4 ms·

One of the reasons there still exists some affordable housing in Munich is that the city builds housing itself and rents it out at affordable prices. While othe

by sgift 10y ago

One of the reasons there still exists some affordable housing in Munich is that the city builds housing itself and rents it out at affordable prices. While other cities sold their housing in the 90s/2000s - because privatization is king, free market loves you, and so on - Munich didn't do any of that, because we recognized that people which don't earn high wages are needed in a city, too. Housing market is still tough, but without any public housing it would be far worse. Long story short: If Berlin acknowledges that a city cannot exist without affordable housing I'm all for it. There are far worse investments of tax money.

tannhaeuser 10y ago
The need for state-financed housing is per definition a failure to leverage natural market forces and points to regulations being the culprit when investment conditions are better than ever at the same time. If the city of Munich has to pay subsidies for public housing, then that's tax payers money being wasted for no reason other than housing and construction laws missing their goal. I may sound like a harsh capitalist, but the money for housing has to be earned somewhere. Right now its being taken from tax payers, when it'd be much better to reduce taxes so people can buy their houses themselves.
- jpetso 10y ago
  I see this line of reasoning a lot, and find it somewhat bewildering. The people most desperately in need of subsidies are also the people who earn little enough income to pay very low taxes already, or none at all. Reducing taxes doesn't do shit when you don't make enough income in the first place. It's not a recipe for giving people in need better opportunities, just a recipe for people in less need to keep their money. Which is a reasonable (if somewhat selfish) point of view, but don't sell it as a solution that actually helps people who can't afford their housing.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  >"The need for state-financed housing is per definition a failure to leverage natural market forces and points to regulations being the culprit when investment conditions are better than ever at the same time." And what do you call it when a city becomes a place that only the wealthy can afford to live in? There are so many people that contribute and make a city function who are not even remotely middle class. Where do they live? Isn't that also a failure? Real-estate in desirable cities is increasingly being used to stash cash[1][2], and there are no shortage of developers who are developing property specifically to attract these types of "tenants." So no simply relying on "natural market forces"is not really an inclusionary solution. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planners-must-take-back-control-of-london https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planne... [2]http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-2014-6/ http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-y...
  - tannhaeuser 10y ago
    If there are indeed buildings being constructed for the sole purpose to "stash cash" as you say, then the law against misuse of real estate property ("Gesetz gegen Zweckentfremdung") can and should be applied. However, it doubt that this is the case in significant quantities. My argument is a principled one: the city/state/fed should strive to let the market sort it out. That sounds neo-lib, but should be easy to achieve in times of lack of alternate investment possibilities. And while they're at it, they should make it so that investment in housing becomes a good investment opportunity for the middle class, helping with the demographic problems before us. Proposing the state should invest in housing is really just the civil society declaring bankruptcy, and leads to corrupt and unsustainable structures, as happened in the 1970s in Germany (or worse, go ask women of the former east block what they had to do to get housing). The problems (if they are real) are entirely the consequence of decades of misguided policies in construction and housing/renting laws. And also a consequence of lack of sustainable investment opportunities (ECB "QE" and negative interest rates) so people are turning to real estate.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      >"If there are indeed buildings being constructed for the sole purpose to "stash cash" as you say, then the law against misuse of real estate property" I wasn't speaking about Berlin specifically for that comment only that its happening in many places in the world - San Francisco, New York, London. I linked to two articles describing it different cities. So the "market will sort itself out" neo-lib doctrine you mentioned has largely failed working class and indeed middle class which are the majority compared to the wealthy.
      - tannhaeuser 10y ago
        Ok, because there are cases of real estate in NYC, SF, and London being bought to merely keep money from loosing value you conclude that capitalism has failed? The reason for this real estate bubble (money loosing value) being the ECB's and the Fed's inflationary policies and low interest rates (hence a consequence of state action)? And as a remedy you propose the state or city should buy real estate to keep housing affordable (rather than changing regulations)? So that some pseudo hipsters in Berlin's fashion quarters can keep living on social welfare (ok I'm taking that one back :) but I can tell you the taxpayers of Southern Germany, Hesse, Hamburg (and Saxony I believe) aren't amused to finance Berlin decadence [1]. I can only appeal to your computer science skills to analyze the situation rationally, rather than buying into social-romantic nonsense. [1]: since over half the residents of Berlin have their hands in the pocket of the state in one form or another, the strategy of the Senate of Berlin seems to be to "buy" their electorate with money they get from other German countries, when actually Berlin rents are much lower than in all other big German cities

