3 ms·

Why is progressive politics the cause? If we take "progressive" as "more socialist", socialists are famous for their cheap housing projects. https://www.google.

Why is progressive politics the cause? If we take "progressive" as "more socialist", socialists are famous for their cheap housing projects. https://www.google.com/search?q=soviet+housing&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=soviet+housing&tbm=isch

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Or Singapore,which apparently has a right-wing, de-facto single party state, yet has 82% of people living in housing built by the state (down from a peak of 87% in 1990). They also recently took the step of capping the number of cars allowed in the city.
- latch 9y ago
  Not really accurate in the context of your parent. 82% of people might live in HDB, but HDB has long expanded beyond providing affordable housing to the poor. Further, these units are sold and can be rented out. In Singapore, you can be living in public housing, and still be paying 5000/month (or more) for a smallish apartment. So really, we should be looking at the % of people who live in HDBs that are at or near the poverty line. As for cars, it's long been capped (both explicitly by a limit on the # of available licenses and implicitly by the fact that taxes and levies make a $20_000 car cost over $100_000). What's changed is that they've stopped annually increasing the cap (it was only 0.25% before though).
gt_ 9y ago
I think “progressive” is a fairly American term, and puts a certain sheen over left politics. It’s tough to say whether it’s socialist or not because it never seems to matter. It’s more of a feeling, or a vibe, than a critique. It describes the unconscious desires of a demographic very well, but falls short on political content. In this sense, it may have been an OK choice of words.
- incompatible 9y ago
  Terms like "progressive" have been around for so long, and used for so many different movements, that pinning down what somebody means when they use them may be difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_St... doesn't even mention housing, so I guess it's not a core issue.
closeparen 9y ago
San Francisco's Progressive politicians are huge supporters of "cheap housing projects" as a percentage of permitted development (i.e. by blocking other projects), but are so far apathetic towards radically increasing the absolute number of below-market units built, which is what it would take to actually improve affordability overall. As it stands, below-market programs give disproportionate rewards (rent subsidies worth thousands per month) to a handful of lucky winners drawn off the waiting lists.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Or Singapore,which apparently has a right-wing, de-facto single party state, yet has 82% of people living in housing built by the state (down from a peak of 87% in 1990). They also recently took the step of capping the number of cars allowed in the city.

latch 9y ago
Not really accurate in the context of your parent. 82% of people might live in HDB, but HDB has long expanded beyond providing affordable housing to the poor. Further, these units are sold and can be rented out. In Singapore, you can be living in public housing, and still be paying 5000/month (or more) for a smallish apartment. So really, we should be looking at the % of people who live in HDBs that are at or near the poverty line. As for cars, it's long been capped (both explicitly by a limit on the # of available licenses and implicitly by the fact that taxes and levies make a $20_000 car cost over $100_000). What's changed is that they've stopped annually increasing the cap (it was only 0.25% before though).

gt_ 9y ago

I think “progressive” is a fairly American term, and puts a certain sheen over left politics. It’s tough to say whether it’s socialist or not because it never seems to matter. It’s more of a feeling, or a vibe, than a critique. It describes the unconscious desires of a demographic very well, but falls short on political content. In this sense, it may have been an OK choice of words.

incompatible 9y ago
Terms like "progressive" have been around for so long, and used for so many different movements, that pinning down what somebody means when they use them may be difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_St... doesn't even mention housing, so I guess it's not a core issue.

closeparen 9y ago

San Francisco's Progressive politicians are huge supporters of "cheap housing projects" as a percentage of permitted development (i.e. by blocking other projects), but are so far apathetic towards radically increasing the absolute number of below-market units built, which is what it would take to actually improve affordability overall. As it stands, below-market programs give disproportionate rewards (rent subsidies worth thousands per month) to a handful of lucky winners drawn off the waiting lists.