4 ms·
Ah yes. Rural Montana. The best place for California to fix their housing issues. Anywhere that truly, desperately requires more low-income housing isn't a pla
by herbstein 6y ago
Ah yes. Rural Montana. The best place for California to fix their housing issues.
Anywhere that truly, desperately requires more low-income housing isn't a place where it's not in someone's back yard. And if you move low-income housing projects so far away from the population center that no one will have their backyard disturbed you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoWell, rural Montana is not the only place in the US. But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places. > you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved. Why's that?
- angelocire 6y agoBecause remote work isn't low-income work, and companies aren't setting up in small towns.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y agoIn this case it probably would be better to put more effort into attracting businesses to the US in general and to the smaller towns in particular.
- iso1631 6y ago> But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places. It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand, so why do low income people not live there? Conversely if it's so much more expensive for a low income person to live and work in SF, why is there so much supply that wages can be low?
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago> It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand Not if you live in heavily subsidized housing.