by sgift 10y ago

tannhaeuser 10y ago

The need for state-financed housing is per definition a failure to leverage natural market forces and points to regulations being the culprit when investment conditions are better than ever at the same time. If the city of Munich has to pay subsidies for public housing, then that's tax payers money being wasted for no reason other than housing and construction laws missing their goal. I may sound like a harsh capitalist, but the money for housing has to be earned somewhere. Right now its being taken from tax payers, when it'd be much better to reduce taxes so people can buy their houses themselves.

jpetso 10y ago
I see this line of reasoning a lot, and find it somewhat bewildering. The people most desperately in need of subsidies are also the people who earn little enough income to pay very low taxes already, or none at all. Reducing taxes doesn't do shit when you don't make enough income in the first place. It's not a recipe for giving people in need better opportunities, just a recipe for people in less need to keep their money. Which is a reasonable (if somewhat selfish) point of view, but don't sell it as a solution that actually helps people who can't afford their housing.
bogomipz 10y ago
>"The need for state-financed housing is per definition a failure to leverage natural market forces and points to regulations being the culprit when investment conditions are better than ever at the same time." And what do you call it when a city becomes a place that only the wealthy can afford to live in? There are so many people that contribute and make a city function who are not even remotely middle class. Where do they live? Isn't that also a failure? Real-estate in desirable cities is increasingly being used to stash cash[1][2], and there are no shortage of developers who are developing property specifically to attract these types of "tenants." So no simply relying on "natural market forces"is not really an inclusionary solution. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planners-must-take-back-control-of-london https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planne... [2]http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-2014-6/ http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-y...
- tannhaeuser 10y ago
  If there are indeed buildings being constructed for the sole purpose to "stash cash" as you say, then the law against misuse of real estate property ("Gesetz gegen Zweckentfremdung") can and should be applied. However, it doubt that this is the case in significant quantities. My argument is a principled one: the city/state/fed should strive to let the market sort it out. That sounds neo-lib, but should be easy to achieve in times of lack of alternate investment possibilities. And while they're at it, they should make it so that investment in housing becomes a good investment opportunity for the middle class, helping with the demographic problems before us. Proposing the state should invest in housing is really just the civil society declaring bankruptcy, and leads to corrupt and unsustainable structures, as happened in the 1970s in Germany (or worse, go ask women of the former east block what they had to do to get housing). The problems (if they are real) are entirely the consequence of decades of misguided policies in construction and housing/renting laws. And also a consequence of lack of sustainable investment opportunities (ECB "QE" and negative interest rates) so people are turning to real estate.
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    >"If there are indeed buildings being constructed for the sole purpose to "stash cash" as you say, then the law against misuse of real estate property" I wasn't speaking about Berlin specifically for that comment only that its happening in many places in the world - San Francisco, New York, London. I linked to two articles describing it different cities. So the "market will sort itself out" neo-lib doctrine you mentioned has largely failed working class and indeed middle class which are the majority compared to the wealthy.
    - tannhaeuser 10y ago
      Ok, because there are cases of real estate in NYC, SF, and London being bought to merely keep money from loosing value you conclude that capitalism has failed? The reason for this real estate bubble (money loosing value) being the ECB's and the Fed's inflationary policies and low interest rates (hence a consequence of state action)? And as a remedy you propose the state or city should buy real estate to keep housing affordable (rather than changing regulations)? So that some pseudo hipsters in Berlin's fashion quarters can keep living on social welfare (ok I'm taking that one back :) but I can tell you the taxpayers of Southern Germany, Hesse, Hamburg (and Saxony I believe) aren't amused to finance Berlin decadence [1]. I can only appeal to your computer science skills to analyze the situation rationally, rather than buying into social-romantic nonsense. [1]: since over half the residents of Berlin have their hands in the pocket of the state in one form or another, the strategy of the Senate of Berlin seems to be to "buy" their electorate with money they get from other German countries, when actually Berlin rents are much lower than in all other big German cities