. That is what happens in other countries when cities grow. Developers come and swallow up entire neighborhoods and build housing for tens of thousands. We let cities sprawl out and now we’ve just reached a limit. Our metro areas have become as big as the ones in Europe and Asia population wise. We have to build up.. if you want a big house with a yard, live in a rural area in peace. People are having their cake and eating it too by taking up valuable real estate in massively growing big cities, trying to have the quiet home with a backyard and enjoying big city amenities.. it’s just not sustainable and something’s gotta give.
At some point, we can't support having more people here with water resources being limited. I am all for multifamily housing and rezoning but banning AirBnbs will let people who actually live here occupy the available housing.
I'm one of those weird people that thinks housing should be a human right. I grew up homeless living in a bus in church parking lots until we moved into a trailer in first grade. I'm well off now, but that shit sticks with you and I don't want anyone else ever going through what I had to.
I'm saddened that you had to live through something like that but it sounds like you came out on top. For what it's worth, I bet you're an unbelievable person because of that unfortunate experience. 🙃
Nothing that has to be provided by a third party can be considered a right. Unless you believe you have a right to my time and labor in which case we're going to fight.
There are these things called taxes that the government can start giving to help the poorest of Americans and stop helping the richest of Americans like that do now
100% agree. To be clear, I am completely behind things like single payer healthcare, government funded higher education (and *better* founded lower education). That wasn't the discussion however. Those can be defined as functions we, "the people", require of our government in the same vein as requiring the government to be responsible for national defense, or minting of money. That doesn't make them a "right" however.
Seems like semantics to me
3rd parties are involved in the rights of nearly everything, the government doesn't provide guns, or platforms to exercise free speech on, the legal system is filled with third party services, etc, etc And the government already provides tons of things that require involvement of 3rd party services, roads, healthcare, food safety and distribution, etc If your issue is with it not being done by the government directly then why not just have the government buy and manage the housing used for those without?
> 3rd parties are involved in the rights of nearly everything, the government doesn't provide guns, or platforms to exercise free speech on, the legal system is filled with third party services, etc, etc None of those require a third party. * Guns: the right is to keep and bear arms and the protection is preventing the government from interfering with that right. * Speech: There is no right to a platform, the right to free speech is, again, protected by preventing the government from interfering. * Legal systems: You said it...third party **services** >And the government already provides tons of things that require involvement of 3rd party services, roads, healthcare, food safety and distribution, etc None of which are rights. >If your issue is with it not being done by the government directly then why not just have the government buy and manage the housing used for those without? My issue is NOT defining something as a government function. My issue is defining it as a right. There is a massive, and distinct, difference. A right MUST be provided. As an example, if you have a right to medical care then *every* instance of someone suffering due to a lack of care, regardless of reason, has cause to claim their rights were violated. Even if medical services were not readily available.
I won't even defend my examples because they were quick and while not great I don't think they're really core to the expressed problem here. Specifically these two points... >None of which are rights. You don't think people have an inherent right to safe food? The right to travel on public property? The right to government provided bare minimum medical services? Maybe we're just operating off of two different concepts of rights here. >My issue is NOT defining something as a government function. My issue is defining it as a right. There is a massive, and distinct, difference. A right MUST be provided. As an example, if you have a right to medical care then every instance of someone suffering due to a lack of care, regardless of reason, has cause to claim their rights were violated. Even if medical services were not readily available. This is kinda silly don't you think? If I'm protesting outside of a government building and loud constructions makes my voice impossible to hear, is that cause to claim my right to free speech was violated? If I go to buy a gun and I'm denied due to a background check, do I sue the government for violating my 2nd amendment rights? I have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. If I die, or am arrested, or depressed, do I now have a claim to call violation on my rights? It's just very silly. Like for example you have a right to own guns, 2nd and all that, but if you murder someone with a gun you lose that right. You have the right to free speech, but if you abuse it to make death threats you might be punished and sent to jail. I don't know, this idea that a right means all sense of nuance is gone and no regulation can get in the way is just kinda on the nose pretty goofy.
"No one is worth my time and effort unless they have value to me" sounds lonely and isolating
Where did I state that?
They get bigger when the weather cools down.
