California attempts to solve student housing crisis with-- students in cars?

[squatz1]

I know most of you may not like FoxNews, but I do browse it alongside the other platforms that I'll listen to during the day. Saw this very weird headline, and in my mind this is one of the more bizarre things about California -- instead of easing regulations in an attempt to get builders to build new housing in areas -- California has announced a bill to allow homeless college students to sleep in cars on campus' (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-bill-would-let-homeless-college-students-sleep-in-cars-on-campus-amid-housing-crisis)

This seems like a pretty horrible solution to a problem that could be solved through other means. I'll list some potential solutions, and I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on it!

1. Make it easier to build - Obviously.
This is just easing the regulatory process, reducing taxes, fees, and paperwork constraints on those that want to develop within California. Speed up the approval processes for licenses and LET PEOPLE BUILD. I'm not saying to abandon safety standards or anything, that's not smart, but if you're holding up projects to hold up projects then nothing is working.

2. Don't force new builders to set aside a certain amount of units towards Rent Control. (OR LOWER THE AMOUNT NEEDED)
Rent Control is practically a naughty/bad word in the industry of builders. They don't want to be constrained with this sort of thing, as they know it's just going to bring profits down and less real estate investors are going to want to buy the properties.

3. Mandate Certain House Goals
If local government isn't going to act, the state must set a mandate to achieve a certain amount of housing by x point. Attach this sort of requirement to federal funding and force the governments to comply, or lose funding.

I'd like to see what the rest of you think about this, I'll also link the FoxNews article up above.

[1715085136]

1715085136

[1715085136]

1715085136

[1715085136]

1715085136

[1715085136]

1715085136

[1715085136]

1715085136

[1715085136]

1715085136

[TECSHARE]

At this point I think we should just split Commifornia from the rest of the nation and push it off into the ocean.

[Butterscotch Cartman]

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

Interesting... most Socialist place in the US... "CAPITALISM IS AT FAULT!"

Marx was a functionally retarded, hypocritical, incompetent, boiled-assed, leech of a man with zero principles.

[squatz1]

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

I don't see this in the least, other parts of the USA don't have these sorts of issues (or at least to the same degree)

This is without a doubt an issue of over government regulation. Which could be solved by allowing Capitalism to thrive.

[coins4commies]

I know most of you may not like FoxNews, but I do browse it alongside the other platforms that I'll listen to during the day. Saw this very weird headline, and in my mind this is one of the more bizarre things about California -- instead of easing regulations in an attempt to get builders to build new housing in areas -- California has announced a bill to allow homeless college students to sleep in cars on campus' (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-bill-would-let-homeless-college-students-sleep-in-cars-on-campus-amid-housing-crisis)

This seems like a pretty horrible solution to a problem that could be solved through other means. I'll list some potential solutions, and I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on it!

1. Make it easier to build - Obviously.
This is just easing the regulatory process, reducing taxes, fees, and paperwork constraints on those that want to develop within California. Speed up the approval processes for licenses and LET PEOPLE BUILD. I'm not saying to abandon safety standards or anything, that's not smart, but if you're holding up projects to hold up projects then nothing is working.

2. Don't force new builders to set aside a certain amount of units towards Rent Control. (OR LOWER THE AMOUNT NEEDED)
Rent Control is practically a naughty/bad word in the industry of builders. They don't want to be constrained with this sort of thing, as they know it's just going to bring profits down and less real estate investors are going to want to buy the properties.

3. Mandate Certain House Goals
If local government isn't going to act, the state must set a mandate to achieve a certain amount of housing by x point. Attach this sort of requirement to federal funding and force the governments to comply, or lose funding.

I'd like to see what the rest of you think about this, I'll also link the FoxNews article up above.

1.  You are assuming that if new housing is built, students would be able to afford that new housing which is not the case.  New housing would mostly be gobbled up by investors and the remainder would be split between first time home buyers, and professionals currently living with roommates.  Just because new housing is built, doesn't mean students who cannot even afford to be in school to begin with, will suddenly be able to afford said new housing.  

This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects.  Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers.  

2.  Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up.  This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable.  Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.

3.  So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.  

 In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage.  All of your solutions are centered around building more housing.  It doesn't solve the actual problem.  

The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas.   This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US.  

[DireWolfM14]

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

Interesting... most Socialist place in the US... "CAPITALISM IS AT FAULT!"

Marx was a functionally retarded, hypocritical, incompetent, boiled-assed, leech of a man with zero principles.

Of course capitalism is at fault.  
Just like Bush caused all of Obama's problems.  
Just like Obama is responsible for all of Trump's success.  

