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

[Spendulus]

The solution is to move to a nicer place to go to school.

Leave the idiots squabbling about their made up problems.

[1715059043]

1715059043

[1715059043]

1715059043

[1715059043]

1715059043

[1715059043]

1715059043

[1715059043]

1715059043

[mOgliE]

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

You definitely haven't read Marx. Cause Das Kapital is one hell of an incredible book. As smart and interesting as it's badly written.
Very similar to Orwell without any writing ability ^^

[Spendulus]

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

You definitely haven't read Marx. Cause Das Kapital is one hell of an incredible book. As smart and interesting as it's badly written.
Very similar to Orwell without any writing ability ^^

Back to the students' problems.

How about Japanese style Pods?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhBiw9pgUo

[Atheneum Blockchain]

"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."


  California (I'm a Californian by the way) makes the most foolish decisions politically on a consistent basis.  The previous Governor of the state Jerry Brown said of one of his policies "it doesn't makes sense economically but it makes sense politically."  That about sums up how CA politicians think and act. 

[coins4commies]

Its because all of your "solutions" are about making conditions better for builders.  None of them actually solve the problem by providing housing for students.  If builders are only looking for profit, there is no way they will house broke students.  Also, we already have millions of vacant homes. Building more homes to be put up on airbnb is not .going to help the homeless. 

The homeless are homeless because they cannot afford housing. 

Japanese pods could work in place of dorm style housing but thats not the issue. The issue isn't what to build or how much to build.  The issue is how to fund it, and how to provide it to the students.   

You are out of touch if you think homeless college students will be able to buy or rent anywhere near market value. 

[Spendulus]

...
Japanese pods could work in place of dorm style housing but thats not the issue. The issue isn't what to build or how much to build.  The issue is how to fund it, and how to provide it to the students.  
.....

Who says the issue is how or if the government does yet one more thing for one subgroup of society?

You. Only you.

Frankly I don't see the problem. The students can go to college somewhere else. Let colleges close that are not competitive, and many of them are not.

[coins4commies]

Well its a matter of knowing the details of the situation.  There isn't a lack of availability of real estate or rental housing on the market.  There is plenty of supply out there.  The homeless students aren't unable to find housing near their campus.  They are unable to AFFORD housing. 

[Spendulus]

Well its a matter of knowing the details of the situation.  There isn't a lack of availability of real estate or rental housing on the market.  There is plenty of supply out there.  The homeless students aren't unable to find housing near their campus.  They are unable to AFFORD housing.  

Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice.

REVISION.

There could be circumstances where a student was required to go to some place that he was in fact unable to afford.

Sometimes there is a four year program where for six months or even two years, the student is required to go to XYZ. Ocean biology is one example I know of. But there could be other cases where due to circumstances beyond his control, a student found himself in difficult circumstances.

Similar cases occur with graduate education, although there there are more commonly stipends or jobs which pay significant fraction s of the cost, unlike in undergraduate.

Of course that happens to all of us. One way or another.

[mOgliE]

Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice.

Yeah exactly. I mean who cares about poors not being able to chose their college adequatly to their skills and potential but adequatly to their geographical location because they're unable to pay a rent?

Let the poor go to the colleges close to their area. Which will be the worst possible colleges as they're colleges close to poor areas.

So poors will go to shit college and rich to the best college.

It seems like a pretty fair deal to me. They have "freedom of choice".

[Spendulus]

Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice.

Yeah exactly. I mean who cares about poors not being able to chose their college adequatly to their skills and potential but adequatly to their geographical location because they're unable to pay a rent?

Let the poor go to the colleges close to their area. Which will be the worst possible colleges as they're colleges close to poor areas.

So poors will go to shit college and rich to the best college.

It seems like a pretty fair deal to me. They have "freedom of choice".

No, that's not what is happening. In the USA west coast some areas are way overpriced, largely because of pricing being bid up from foreign investors. Areas of and around Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Francisco. There are others, of course.

But there are many reasonably priced and low priced areas, great places to live, with low crime rates. Basically it's ONLY a few select areas that have the problem of the title of this thread.

It might be argued that someone in CA going to Oklahoma for college would be a victim because he would have to pay higher out of state tuition. But there are many areas in CA that are reasonably priced. It's a big state.

[coins4commies]

Again, so what? The students are not required to go to that college. They have freedom of choice.

Yeah exactly. I mean who cares about poors not being able to chose their college adequatly to their skills and potential but adequatly to their geographical location because they're unable to pay a rent?

Let the poor go to the colleges close to their area. Which will be the worst possible colleges as they're colleges close to poor areas.

So poors will go to shit college and rich to the best college.

It seems like a pretty fair deal to me. They have "freedom of choice".

