3 ms·
The thing you're talking about is the same as if people were owners. But the advantage is that an ownership driven market (see Singapore) is more dynamic and al
by Robotbeat 6y ago
The thing you're talking about is the same as if people were owners. But the advantage is that an ownership driven market (see Singapore) is more dynamic and allows people to actually live in the city where they work instead of commuting for an hour.
Noah Smith has other articles about how to do government-built but occupant owned housing like Singapore. It's far better than rent-control, which tends to privilege existing tenants at the expense of people who need jobs but weren't lucky enough to have been born in a rent-controlled apartment.
- ridaj 6y agoI'll have to check them out. I somehow doubt that Americans will trust their governments to build housing to their liking. It'd take some serious image turnaround for middle class Americans to be attracted to the notion of government housing... What happens in practice in the US today with government-backed mortgages is effectively government subsidized owner-occupied housing, but development is privatized.
- nobody9999 6y agoPublic/private partnerships can and do work. I know many folks who live in or grew up in such developments[0]. And such housing provides decent amenities and is safe, comfortable and generally well run. There is no reason why we can't do this more, or why government should have no involvement. It works, and we know it works, because we're already doing it. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell-Lama_Housing_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell-Lama_Housing_Program
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoGovernment-built housing can work, no doubt, but it's just not going to be feasible in the US until the cultural memory of "the projects" has passed.
- Robotbeat 6y agoA key to this is that it may be government-built, but people actually own them. And they're actually good. They're not just rent-controlled super cheap living space.