Maybe if you keep telling the lie long enough it'll become truth.

California is my home.  When my parents immigrated here in the 70's it was the pinnacle of the American Dream.  Now middle class families are as rare as Uhaul trucks.  

[squatz1]

1.  You are assuming that if new housing is built, students would be able to afford that new housing which is not the case.  New housing would mostly be gobbled up by investors and the remainder would be split between first time home buyers, and professionals currently living with roommates.  Just because new housing is built, doesn't mean students who cannot even afford to be in school to begin with, will suddenly be able to afford said new housing. 

This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects.  Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers. 

2.  Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up.  This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable.  Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.

3.  So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.   

 In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage.  All of your solutions are centered around building more housing.  It doesn't solve the actual problem. 

The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas.   This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US. 

1. You're, wrongly, thinking that real estate developers aren't going to go ahead and rent the properties out. This influx of supply will bring down cost for all properties, meaning that college students would be able to purchase properties in different areas.

Also, I would love to eliminate regulations so everyone has an equal playing field when it comes to building. I don't want big businesses having a larger influence over building authorities licensing department just cause they're able to lobby with more funds.

2. Rent Control doesn't work, it just deters builders from building in certain areas if they must have a certain # of units be rent controlled.

3. No. That's not what I said at all. What I was stating was that State governments, who already contribute funds to local governments for different things, must set up an unfunded mandated to increase housing -- attached to current funding to local governments.

True, California is just in the news the most for it.

[KingScorpio]

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

exactly communism in china has provided countless suprluss housing, they cant even fill their housing.

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result.  There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.

exactly communism in china has provided countless suprluss housing, they cant even fill their housing.

All they had to do to pay for it was continually devalue the yuan to compensate for all the dark money created via fraudulent inter-bank loans. All the surplus housing there and to a large degree the prices worldwide are driven up by this. Essentially it is just a mad grab for real assets before the yuan is again devalued via perpetual inflation. I am sure it is all Capitalism's fault though.

[coins4commies]

1.  You are assuming that if new housing is built, students would be able to afford that new housing which is not the case.  New housing would mostly be gobbled up by investors and the remainder would be split between first time home buyers, and professionals currently living with roommates.  Just because new housing is built, doesn't mean students who cannot even afford to be in school to begin with, will suddenly be able to afford said new housing. 

This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects.  Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers. 

2.  Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up.  This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable.  Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.

3.  So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.   

 In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage.  All of your solutions are centered around building more housing.  It doesn't solve the actual problem. 

The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas.   This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US. 

1. You're, wrongly, thinking that real estate developers aren't going to go ahead and rent the properties out. This influx of supply will bring down cost for all properties, meaning that college students would be able to purchase properties in different areas.

Also, I would love to eliminate regulations so everyone has an equal playing field when it comes to building. I don't want big businesses having a larger influence over building authorities licensing department just cause they're able to lobby with more funds.

2. Rent Control doesn't work, it just deters builders from building in certain areas if they must have a certain # of units be rent controlled.

3. No. That's not what I said at all. What I was stating was that State governments, who already contribute funds to local governments for different things, must set up an unfunded mandated to increase housing -- attached to current funding to local governments.

True, California is just in the news the most for it.

1. They prefer to sell them before they even build the property but if they are rented its not going to bring the cost down so far that COLLEGE STUDENTS will be able to rent them.  Thats really preposterous.  I don't think you realize the cost of living and just how far college students are below it.  The price only comes down to the point where people are willing to pay.  There are plenty of working people who would occupy new supply before students.  There are people making 6 figures in SF who have to share rooms.  You seem to be under the impression that development will continue with sinking prices and rents until everyone has housing.  Developers don't have a goal of everyone getting housing. They would stop investing long before the supply got that high because at a certain point, commercial development and other types of investment would become more profitable.   It will never be profitable to house everyone.

2.  What do you mean it doesn't work?  The goal of rent control is not to give developers easier opportunities to make money.  The goal of rent control is to keep housing affordable for more people.  Its not the best idea but it most certainly works.  People who live in rent controlled units will attest.   There is a limited supply of land.  Letting a developer build units that will cost 5000 per month is not going to help anyone.    Those units are going to be vacation homes, AIRBNB, 2nd or 3rd homes, or investment properties.   

3. Local governments can't mandate people to build housing.  They could build housing or invest in housing but those actions require funds.  There is nothing else a government can do to make sure that housing is built.   There is no "unfunded mandate".