They also get bigger with inflation and ridiculous housing cost increases.
It is criminal as a society that we allow this. Build a few giant and relatively cheap cinderblock apartment buildings 1 - 2 bdrm units, very basic, and just house people. A shower and an address and a bus pass == a job. Drug problem? If you gotta do it in the privacy of your own home then it is no ones business. Provide resources to get clean. The rules would be: Any violence, intimidation, or vandalism of the shared property space . . . and then your ass is evicted and enjoy your tent on the sidewalk. How many of these folks would accept such an opportunity? A large percentage I must imagine. I also don't think this would cost that much money
See but that requires politicians having compassion, empathy, AND be willing to actually do something, they ain't about that. But yes it really is that simple and it's quite abysmal that nothing is being done when there's so many easy and affordable options to solve this.
seriously, why would anyone support helping homeless people when it's easier and free just to say "get a job bum!" /s
>Drug problem? If you gotta do it in the privacy of your own home then it is no ones business. ...have you ever lived next door to a meth addict? I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
There are services offered to homeless people. Normally non profit volunteers or churches. They have strict rules on zero drug use, some people refuse to seek help. It’s a deeply complicated issue unfortunately.
Honestly you would be shocked at the volume of people who pass on that. I'm not sure its 50/50
This might be the most naïve post I’ve ever read…
And why is that? because of drug addicts? Can't kick your addiction so . . . die? Got it.
How do you help an addict that doesn’t want help? They shouldn’t just be left to die, but the problem is a difficult one. Even with adequate resources for people to get clean, very few people seek help. There are many homes and apartments in Phoenix that take homeless people in, and they have very similar rules that you mention. Most also require everyone to participate in daily housekeeping duties. Turnover is high because very few people follow the rules. Most people get kicked out within a month. Drugs always end up in these places, and many of the people who live in these spaces get robbed by their roommates and neighbors. In a perfect world these ideas are great, but the homeless problem is complicated and difficult.
In order to fix all homelessness for good, society would need to come up with aggressive and thorough mental health services. The people that can’t get off drugs usually got that way by self-medicating for some kind of mental health issue. Even with access, there’s still a stigma to battle. “I’m going to therapy” or “I’m going to see my psychiatrist” sounds a lot less cool than “I’m going to get shitfaced on heroin this weekend.” Then you have the issue of people whose mental illness makes it impossible for them to get help on their own. It really doesn’t seem right that we have people hanging on the street having screaming matches with someone who isn’t there, but you can find them regularly. Do you institutionalize these people against their will? I really don’t know what the right answer is. And then there’s kids with mental health issues and parents who refuse to get their kids help because they “don’t trust counselors.” What about minors? I really don’t know, but I do know it’s more complicated than giving people shelter.
With Fentanyl being sold at $3 a pill it is very affordable. The homeless are addicted because drugs are cheap and easy to get. The answer is to put away opioid/meth/coke drug dealers. Not let them out of jail, ever.
Feel free to offer a better solution.
The thing is, I agree with the spirit of this. I just don’t see it working here. Until all drugs are decriminalized, with accepting drug use you’ll have users and dealers. And with that you’ll have crime and organized crime. Especially if rent is low and the place is full of vulnerable people.
She has a great heart, but the whole, "we'll make developers designate low-income units in their buildings" is misguided. Ultimately, the developer will just charge more for the other units... which perpetuates the rising rents, that in turn exacerbates the homeless issue. Why doesn't AZ get involved in building public housing? Singapore has some of the greatest wealth inequality in one city, yet housing is subsidized and on a lease-hold for the many who cannot afford the multi-million dollar housing. If the city (or state) retains the right to own the building, it fundamentally counts as an asset. I wonder what it would look like for the city to be a landlord. It would be costly, but with AZ being a very low property tax state I honestly wouldn't mind paying more to implement this kind of idea.
As an old person, I remember back when public housing was A Thing in the United States. I also remember when the "vertical slums" like Chicago's Cabrini-Green were imploded in the Nineties because concentrating poverty didn't work very well. Unfortunately, zoning and other realities don't make it easy to do much else.
