4 ms·

Aka The Projects.

• TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Yes and no. "The projects" were government housing, but they were not mixed-income or mixed-use, overall they were just kind of bungled. Often they were far away from any kind of city amenities like decent transit or parks or shopping. Other countries like Singapore and Austria manage to have government-built/run housing that works fine. I don't think there's anything fundamentally stopping the US from doing it competently, the high-level design was just really bad before. You don't want to concentrate only very low income people (aka the people with the most social problems and the least social/political capital) in big towers in the middle of nowhere, that's a recipe for disaster.
  • tptacek 9y ago
    In what way is this proposal better or more progressive than direct cash transfers to acquire the same market housing that everyone else does? If there are problems with cash transfer programs --- for instance, that only certain homes end up eligible due to paperwork requirements, or under-market payments --- it seems much easier to fix those than to turn the government itself into a landlord for millions of people. Tenant/landlord relations are themselves a kind of marketplace, and central planning handles those poorly.
    • dctoedt 9y ago
      > In what way is this proposal better or more progressive than direct cash transfers to acquire the same market housing that everyone else does? Rent-seeking (in the economic sense). IIRC, any kind of direct cash transfer (or even subsidized loan) has been known to result in price increases for everyone. See, e.g., college tuitions. (Disclaimer: I haven't looked into the data myself and am relying on recall of things I've read in the past.)