Your ideas are exactly what has happened in China.  Governments reallocated rural land to urban land which was sold to private developers.  These private developers built housing and wealthy people bought 1,2 or 3 homes with their savings.  Instead of holding Yuan or stocks, Chinese people have bet on holding real estate as social security with the idea that poor people will eventually afford it.   It has led to millions of homes owned but they are vacant homes that most people cannot afford. 

Chinese investors are also buying everything up in North American hot spots as well.

[squatz1]

1. They prefer to sell them before they even build the property but if they are rented its not going to bring the cost down so far that COLLEGE STUDENTS will be able to rent them.  Thats really preposterous.  I don't think you realize the cost of living and just how far college students are below it.  The price only comes down to the point where people are willing to pay.  There are plenty of working people who would occupy new supply before students.  There are people making 6 figures in SF who have to share rooms.  You seem to be under the impression that development will continue with sinking prices and rents until everyone has housing.  Developers don't have a goal of everyone getting housing. They would stop investing long before the supply got that high because at a certain point, commercial development and other types of investment would become more profitable.   It will never be profitable to house everyone.

2.  What do you mean it doesn't work?  The goal of rent control is not to give developers easier opportunities to make money.  The goal of rent control is to keep housing affordable for more people.  Its not the best idea but it most certainly works.  People who live in rent controlled units will attest.   There is a limited supply of land.  Letting a developer build units that will cost 5000 per month is not going to help anyone.    Those units are going to be vacation homes, AIRBNB, 2nd or 3rd homes, or investment properties.   

3. Local governments can't mandate people to build housing.  They could build housing or invest in housing but those actions require funds.  There is nothing else a government can do to make sure that housing is built.   There is no "unfunded mandate".

Your ideas are exactly what has happened in China.  Governments reallocated rural land to urban land which was sold to private developers.  These private developers built housing and wealthy people bought 1,2 or 3 homes with their savings.  Instead of holding Yuan or stocks, Chinese people have bet on holding real estate as social security with the idea that poor people will eventually afford it.   It has led to millions of homes owned but they are vacant homes that most people cannot afford. 

Chinese investors are also buying everything up in North American hot spots as well.

1.I understand that the properties are going to be sold, yes, but what I'm saying is that with more houses in the housing market -- prices are going to decrease. There's no way in my mind that I can be convinced that more supply, in a market which is obviously having a supply problem, is going to hurt people. I'm also not saying, in the least, that people are just going to build until everyone has their own house -- that makes little to no sense. But, builders WILL build in a market which has a supply problem and inflated prices.

2. Rent Control works if you define it a certain way. It only controlls the rents for the units it has designated, yes, can't fight you on that one. But the problem with that is that isn't the market rate for housing, so developers have less of an incentive to build in areas that have these policies which further hurts the supply problem in California.

3. My idea was more along the lines of being used in areas that have students in cars, emergency zones. Where you speed licensing and ease regulations for the ability to build more housing in an areas that desperatetly needs it.

My idea isn't like China, I'm not talking about giving lands to people -- seizing it, etc. There was little to no demand in China and an abundance of supply. -- there's demand in the US (California in this circumstance) with no supply.

[coins4commies]

1.I understand that the properties are going to be sold, yes, but what I'm saying is that with more houses in the housing market -- prices are going to decrease. There's no way in my mind that I can be convinced that more supply, in a market which is obviously having a supply problem, is going to hurt people. I'm also not saying, in the least, that people are just going to build until everyone has their own house -- that makes little to no sense. But, builders WILL build in a market which has a supply problem and inflated prices.

2. Rent Control works if you define it a certain way. It only controlls the rents for the units it has designated, yes, can't fight you on that one. But the problem with that is that isn't the market rate for housing, so developers have less of an incentive to build in areas that have these policies which further hurts the supply problem in California.

3. My idea was more along the lines of being used in areas that have students in cars, emergency zones. Where you speed licensing and ease regulations for the ability to build more housing in an areas that desperately needs it.

My idea isn't like China, I'm not talking about giving lands to people -- seizing it, etc. There was little to no demand in China and an abundance of supply. -- there's demand in the US (California in this circumstance) with no supply.

1. You are correct. I'm just saying that won't solve this particular problem of broke college students being homeless.  This would help people who are close to being able to buy a home. 

2.  Its not just a supply problem.  Its a demand problem as well.  Taking away rent controls will lead to an increase in supply, but will also allow upward movement of prices and price a lot of people out.  Rent control is the only way to have affordable housing in high-demand areas. 

