4 ms·

The entire idea is preposterous. The solution to affordable housing is oversupply of housing. Gov should incentivize new construction to reduce prices and let t

• kelnos 7y ago
  The problem is that in most areas the government is primarily voted in by existing landowners, who don't want more housing, and don't care if lower-income renters are being forced out. The non-landowners are either not abundant enough, or only plan to live here for a short enough period of time that they don't bother to get involved in local politics.
  • vineyardmike 7y ago
    While this is the whole "NIMBY" thing... is that really a problem? No one complains that Americans can't vote in Britains elections, to set their laws. The whole point of voting is that the people who actively live there get to decide what happens to their city.
    • micmil 7y ago
      Yes, that's a problem. Nobody that bought a home on the vague notion that they HAVE to make money off of it when they sell it will ever vote to have a homeless shelter built across the road.
    • kelnos 7y ago
      I think the cause and effect is intertwined. Many of the people who now plan to only stay for a few years have that attitude because they feel disenfranchised and locked out of the planning process, while at the same time being priced out of the ability to put down roots.
• tmh79 7y ago
  Strong disagree, the solution to affordable housing includes a very large amount of private/free market housing, but the free market won't really address the needs of people below 30% of the median income. Additionally, good affordable housing is one of the best anti poverty tools that we have. IMO the long term solution is robust private market housing construction for the middle class, and a robust public housing construction system for those who truly need it.
  • formerchamp 7y ago
    Public housing is a complete failure and the epicenter of violence in every city. Name a current project in ANY big city you'd raise your family in?
    • zokula 7y ago
      Gemeindebau in Vienna Austria.
  • barry-cotter 7y ago
    > the free market won't really address the needs of people below 30% of the median income. It will if it’s not illegal to build. SROs are illegal. Boarding houses are illegal. Houses below a certain minimum are are illegal. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/what-is-the-future-of-the-rich-worlds-housing-markets https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/what-is-... > From 2013 to 2017, Tokyo built many houses as the whole of England. > House prices in Tokyo are now 9% lower than they were in 2000, while in London they are 144% higher, adjusted for inflation.
    • micmil 7y ago
      Anyone using Japan as an example of housing prices does not understand Japanese housing. Zoning in Japan is done at a national level, not local. Once an area is designated for housing, housing goes there. Because of this there is a constant flow of new housing, which drives the price of old houses down. This is not possible anywhere zoning is done at a local level. Anytime one person has the ability to stop another from building you immediately create NIMBYdom and where the NIMBY exists, more housing does not because the NIMBY cares about nothing but their own property value. But that also feeds into the insane American idea of housing as an investment rather than a place to keep birds from crapping on you. Until the NIMBY is eliminated, and housing is no longer sold as an investment, housing costs will not go down.
      • Redoubts 7y ago
        So why can’t we use Japan as an example? That seems like a laundry list of good ideas.