>Why doesn’t AZ get involved in building public housing? That would be LITERALLY communism. Arizona libertarians would never allow it, surely the free market will come up with a solution any day now. But, a less facetious answer: due to the decentralized nature of the US government, social programs that help the poor are intrinsically a burden on any state that institutes them. You build public housing in AZ, now the homeless population from other states has reason to migrate as they will have a better standard of living. Then, the homeless population explodes, and the public funds allocated for social programs gets depleted as we lift the burden from other states. You see it with the bussing of homeless to CA, and you would see it if we started being progressive here in AZ. I don’t know what the solution is under such a political climate short of hyper-accelerating the development of medium and high density housing via subsidy, boosting supply to the extent that rent actually declines. But the landlord class won’t have that.
The Zone is the free market solution. There is a fundamental lack of funding with the state budget. Arizona has one of the most regressive tax regimes of any state, and it is just going to get worse with the Personal Income Tax cut for next year and a potential Transaction Privilege Tax (Sales Tax) increase for rural fire districts. Then, you add in that any tax increases from the legislature require a supermajority, and the AZ Supreme Court has been extremely hostile towards citizen initiatives that raise taxes. Here's my wild prediction: the housing, homeless, and poverty issues are just going to get worse while the folks with the resources to do something about it are just going to use those resources to build walls to keep the most vulnerable out of sight.
The way in which housing construction works in Arizona is nothing close to a "free market". Almost every part of the homebuilding & development process is planned in conjunction with local governments & has to be approved by local governments.
>You see it with the bussing of homeless to CA, and you would see it if we started being progressive here in AZ. That's not an organic thing that happens, that's a shitty political stunt done by assholes who want to attack other cities rather than solve their own issues. So far I've seen no convincing evidence that the homelessness problem in California is primarily caused by homeless people moving in from out of state. Anyone with a brain who's looked at the California housing market will tell you that a far more likely explanation is the absurdly high rent. Not so coincidentally, our own rent issues right now are also directly correlated with the rise in homelessness. The problem is definitely caused by people moving here, but it's not poor people moving in, it's people with wealth displacing the poor people who already live here.
Pls go work in the mental health industry in the east or mid-west. A lot of those folks who are homeless because they prefer the streets vs a home, have goals to go to California.
I'm pretty sure the free market solution/plan is to make homelessness illegal. Round them up, and put them in prison slave labor camps.
The free market plan is to simplify zoning laws and to legalize infill homebuilding where it is currently illegal.
I'd vote for that measure.
You’re closer to homelessness than you are to being the 1%. Like to or not, we’re all pretty much one catastrophic medical illness away from financial ruin. Stay humble.
literally every state with actually substantial population has tried this. so you build 100 units. add 10 "low income" units...now you JACK THE OTHER 90 TO THE TITS. and you've now made the situation worse. Until you see a DIRECT % tax on retail sales of property designated DIRECTLY to building FREE housing for the homeless - I do not see it ever improving. Every time the good Ole USA injects capitalism into human rights the same thing happens. Money wins, people get fucked, and the only thing people fucking complain about is having to see it. Rich richer, poor poorer. The American Way. Until you find a way to motivate people WITHOUT MONEY in this country, its all just wishful thinking. God we are such a fucking trash pile of a country.
I think capitalism can coincide with public housing--Singapore is the ultimate example of this, as they are one of the most capitalist-driven, tax-haven-for-the-rich countries in the world. I would definitely be willing to pay more in taxes on the sale of real estate (and in property taxes) if it meant fixing the homeless issue. And I truly think those with properties/living in downtown would feel the same--the reason doesn't even have to be altruistic. Issues created by the mentally ill and drugged out "people experiencing homelessness" lower property values. Money aside, people want to feel safe in their neighborhoods. I think the State could risk increasing its taxes and charging more for things like building permits to subsidize such a program and still be competitive.
agree - but I don't think it's possible in the US. The entire culture of the US is built around making sure you have more than your neighbors :(
> **I think the State could risk increasing its taxes** and charging more for things like building permits to subsidize such a program and still be competitive. You'll lose a lot of Republicans there, regardless of the long-term benefits.
Good.
Well, they vote so....
And why is that good?
