3 ms·

There are tons of Section 8 apartments in my city. While I work my butt off trying to make my rent and have leaky faucets and 50 yr old single pane windows, the

There are tons of Section 8 apartments in my city. While I work my butt off trying to make my rent and have leaky faucets and 50 yr old single pane windows, the section 8 across the street has new windows, min splits, and granite counter tops... The landlord gets garaunteed income, huge waiting list of tenants, can VERY easily have them evicted for violations and actually get MORE than market rate brcause the govt pays better for the section 8. It's driving up rents and drug related crime has already increased. I'm currently looking at moving out of the city core and into a suburb.

Mz 9y ago
To be clear, I am not for more Section 8 housing. I am for market based solutions. In the 60s and 70s, we tore down around 80% of the SROs we had because the Baby Boomers came from an unprecedentedly well off, large middle class and did not need minimal housing of that sort. Boarding houses used to also be common. Now, most housing is designed with a nuclear family in mind and our default expectation is that single adults should get one or more roommates to make such housing work for them. There is far too little market based housing aimed at singletons and childless couples. Meanwhile, our demographics have changed and we have drastically more singletons, childless couples or single parents, drastically fewer nuclear families. I want market based solutions, not more government interference of this sort. There are good things done by the government, but most programs to help the poor only entrench poverty and the problems that lead to it.
- gamechangr 9y ago
  > "I want market based solutions". What would that look like? I assume it's not profitable for builders...or else there wouldn't be a problem? If it were, they would build them everywhere.
  - Mz 9y ago
    My comment was written 13 days ago. I have since gotten off the street with a market based solution. I am in an SRO. Historically, we had a lot more SROs and boarding houses than we do currently. Up to 80% of SROs were torn down in the 60s and 70s when they weren't needed by Baby Boomers, who were a demographic anomaly. As demographics returned to something more normal, we never rebuilt them. They are less profitable than other land uses. This is not the same as being unprofitable. In California, residential prices are skewed by protectionist government measures. Dismantling the government interference that pushes housing costs up in the state would very likely reduce the need for government vouchers et al for the poor. I left California to find someplace I could afford.
    - gamechangr 9y ago
      That's great - congratulations. Less profitable - yet profitable - sounds reasonable. I'm not familiar enough with the builders pricing to know.

Mz 9y ago

To be clear, I am not for more Section 8 housing. I am for market based solutions. In the 60s and 70s, we tore down around 80% of the SROs we had because the Baby Boomers came from an unprecedentedly well off, large middle class and did not need minimal housing of that sort. Boarding houses used to also be common. Now, most housing is designed with a nuclear family in mind and our default expectation is that single adults should get one or more roommates to make such housing work for them. There is far too little market based housing aimed at singletons and childless couples. Meanwhile, our demographics have changed and we have drastically more singletons, childless couples or single parents, drastically fewer nuclear families. I want market based solutions, not more government interference of this sort. There are good things done by the government, but most programs to help the poor only entrench poverty and the problems that lead to it.

gamechangr 9y ago
> "I want market based solutions". What would that look like? I assume it's not profitable for builders...or else there wouldn't be a problem? If it were, they would build them everywhere.
- Mz 9y ago
  My comment was written 13 days ago. I have since gotten off the street with a market based solution. I am in an SRO. Historically, we had a lot more SROs and boarding houses than we do currently. Up to 80% of SROs were torn down in the 60s and 70s when they weren't needed by Baby Boomers, who were a demographic anomaly. As demographics returned to something more normal, we never rebuilt them. They are less profitable than other land uses. This is not the same as being unprofitable. In California, residential prices are skewed by protectionist government measures. Dismantling the government interference that pushes housing costs up in the state would very likely reduce the need for government vouchers et al for the poor. I left California to find someplace I could afford.
  - gamechangr 9y ago
    That's great - congratulations. Less profitable - yet profitable - sounds reasonable. I'm not familiar enough with the builders pricing to know.