> a far better option than actually trying to provide housing or attack more of the root causes.
I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless?
Already, the Bay Area & LA are major draws to homeless populations throughout the country. [0]
[0]: Yes, there are some studies that show "70% of homeless people in the Bay Area list most recently becoming homeless in the Bay Area" but many of those people came to the Bay in the first place to access homeless services and that study also relies on a very expansive definition of homeless). These studies are also incentivized to show this as a local issue from an ideological perspective. If you actually ask visible homeless people on the street where they are born, most will not say the Bay Area.
Another problem with "just providing housing" is that there are a good number of these people who need a lot of support and have a hard time functioning in society. Here, they tried giving homeless residents housing vouchers to apartments, and it lead in a significant drop in quality of life for the people who lived there, with a rise in violence and crime in the buildings (this is based both on newspaper articles about the program and talking with residents). I've known people in buildings like that who are looking to move after living there for decades.
Of course it would induce demand, especially when the benefits are an order of magnitude better than in other jurisdictions. It might even attract people to be "homeless" for free housing in one of the most desirable cities in the country.
> I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless?
This is an interesting point, but would it not apply more generally to creating more housing for everyone, rather than just when creating housing for homeless? The population of homeless people is just a tiny fraction of the total number of people in the housing market.
If food became twice as cheap, would you consume twice as many calories?
Induced demand is easily applied to traffic because people shift consumption from X to X+Y% miles when trip times are reduced. Housing demand is finite. There is no +Y% additional housing that is being consumed when it is free, because it's only available to people who have none. Google's software engineers aren't going to be using free housing if it becomes available.
It's only available to people who have none across the entire country, plus it lowers the cost at the margin to becoming homeless (albeit only slightly).
> Housing demand is finite.
So is traffic demand. Demand being finite does not mean that induced demand no longer exists as phenomenon.
Induced demand is just another way of saying the supply is too low - and increasing the supply doesn't "increase the demand" it just reveals demand that was already there (and being unfulfilled).
I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless?
Already, the Bay Area & LA are major draws to homeless populations throughout the country. [0]
[0]: Yes, there are some studies that show "70% of homeless people in the Bay Area list most recently becoming homeless in the Bay Area" but many of those people came to the Bay in the first place to access homeless services and that study also relies on a very expansive definition of homeless). These studies are also incentivized to show this as a local issue from an ideological perspective. If you actually ask visible homeless people on the street where they are born, most will not say the Bay Area.