3 ms·

>if the city declares housing emergency Such declarations should not justify extraordinary action if you don't have a clear plan for how you are going to get a

>if the city declares housing emergency Such declarations should not justify extraordinary action if you don't have a clear plan for how you are going to get away from the emergency. They are a tool of political trickery to avoid regular checks and balances of democratic policies. For comparison, France declared a "national emergency" in November 2015, and has then extended it repeatedly, and now France lives in a perpetual "state of emergency". If you need to keep extending the state of emergency, you should admit that the "emergency" is actually your normal state of affairs. If you have a problem in housing, with a really substantial part of your housing stock empty, your rental market isn't working. Don't blame evil capitalists for it; blame the rules of the market you created with legislation. For instance, unreasonable tenant protections at the expense of the owner. Most often this is, however, just a diversion. Empty housing is not the real problem; the problem is lack of building permits and zoning in areas of population growth, and generally meddling with the market. Beware of "dead simple solutions"; silver bullets offered as solutions to complex problems are usually bogus.

mschuster91 9y ago
> If you need to keep extending the state of emergency, you should admit that the "emergency" is actually your normal state of affairs. I agree with this, therefore the trigger for a "housing emergency" should be something that can be measured in qualified facts (e.g. ratio of migration influx vs build of housing stock, queue length for welfare housing). > If you have a problem in housing, with a really substantial part of your housing stock empty, your rental market isn't working. Don't blame evil capitalists for it; blame the rules of the market you created with legislation. For instance, unreasonable tenant protections at the expense of the owner. Housing is a human right. Tenant protections are not unreasonable, they're often enough the only thing preventing capitalism from its worst excesses. The countless stories I have read alone on HN how in America people are kicked out of their homes just because the landlord wants to have more money should be proof of why tenant protections are needed. > Empty housing is not the real problem It is. Empty housing causes entire zones going dead - look at London. Wherever a large number of "investment housing" appears, the small shops etc. have to close because there are no customers. > the problem is lack of building permits and zoning in areas of population growth, and generally meddling with the market. I highly doubt the problems in Berlin, London or Munich are related to a lack of building permits or population growth. It's just that it fetches more money for real estate developers to build luxury apartments instead of affordable housing, therefore the solution is more zoning, not less.
- wbl 9y ago
  Have you looked at London building regulations?
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    Or the population growth? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-population-growth-twice-that-of-uk-official-figures-show https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-popul...
- x220 9y ago
  >Housing is a human right If housing is a human right, who is responsible for protecting this right? If I decide to sit on a couch all day and not get a job, does a private property owner or the government still have to provide housing for me? If I become homeless, who or what entity is depriving me of the right to housing? If I am entitled to housing, am I entitled to housing anywhere I want or in any city I want? >it fetches more money for real estate developers to build luxury apartments instead of affordable housing Perhaps this is a signal that it's more economically productive for the rich to live in cities than for the poor to live in cities.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    Little upfront disclosure: I'm what many people would consider a left-wing extremist. > If I decide to sit on a couch all day and not get a job, does a private property owner or the government still have to provide housing for me? In Germany (and other civilized countries), the government actually has to do so. > If I become homeless, who or what entity is depriving me of the right to housing? The government must provide you with adequate housing by law (again, in Germany). That it often fails to do so without consequences is the sad reality. > If I am entitled to housing, am I entitled to housing anywhere I want or in any city I want? In Germany, housing is the responsibility of the city where you live in (which includes sometimes paying motels to house people). I'm a bit unsure about the details on what happens when you relocate, though, and the core problem is many of the homeless do not really trust authority or do not like that many of the help-homelessnes-programs enforce crap like no-alcohol policies - thankfully there are first programs under evaluation which follow the policy "housing first, remainder second". > Perhaps this is a signal that it's more economically productive for the rich to live in cities than for the poor to live in cities. F..k this mindset. Or wait, just let it happen and let the rich rot away in a city where no one else lives and they can't buy anything, eat anything or where there are no cops, firefighters or schools because the staff cannot find any place to live (hint, in some areas of Germany this already is a problem, and I remember having seen some reports on HN that this is also valid for the US and London). Cities are there for the entire population, not just rich foreign investor .... wanting to make a quick buck.

mschuster91 9y ago

> If you need to keep extending the state of emergency, you should admit that the "emergency" is actually your normal state of affairs. I agree with this, therefore the trigger for a "housing emergency" should be something that can be measured in qualified facts (e.g. ratio of migration influx vs build of housing stock, queue length for welfare housing). > If you have a problem in housing, with a really substantial part of your housing stock empty, your rental market isn't working. Don't blame evil capitalists for it; blame the rules of the market you created with legislation. For instance, unreasonable tenant protections at the expense of the owner. Housing is a human right. Tenant protections are not unreasonable, they're often enough the only thing preventing capitalism from its worst excesses. The countless stories I have read alone on HN how in America people are kicked out of their homes just because the landlord wants to have more money should be proof of why tenant protections are needed. > Empty housing is not the real problem It is. Empty housing causes entire zones going dead - look at London. Wherever a large number of "investment housing" appears, the small shops etc. have to close because there are no customers. > the problem is lack of building permits and zoning in areas of population growth, and generally meddling with the market. I highly doubt the problems in Berlin, London or Munich are related to a lack of building permits or population growth. It's just that it fetches more money for real estate developers to build luxury apartments instead of affordable housing, therefore the solution is more zoning, not less.

wbl 9y ago
Have you looked at London building regulations?
- ptaipale 9y ago
  Or the population growth? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-population-growth-twice-that-of-uk-official-figures-show https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/12/london-popul...
x220 9y ago
>Housing is a human right If housing is a human right, who is responsible for protecting this right? If I decide to sit on a couch all day and not get a job, does a private property owner or the government still have to provide housing for me? If I become homeless, who or what entity is depriving me of the right to housing? If I am entitled to housing, am I entitled to housing anywhere I want or in any city I want? >it fetches more money for real estate developers to build luxury apartments instead of affordable housing Perhaps this is a signal that it's more economically productive for the rich to live in cities than for the poor to live in cities.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  Little upfront disclosure: I'm what many people would consider a left-wing extremist. > If I decide to sit on a couch all day and not get a job, does a private property owner or the government still have to provide housing for me? In Germany (and other civilized countries), the government actually has to do so. > If I become homeless, who or what entity is depriving me of the right to housing? The government must provide you with adequate housing by law (again, in Germany). That it often fails to do so without consequences is the sad reality. > If I am entitled to housing, am I entitled to housing anywhere I want or in any city I want? In Germany, housing is the responsibility of the city where you live in (which includes sometimes paying motels to house people). I'm a bit unsure about the details on what happens when you relocate, though, and the core problem is many of the homeless do not really trust authority or do not like that many of the help-homelessnes-programs enforce crap like no-alcohol policies - thankfully there are first programs under evaluation which follow the policy "housing first, remainder second". > Perhaps this is a signal that it's more economically productive for the rich to live in cities than for the poor to live in cities. F..k this mindset. Or wait, just let it happen and let the rich rot away in a city where no one else lives and they can't buy anything, eat anything or where there are no cops, firefighters or schools because the staff cannot find any place to live (hint, in some areas of Germany this already is a problem, and I remember having seen some reports on HN that this is also valid for the US and London). Cities are there for the entire population, not just rich foreign investor .... wanting to make a quick buck.