>On the other side, I have also been in government appointed committees that set housing policy and have had to listen to many “experts” explain that housing is the solution for homelessness and their suggestions is usually along the lines of “relax the codes and permitting process so builders can build more homes”.
This an artefact of lobbying by the building industry who can absolutely rake in profits building luxury housing but are restricted in terms of where they can do it.
It will absolutely nothing for the supply of affordable housing unless luxury housing is taxed to death and building affordable housing is engineered to be profitable, but they'll fight that tooth and nail. Nobody exchanges 16% profit margins for 4% willingly.
It might even make things worse if the stripped regulations are about mandating % of affordable homes in new developments (which theyd fucking LOVE) and it will probably ensure quality goes down the tubes.
Only public housing will actually solve the supply issue. Singapore is the best model here.
Have you been around public housing? The idea in theory is great, but in the US and in Puerto Rico it is a hub of drugs, alcohol, crime, government dependency, broken families, youth gangs and a slew of other things concentrated into a single area - destroys nearby culture and societal cohesiveness as well as corrupts large swathes of otherwise bright and successful young people that reside within them.
Does it? Is the alternative really that much better, or do people blame it for things it doesn't cause as an excuse to not pay for it?
If I look into this argument, am I going to find research supporting the idea that, counterintuitively, taking away public housing helps these problems? Or am I going to find real estate developers pushing a narrative to rationalize taking from the poor, selling to the rich, and making tons of money by doing so?
What's hiding under this rock? You're telling me it's butterflies, but I have a feeling it's actually centipedes.
I'm not proposing we take away public housing, but I encourage you to visit any of the public housing or even section 8 majority neighborhoods and just walk around for a while to take in the scenery and decipher what is narrative and what is reality. Government projects (no pun intended) can operate poorly and have negative effects that people don't want to participate in or fund without it being some grand narrative or conspiracy by "the rich"
I think the GP has made a cogent argument. Having Lived near public Housing in NeWY0rk for many Years, I always found it uncomfortable seeing these homeless people gather around doing NOthing.
I h4ppenedToo bump into someOF these folKs 0noccasion. N0ne of Them HAd
a CLear view of thEir LiVes. Having to DepenD on some0ne for their living is 0neTHeeng, n0tHavin
a CLeer V1eWOF
THeiR
L1Ves is quite AnooTHa.
Yeah, I lived for 6 years in Singaporean public housing. Still the highest quality housing I've ever lived in and the safest. No private housing in any other country has ever been as good.
90% of the country is public housing. It used to be third world and have a serious drug problem. It built proper public housing, is first world and it has no drug problem.
America is moving in the reverse direction and accelerating. The odd publicly funded methadone clinic wont stem the tide.
Private housing is good in theory but in practice it leads to ever rising rents, drug addicted homelessness and a parasitic coke addled landlord class taxing away 40% of a median income while doing the bare minimum in repairs.
There is a rising consensus from a lot of young left wing people in the united states that is unknowingly becoming drawn towards Singapore style politics. A lot of the large government programs and initiatives they rally for within a society emphasizing individual freedom and a democratic republic result in rampant corruption and social dependence - and a benevolent dictatorship among a bureaucratic class becomes the foremost solution to the problems arising from these government ran social programs.
Im not at all drawn towards Lee Kuan Yew. He's a thug.
This particular policy was stolen from Singaporean communists in the 1950s out of a kind of desperate pragmatism. Lee Kuan Yew didnt really want to do it but he wanted the commies to win even less. They airbrushed that part out later.
It was similar in America in the 50s. When the ruling classes were desperately afraid of communists you got social housing, medical care, subsidized education and the middle class thrived and could easily afford cars, homes and education.
No more though.
All that bollocks about individual freedom (freedom to pay more rent!) was used to drive you into poverty while a state that works on "spreading liberal values" with tanks decided to trash the 4th amendment because what American elites really thing is that too much freedom = terrorism.
There is a concern among right wing people that by placing more and more people in government housing and programs, they will vote more and more in favor of state and federal power from promise of funding and/or more personal support, which will place people in powerful positions that see no issue with eroding and diluting the power of the US's constitutional freedoms (btw I don't see individual freedom as bollocks or a direct reason for higher prices on housing, see the local government building regulations that for economic, environmental, nimbyism, but mostly to retain prices of housing for existing home owners or ensure a luxury condo is still profitable after it's construction).
You are absolutely correct that the powers that be despise the 4th amendment along with most of the bill of rights that are designed to protect individuals from government by limiting it's ability to intervene. Even today you can see otherwise innocuous groups of people socially being labeled as "domestic terrorists" in the US for opposing restrictions on a whole array of government laws and programs that they see as overreaching and infringing on their constitutional rights.
I'd recommend the TV-show "show me a hero" for an interesting take on this stereotype.
The show is about a town that started of with 'concentrated public housing' with these kinds of problems. Then by court mandate they need to move public housing into the rich neighborhoods. The city hires an expert who suggests a few small locations to help the neighborhood integrate.
Most of this show is about the political fallout of this situation. Because a majority of the residents of the town did _not_ want any low income housing.
The show is fictional, but based on a real story and a real town where this happened.
I agree. From my experience, a city does not have the budget for public housing, the free market doesn’t value it, and raising property taxes to pay for it is usually contentious.
So that leaves federal funding. Might as well use my taxes to provide funding for public housing projects.
That's largely by design. The campaign to end public housing has been going on for decades on multiple fronts.
It's not an exaggeration or even unfair to say that sociopathic wealthy lobbyists (like, e.g. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation) are both causes of the current homeless crisis and seeking to exacerbate it.
This an artefact of lobbying by the building industry who can absolutely rake in profits building luxury housing but are restricted in terms of where they can do it.
It will absolutely nothing for the supply of affordable housing unless luxury housing is taxed to death and building affordable housing is engineered to be profitable, but they'll fight that tooth and nail. Nobody exchanges 16% profit margins for 4% willingly.
It might even make things worse if the stripped regulations are about mandating % of affordable homes in new developments (which theyd fucking LOVE) and it will probably ensure quality goes down the tubes.
Only public housing will actually solve the supply issue. Singapore is the best model here.