4 ms·

That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Logically

That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Logically, areas that require low income housing are very likely to have a relatively high cost of living to begin with and economic mobility has not changed enough in the last few decades to account for the increase in the homeless population in concentrated metropolitan areas. Despite the great recession, homelessness rates have fallen by almost 20% since 2000 but anyone who has lived in LA, SF, NYC, Portland, or Seattle can tell you that on the ground, bare facts dont tell the whole story. No doubt locating the actual sweet spot is impossibly complicated and it depends on the region but naive logic will not solve this problem, only experience and data will.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Not necessarily. It could cause/allow people to stay who would otherwise have left, to much the same effect. You also have the opposite problem, because the same land could have been used for market rate housing, so you've prevented entry by new middle income people who could have brought more resources into the community.
- dashundchen 8y ago
  Forester's model of public housing here is looking only in terms of cost, and not what it can provide. A very large assumption lies here: >Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty. and completely ignores the benefits that public housing in a city can provide. That is, housing can provide security and meet a basic need for those who may be struggling with many basic needs (food, employment, education, health). Having this need met allows recipients to focus energy and money normally spent on housing on other issues, potentially reducing other costs and allowing them to progress out of poverty. I think we can see the evidence there are benefits in examples at the furthest end of poverty - homelessness. Many cities found that it is cheaper to house the homeless and provide them social services, than to ignore them and treat the effects of homelessness issues (police and jail time for crimes, from desperation or untreated mental illness, emergency medical services for treating overdoses etc). This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-streets-31-065-giving-them-housing-10-051-3107834a8632/ https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-str...
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    > This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? Can I move somewhere that is run like a business trying to maximize profit? I think I'd far prefer it to my wasteful city...
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      Do you believe that people out of work should be left to die, or people suffering from debilitating diseases, or those in excess to the demands of capital? You do realise that, even if you're an egotistical sociopath who values only your own interests, that a functional society that works - to some extent - for everyone, is probably also best for you. Do you want to live amongst misery? In a degenerating society?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - dashundchen 8y ago
      Let's say every local government in a country operated that way - all doing their best to maximize attractions for the rich (and 'profit') and limit attractions/spending for the poor. Obviously poor people must move somewhere, so the end result is society has just conspired to make their poverty and misery government's permanent goal. I think this attitude is fairly common in the US. Look how many people think punishments or burdens need to be attached to welfare, without any proof of fraud reduction. Things like mandatory drug testing, work requirements, restrictions to what TANF and SNAP and be spent on.
      - shittyadmin 8y ago
        Perhaps "profit" isn't the best way to put it, but "wellbeing per dollar" in some way - ultimately a measurable optimization factor of some sort needs to be decided on and used. Instead we see cities without any sort of optimization, repeatedly trying failed ideas, flushing tax dollars down the toilet. "This clearly isn't working, let's just keep doing it" ought to be the slogan for many midsize cities.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Not necessarily. It could cause/allow people to stay who would otherwise have left, to much the same effect. You also have the opposite problem, because the same land could have been used for market rate housing, so you've prevented entry by new middle income people who could have brought more resources into the community.

dashundchen 8y ago
Forester's model of public housing here is looking only in terms of cost, and not what it can provide. A very large assumption lies here: >Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty. and completely ignores the benefits that public housing in a city can provide. That is, housing can provide security and meet a basic need for those who may be struggling with many basic needs (food, employment, education, health). Having this need met allows recipients to focus energy and money normally spent on housing on other issues, potentially reducing other costs and allowing them to progress out of poverty. I think we can see the evidence there are benefits in examples at the furthest end of poverty - homelessness. Many cities found that it is cheaper to house the homeless and provide them social services, than to ignore them and treat the effects of homelessness issues (police and jail time for crimes, from desperation or untreated mental illness, emergency medical services for treating overdoses etc). This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-streets-31-065-giving-them-housing-10-051-3107834a8632/ https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-str...
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  > This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? Can I move somewhere that is run like a business trying to maximize profit? I think I'd far prefer it to my wasteful city...
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    Do you believe that people out of work should be left to die, or people suffering from debilitating diseases, or those in excess to the demands of capital? You do realise that, even if you're an egotistical sociopath who values only your own interests, that a functional society that works - to some extent - for everyone, is probably also best for you. Do you want to live amongst misery? In a degenerating society?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - dashundchen 8y ago
    Let's say every local government in a country operated that way - all doing their best to maximize attractions for the rich (and 'profit') and limit attractions/spending for the poor. Obviously poor people must move somewhere, so the end result is society has just conspired to make their poverty and misery government's permanent goal. I think this attitude is fairly common in the US. Look how many people think punishments or burdens need to be attached to welfare, without any proof of fraud reduction. Things like mandatory drug testing, work requirements, restrictions to what TANF and SNAP and be spent on.
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      Perhaps "profit" isn't the best way to put it, but "wellbeing per dollar" in some way - ultimately a measurable optimization factor of some sort needs to be decided on and used. Instead we see cities without any sort of optimization, repeatedly trying failed ideas, flushing tax dollars down the toilet. "This clearly isn't working, let's just keep doing it" ought to be the slogan for many midsize cities.