3.  It sounds like you think the students are sleeping in their cars because there isn't any housing available near their schools.  Thats not the reason.  There is housing available near the school but it is far too expensive for students to afford.  Building housing near the school at market rate isn't going to affect them in any way.  Even if increased supply causes the market rate to drop a bit. 
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017_Min-Wage-Map_0.pdf

Maybe your solutions would best case scenario lead to a 10% decrease in housing costs across the board.  It would still take around 30 hours a week to allow 90% of their income to make rent.  This is based on the state average which is much cheaper than the major cities where the problem is much worse.

You have the Chinese situation wrong.  Chinese government owns all rural land and municipalities rezoned rural land to urban land and leased it to developers who built housing.  There was a TON of demand coming from people who already had homes.  These homes often sold out before projects were built.  Before the recessions, real estate was selling like hotcakes and the demand is what drove the building explosion.

IT all goes back to why houses are built.  They are built to be sold for profit.  They are not built to be occupied. 

There is demand in the US just like there was demand in China during the boom.  That demand is from professionals and investors, not from college students or working class people,  the people who need homes.

The solutions you speak of do not hurt people but they do not solve the homeless crisis.  Not one bit.

[squatz1]

1. You are correct. I'm just saying that won't solve this particular problem of broke college students being homeless.  This would help people who are close to being able to buy a home. 

2.  Its not just a supply problem.  Its a demand problem as well.  Taking away rent controls will lead to an increase in supply, but will also allow upward movement of prices and price a lot of people out.  Rent control is the only way to have affordable housing in high-demand areas. 

3.  It sounds like you think the students are sleeping in their cars because there isn't any housing available near their schools.  Thats not the reason.  There is housing available near the school but it is far too expensive for students to afford.  Building housing near the school at market rate isn't going to affect them in any way.  Even if increased supply causes the market rate to drop a bit. 
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017_Min-Wage-Map_0.pdf

Maybe your solutions would best case scenario lead to a 10% decrease in housing costs across the board.  It would still take around 30 hours a week to allow 90% of their income to make rent.  This is based on the state average which is much cheaper than the major cities where the problem is much worse.

You have the Chinese situation wrong.  Chinese government owns all rural land and municipalities rezoned rural land to urban land and leased it to developers who built housing.  There was a TON of demand coming from people who already had homes.  These homes often sold out before projects were built.  Before the recessions, real estate was selling like hotcakes and the demand is what drove the building explosion.

IT all goes back to why houses are built.  They are built to be sold for profit.  They are not built to be occupied. 

There is demand in the US just like there was demand in China during the boom.  That demand is from professionals and investors, not from college students or working class people,  the people who need homes.

The solutions you speak of do not hurt people but they do not solve the homeless crisis.  Not one bit.

2. I don't see the same research on rent control personally, I think I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

3. Interesting chart, never seen something like this. Though I do think the part of this that is flawed, and not advertised (too largely) on the graph is the fact that " In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more
than 30% of income on housing" I think that's a pretty large portion of this, as most college students expenses are going to mostly be food, housing, tuition, and entertainment (which they should cut anyway if their struggling to make ends meet) To meet the current prices in California, you have to work 121 hours in the month to JUST cover this rent expense. I do think that if you were to have roomates though, as most college students do (in dorms, and apartments), this would be more feasible.

Think about a 2 bedroom, with 3 people inside which would be able to be split 3 ways now. So the Fair Market Rent (FMR) in California for a two bedroom is 1699, split 3 ways = $567(ish) for each person for the month. Working at minimum wage this would require approximately 52 hours of work to JUST cover rent. This sounds more feasible to me, though it is a large chunk of your income being spent on housing without a doubt -- which is why I think a decrease of EVEN 10 PERCENT for housing costs would be amazing to see. That would be a decrease in 10 percent of working income being spent on rent, and could either be used for other budgeting items (food, utilities, entertainment) or -- you could cut your hours for studies.

SIDE NOTE: I want to research the China thing before commenting further.

[coins4commies]

2. I don't see the same research on rent control personally, I think I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

3. Interesting chart, never seen something like this. Though I do think the part of this that is flawed, and not advertised (too largely) on the graph is the fact that " In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more
than 30% of income on housing" I think that's a pretty large portion of this, as most college students expenses are going to mostly be food, housing, tuition, and entertainment (which they should cut anyway if their struggling to make ends meet) To meet the current prices in California, you have to work 121 hours in the month to JUST cover this rent expense. I do think that if you were to have roomates though, as most college students do (in dorms, and apartments), this would be more feasible.

Think about a 2 bedroom, with 3 people inside which would be able to be split 3 ways now. So the Fair Market Rent (FMR) in California for a two bedroom is 1699, split 3 ways = $567(ish) for each person for the month. Working at minimum wage this would require approximately 52 hours of work to JUST cover rent. This sounds more feasible to me, though it is a large chunk of your income being spent on housing without a doubt -- which is why I think a decrease of EVEN 10 PERCENT for housing costs would be amazing to see. That would be a decrease in 10 percent of working income being spent on rent, and could either be used for other budgeting items (food, utilities, entertainment) or -- you could cut your hours for studies.