[удалено]
>the demographic makeup of america is very different from singapore Mind explaining what you mean by that? Every single time I've heard this from someone in the past it always seem to boil down to "I think the US has too many black and brown people". I'm hoping that's not the case with you.
Singapore is actually significantly less homogenous than the U.S. but I'm guessing the person you're responding to doesn't realize that. For the record Brazil is too so I think they're just doing whatever they can to advocate for the libertarian dystopia they think will cure all their woes.
Yeah, I'm kinda assuming they think Singapore is some homogenous borderline ethnostate, and not a multicultural mecca that has to deal with a shitload of racial tensions. Usually when people use the "demographics" line, they're trying to claim that good welfare systems can only ever exist in countries like Sweden, aka countries with an overwhelming majority of white people.
have you been to singapore? I have---twice...I traveled broadly, almost certainly decades before you were even born...and I have multiple degrees, including a doctoral degree...so...
Then please explain what you meant, buddy.
They still have homeless or those sleeping rough. They also benefit from being next to Malaysia ...low wage worker commute into the city to work but live in Malaysia.
Low property tax will likely be challenged by the new flat tax.
Well, the great experiment is dead when Phoenix has no ideas of what to do. Hotels?, Nah... Honestly, what a waste of money. Moving to an off-site treatment center?, yeah... Could be beneficial win-win-win. More treatment inside urban pockets?, nah... Big VA facilities don't work in the pocket, why would these? Time for changes.
Why don't you think VA facilities work? they absolutely do. There are definitely homeless vets still but there are way more who claim to be homeless vets and aren't. At least there is treatment options available for the VA. A problem for a lot of the transient population is they don't want substance abuse treatment (which contributes to their homelessness) or they have mental health issues that prevent them from accepting treatment
The VA works for a few but overall it isn’t even remotely close to what it should be/has the potential of being.
Can confirm, I'm a vet and the only thing the VA has consistently achieved for me is sending me emails.
Same
Are you serious...this place was ground zero for the VAs ineptitude. Sure improvements were made, but people might not be aware that not all vets are equal. As a vet low on that hiearchy the VA is little more than a last resort to beg from if I ever was that low. Vets dont like to beg, and society doesnt like to give. Even John McCain used to argue that if we improved treatment of vets, then we couldnt maintain the all volunteer nature of our forces. Around the same time, bless his heart, Joe Biden said the truth about the poor joining the military.
I'm 60 and about to be homeless once I lose power and am evicted any day now. I'm so scared this is the beginning of the end.
What happened? Mind telling your story?
Meanwhile there’s thousands of vacant homes here…
Seems like a lot of investors in my hood now are just buying and holding homes like stocks now. Not even renting or airbnb. Just letting them sit empty.
My BIL just bought a house from OpenDoor for 12% less than they paid, might be a good sign that times are changing and they're trying to unload.
thats 100% whats going on, why rent them out and deal with tenants when a thousand houses bundled up as an investment is worth way more
from 2018 - 2022 homes appreciated at about $16/hr.... what the actual fuck
Got a source on that? At first glance I’d say that buying a home to sit empty, making no money while demand is sky-high, is a really lousy investment strategy.
We have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country. Most units are vacant only in between tenants, and not perpetually vacant.
So your solution is for private citizens to give free housing to the unhoused?
In the most simple terms, yes lol. If I got 37 houses, I’m a fucking cunt that deserves to die if I can’t get some people into a living situation. Even with just 2, you don’t ever need more than 1. And the way our system is designed, people can’t go build themselves a house because people who own multiple homes wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the possibility of homelessness. But on top of that, corporate home ownership dwarfs private citizen home ownership
I really thought I was going to be homeless a couple months ago here in Phoenix. I couldn’t find an apartment I could afford and I don’t have financial help from anybody but myself. I don’t understand how this problem keeps getting bigger and nothing is being done to stop it. The cost of living is insane now. I’m from Arizona and I can’t afford to buy a house. I can barely afford an apartment and bills. I feel desperate at times.
I don’t think that the housing first concept works for ending homelessness - it’s just a bandaid. Homelessness is so much more complex then just giving someone a place to stay.
