4 ms·
I downvoted for the ridiculous claim that this is by design. Like, we could have plenty of affordable housing in urban centers for the poor, but we don’t, not
by ryanwaggoner 8y ago
I downvoted for the ridiculous claim that this is by design.
Like, we could have plenty of affordable housing in urban centers for the poor, but we don’t, not because of the financial and political cost, but because we’re worried about those people then having too much time to think about escaping poverty, which we just can’t have. Ergo, to the exurbs with them!
Hard to imagine a dumber argument for why poverty exists.
- busterarm 8y agoNo, it's because we can't have those people being what we perceive to be better off than we are. You'll be first in line to see low-income housing built next to central park (below the 100s) though, right?
- cascom 8y agoIn order to build public housing on Central Park the effective value of the subsidy to each of the families that receive housing there would be hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That’s like buying Ferraris for people that can’t afford public transport. It’s a bad idea for two reasons - one is that it basically minimizes as opposes to maximizes the public dollars spent, and two public transfers are not supposed to be lottery tickets but rather safety nets.
- busterarm 8y agoBut the parent poster's argument was that we "could" provide affordable housing in the city center. Your argument refutes what the parent post is saying, not me.