SIDE NOTE: I want to research the China thing before commenting further.

3.  I divided the 92 by 3 to arrive at 30 hours with rent being 90% of your income.  Thats assuming they really stretched their money. The numbers you have are not realistic in high demand areas of California.  Not even rent control can get you those sort of prices in the big cities.  Your numbers are more appropriate for Anaheim and Long Beach where people sleeping in cars is not as much of an issue.

The median 1BR apt:
$3600 in San Francisco
$2500 in San Jose
$2400 in Oakland
$2400 in Los Angeles

and for 2BR
$4600 in San Francisco
$3000 in San Jose
$2800 in Oakland
$3200 in Los Angeles

https://www.zumper.com/blog/rental-price-data

So you're looking at least around 900 for a 2BR split 3 ways and as much as 1500 each.  

But we are talking about money they already don't have.  We are talking about kids who can't even afford the college to begin with and its supposed to be their only way out of poverty.  The way you think college students could live in this situation (sharing apartments) is actually the way working class professionals are getting by today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIq8PO18Eso
Check out this video.  Entire new developments go to Chinese investors before they are even built.  No reason for developers build practical housing for Americans when they can build luxury condos or large family homes and collect all the cash up front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFcsFOKXsFU
Longer documentary

[TECSHARE]

At this point I think we should just split Commifornia from the rest of the nation and push it off into the ocean.

At this point I think i should throw you in the ocean. You're so rude and insensitive . Dare to step in the California and you will be dead.

OoooOOooo scary. Preserving death threat for posterity.

[BADecker]

Does this mean that the wealthy students don't get motor homes?

 

[squatz1]

3.  I divided the 92 by 3 to arrive at 30 hours with rent being 90% of your income.  Thats assuming they really stretched their money. The numbers you have are not realistic in high demand areas of California.  Not even rent control can get you those sort of prices in the big cities.  Your numbers are more appropriate for Anaheim and Long Beach where people sleeping in cars is not as much of an issue.

The median 1BR apt:
$3600 in San Francisco
$2500 in San Jose
$2400 in Oakland
$2400 in Los Angeles

and for 2BR
$4600 in San Francisco
$3000 in San Jose
$2800 in Oakland
$3200 in Los Angeles

https://www.zumper.com/blog/rental-price-data

So you're looking at least around 900 for a 2BR split 3 ways and as much as 1500 each.  

But we are talking about money they already don't have.  We are talking about kids who can't even afford the college to begin with and its supposed to be their only way out of poverty.  The way you think college students could live in this situation (sharing apartments) is actually the way working class professionals are getting by today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIq8PO18Eso
Check out this video.  Entire new developments go to Chinese investors before they are even built.  No reason for developers build practical housing for Americans when they can build luxury condos or large family homes and collect all the cash up front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFcsFOKXsFU
Longer documentary

I was simply using the data you supplied before, from the chart / site that was cited before. Though I do notice my error of failing to use the individual cities, and instead using the state as a whole. I'll come back and edit this with a real response shortly!

[coins4commies]

Why not just attach housing to pursuit of first degree?  Seems like an easy way of solving the problem by doing Z instead of doing X and hoping X triggers Y which you believe encourages Z.  

Or you could look to other countries as case studies

Every Danish student receives about $900 (5,839 Danish krones) per month under a scheme known as SU (Statens Uddannelsesstøtte). The generous financial support does not have to be paid back even if students drop out, and the only major requirement for students to receive the full amount is that they do not live with their parents. Students receive the free funding for a maximum of six years, starting at the age of 18. Those who are particularly successful are eligible to receive additional payments.

[BADecker]

Why not just attach housing to pursuit of first degree?  Seems like an easy way of solving the problem by doing Z instead of doing X and hoping X triggers Y which you believe encourages Z.  

Or you could look to other countries as case studies

Every Danish student receives about $900 (5,839 Danish krones) per month under a scheme known as SU (Statens Uddannelsesstøtte). The generous financial support does not have to be paid back even if students drop out, and the only major requirement for students to receive the full amount is that they do not live with their parents. Students receive the free funding for a maximum of six years, starting at the age of 18. Those who are particularly successful are eligible to receive additional payments.

But the Danish government takes the property of Danish people thru taxes to give it to the students. Some of the Danish people don't like this. Many of them move out of the country.