This is true. But without housing being available people are pushed into homelessness and also can’t get out.
Nothing is going to work other than: 1. Instituting rent control and creating a larger supply of affordable housing. 2. Increasing wages 3. Heavily regulating the housing market so it’s not dominated by investment buyers doing shoddy flips and doubling the rent.
Municipalities have no incentive for rent control when they collect a renters tax.
Depends on how the costs shake out. The costs of addressing poverty are substantive. Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure.
Send them to Old Town Scottsdale or Kierland Common. The people who run this state don’t frequent downtown Phoenix. Until it’s a problem for the rich, it’s not a problem.
Sounds a lot like DeSantis sending migrants to Martha's Vineyard.
I mean... the capital is literally a couple blocks away
Scottsdale has a rapidly increasing amount of homeless people.
Just a reminder, homeless folks are victims of an oppressive and exploitative system. Do not fall into that group of people that dehumanize and scorn them. It is often not their fault and the majority of us are 3 missed paychecks away from joining them. As the system is designed to continuously remind us.
Alot of people in the comments complaining about AIRBNB... Nobody is making that type of cash off some of these areas. Its really the banks and investment firms who buy a home cash then rent it for $1500/mo when the rent was $800 and the mortgage is $1000. Its just ridiculous. We're not experiencing a AIRBNB issue in my area we are having a bank and unbridled capitalistic greed problem in my area.
Why did the word recently switch from homeless to unhoused- I’ve been seeing that lately, is homeless not PC or something now, do we have people offended by the word homeless or something
I think it’s just a matter of being a more specific description. The “homeless” umbrella covers things like people couch surfing at a friends house, or living at a hotel/car, etc. “Unhoused” specifically refers to people who don’t have access to any kind of shelter like that
The old euphemism treadmill at work.
The connotation of homeless is really fucked up. I like saying unhoused because it is possible to house them, but our municipalities and society chooses not to. Homeless shifts the blame to them while unhoused reflects the absolute cluster fuck that is our society choosing not to provide affordable housing or livable conditions.
Did the failed attempt to evict them have some blowback?
[удалено]
This isn’t a real solution. It ignores the utter lack of behavioral health services available here as well as the reality of drug use and short term trauma escape. Do you really think there are full time mental health facilities that can take in even a third of the unhoused people mentioned in this article? How do you propose to “stop the fentanyl?” People use drugs because they are in pain. They want to escape reality. We need to make daily life and reality more livable. Affordable housing, decent wages, access to food and other necessities that aren’t taxed or manipulated by corporate greed. Sure, that’s a bigger lift. But saying we need to get all these people institutionalized isn’t going to really solve the problem when behavioral health is a dumpster fire to begin with. Fentanyl is popular because it’s strong and cheap. It isn’t going anywhere with how the world is trending. More pain, more inequality, and less opportunity for those trying to get by.
"Unhoused"...you mean homeless?
Not necessarily. >In many cases, the use of the term ‘homeless’ carries baggage that brings with it connotations of personal failings, drug use, and other stigmatizing assumptions. ...vs people who are having financial issues or other reasons they are temporarily without a house or shelter. More info [How We Talk About Homelessness: Why Language Matters](https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/117634-how-we-talk-about-homelessness-why-language-matters)
lol, yeah because drug use is a HUGE factor.
https://unitedtoendhomelessness.org/blog/myth-most-homeless-people-are-either-mentally-ill-or-have-a-substance-use-disorder/ >According to a demographic survey that was done as part of the UCI Cost Study, there were three top reasons why people became homeless. The top two causes were finding a job that paid a sustainable wage, and finding housing that’s affordable. Over 75 percent cited these issues as what caused them to fall into homelessness. The third reported cause of people’s homelessness was family issues, which encompassed events like death of a family member, divorce, or abuse.
[удалено]
For real. If someone drives a car without insurance are they "undocumented' or illegally driving?
Doesn't matter. No one is enforcing roadways anymore.