No, that's not what is happening. In the USA west coast some areas are way overpriced, largely because of pricing being bid up from foreign investors. Areas of and around Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Francisco. There are others, of course.

But there are many reasonably priced and low priced areas, great places to live, with low crime rates. Basically it's ONLY a few select areas that have the problem of the title of this thread.

It might be argued that someone in CA going to Oklahoma for college would be a victim because he would have to pay higher out of state tuition. But there are many areas in CA that are reasonably priced. It's a big state.

Well cost aside, its still an equity issue.  You are telling people they cannot go to any school in a big city which happens to be where most of the best schools and job opportunities are.

[Spendulus]

....
Well cost aside, its still an equity issue.  You are telling people they cannot go to any school in a big city which happens to be where most of the best schools and job opportunities are.

No nobody is saying "any school in a big city."

[mOgliE]

....
Well cost aside, its still an equity issue.  You are telling people they cannot go to any school in a big city which happens to be where most of the best schools and job opportunities are.

No nobody is saying "any school in a big city."

Yes you are...

When saying "don't do anything and just let the market do" you're simply saying "poor students will go to schools in poor areas".

In short you're saying that really poor students will never go to big city schools.

The rest only depends on what exactly you say with "poor" and "big city" but the idea is the same.

[KingScorpio]

american capitalists have become just a bunch of losers and scammers that try to scam foreigners mexicans or other hard working people, crushing down every resistance with "political correctness"

if the germans and the japanese and later the chinese wouldnt have constantly funded their debt, and the arabs pay for their usd with oil

they would have never become as influential as they are now.

i am affraid that

everyone that trusts those urban shitcoin offerings will end up being their idiot.

and i seriously hate using that term "shitcoin" its to close assosiated with the bitcoin pow cultists

[Spendulus]

....
Well cost aside, its still an equity issue.  You are telling people they cannot go to any school in a big city which happens to be where most of the best schools and job opportunities are.

No nobody is saying "any school in a big city."

Yes you are...

When saying "don't do anything and just let the market do" you're simply saying "poor students will go to schools in poor areas".

In short you're saying that really poor students will never go to big city schools.

The rest only depends on what exactly you say with "poor" and "big city" but the idea is the same.

Sorry, reality differs.

Los Angeles.

UCLA is over by Hollywood.
USC is right in the ghetto.
U of LA is downtown.

You want to argue that the students have "a right" to live in Hollywood?

[mOgliE]

You want to argue that the students have "a right" to live in Hollywood?

What's so hard to understand? Leave the market alone without any government intereference and you WILL have schools poor students can't afford to go. yes or no?

[coins4commies]

....
Well cost aside, its still an equity issue.  You are telling people they cannot go to any school in a big city which happens to be where most of the best schools and job opportunities are.

No nobody is saying "any school in a big city."

Yes you are...

When saying "don't do anything and just let the market do" you're simply saying "poor students will go to schools in poor areas".

In short you're saying that really poor students will never go to big city schools.

The rest only depends on what exactly you say with "poor" and "big city" but the idea is the same.

Sorry, reality differs.

Los Angeles.

UCLA is over by Hollywood.
USC is right in the ghetto.
U of LA is downtown.

You want to argue that the students have "a right" to live in Hollywood?

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/C9QURbpQUF2CZAvFF3dkJEVT-RM=/0x0:1000x994/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1000x994):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8720935/LosAngeles_MonthlyPriceMedianMap_Summer2017.png
UCLA is in westwood.  USC is in south los angeles "south central" and that "ghetto" still costs well over 1100 for a 1 bedroom.  

The point is, it doesn't matter which part of the city you go to, broke college students cannot afford to live anywhere within driving distance of SF, Los Angeles, or any major city.  

I want to argue that students have a right to live near whatever school they are attending.

[Spendulus]

....USC is in south los angeles "south central" and that "ghetto" still costs well over 1100 for a 1 bedroom.  ....

How about that. Ghettos are getting expensive too!

And all those whining students that think they deserve to live in Hollywood!

....somehow I can't buy this victim mentality, sorry....

[mOgliE]

And all those whining students that think they deserve to live in Hollywood!

You kind of avoided the yes or no question here:

You want to argue that the students have "a right" to live in Hollywood?

What's so hard to understand? Leave the market alone without any government intereference and you WILL have schools poor students can't afford to go. yes or no?

[ASHLIUSZ]

America shows them a much developed country to the outside world. Within the nation they've got lots and lots of issues. Homeless in America keeps on increasing with more and more people on the streets with temporary tents. As a part students have now begun to lead their lives on cars. The reason for the crisis is the increased housing rents that low salaried users can't afford.