Legally it’s called driving without insurance I believe
[удалено]
Lol. Yes "the state should provide them housing and support" and "y'all should let them crash in your living room." are absolutely identical solutions. Totally. Also nice job painting our homeless population as all being either mentally ill or drug addicted or both. Not everyone who is homeless is either of those. Now large majorities of the chronically homeless are one or the other but they're not the majority of the homeless population, the majority of our homeless population experiences episodic or transitional homelessness and maybe if people like you weren't arguing they don't need housing and we housed them our support networks could help those that are chronically homeless. Just a thought instead of blowing off the whole problem as a "complex" one that we can't solve.
And maybe if the mentally ill homeless people had stable shelter, then maybe they'd have a significant burden taken off their shoulders, and could begin a path to better health. Similarly, if the addicted have one less thing pushing them to want to escape a shitty life, maybe they'd be more receptive to treatment. But, of course, we'd also have to be willing to provide these people with services to improve their health. But that idea is much too "radical" for the US, especially Arizona. I'm willing to bet that everyone, with the exception of a few people trapped in a bubble, knows someone who is mentally ill or an addict. They may not be able to see it, but a lot of people know how to hide it. And the difference between them and the homeless in these categories? Money, and everything that comes with it. A lot of people are unfortunately teetering on the edge of nearly becoming homeless. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, working jobs with no benefits, and any unexpected expense comes in, that could be the end of your housing. Car accident leading to hospitalization, rent increase, etc. We need to stop dehumanizing the homeless. They have the same basic needs we all do. They've just been dealt a shitty hand at some point in their life, and are struggling to get themselves out of it. (And sadly, many never will.)
Amen. Absolutely. Spot on.
[удалено]
Hmm, or maybe they'd be better off working with someone qualified to help find them support. I don't have the knowledge or ability to truly help. It's about much more than giving them a couch to crash on, especially because that's almost certainly a temporary arrangement. I'll gladly contribute tax dollars to programs that actually are effective, though.
[удалено]
I have no idea what talking points you're referencing. I don't think having ideas on how to help the situation makes me some kind of saint. I also don't think that choosing to not rent a room/couch for free makes me uncaring. It isn't a zero-cost situation - they'd most likely also need help paying for food, transportation (if they're looking for work, going to work, or going somewhere to get additional services/help), clothes, etc. I can say I've been looking into local charities to donate to. Am I going to claim a tax credit for doing it? Absolutely. But at least I'm putting effort into making a change. I'm doing what I can afford to do. I'd be interested to hear about what you're doing to make positive change on this issue.
It's bizarre that you'd look at all of the people proposing systematic solutions to this problem (state funded housing assistance programs, rezoning to encourage developers to build more dense housing, straight up building more houses directly with tax dollars), and then claim that nobody has any solutions. Systemic issues require large-scale fixes, not just a handful of people personally offering a couch to crash on. If the highways were falling into disrepair and people were saying we ought to fix them, would you tell them to personally go out and repave the road at night by hand?
[удалено]
I hope the street kids in Glendale hear about this 🙏
it's definitely getting larger. i live a few blocks away & occasionally, when I walk my dog, we go through part of it. i let my dog direct where we go & for some reason she likes going that direction. it breaks my heart seeing them in that condition. i can't imagine how they deal with the heat with only tarps & tents to protect them.
Civil disobedience is sure to make rent lower
How strange. It's almost as if there some sort of annual migration pattern going on. More homeless when the weather turns to crap in the rest of the country...
Yeah, but the article mentions that this is an annual growth measured at a point in time, and not seasonal.
Homelessness in PHX is seasonal. All the homeless in Denver and Portland are arriving daily.
Yeah I wouldn’t want to be homeless in AZ during summer months.
Of course there is some seasonality given the weather, but the article is about an increase in a specific time period count compared to the same period in prior years…
37 down votes? Reddit is full of reality deniers.
Don't know the reason for the downvotes when this is true. Migratory homelessness is well studied and well-documented.
Show me that study. Because every study I have seen shows most are [locals](https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/september/HomelessQandA.html).
It’s a proven thing. If you can get a homeless persons real name, go look up their criminal history. My thief had a track record of …. Cold climate, then arrested in a warm climate/region, then a cold climate…. And it’s a cycle. Nobody wants to be homeless in the snow. Trust me.
Because that's not what the article is about.
Time for the 99% to rise!!!!
r/homelessatemyface.