5 ms·

> Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entranc

> Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. I’ve lived in 80/20 buildings. None of the things you list make them a “joke” except the number of units. Yes, the 20% apartments aren’t as nice, don’t get to use the gym for free, and in a couple of cases had a separate entrance. So what?!? They were still massively subsidized and had giant lotteries for people that would have loved to get them. No, outrage mongers notwithstanding, the real issue is that the programs are incredibly inefficient. The builders get millions of dollars of tax benefits for each of those lottery units. Why house one lucky family in the most expensive part of town, and give four families nothing, when you could get rid of the program, not waive any taxes, and use the tax money from the luxury building in the fancy part of town to house all five families in a working class part of town? Like so much of contemporary upper-middle class driven leftism it’s about the appearances—-hence the outrage over poor doors—-rather than actually helping people. Privileged people want curated poor neighbors (bonus points if they are “diverse”) as an amenity.

bombcar 6y ago
Working-class areas and luxury areas aren’t a problem if there’s effective transportation. As it is most of California is packed to the gills with freeways and little in the way of rail. (Sadly rail is often opposed by the luxury areas - the Santee extension of the Trolley was campaigned against as “importing crime”.)
gnopgnip 6y ago
The government already builds "too much" public housing in undesirable areas. For instance the San Francisco Housing Authority has had all waitlists closed for 10+ years. Many other relatively desirable areas are the same. But places like San Joaquin county have units available right now in Manteca. There are many people who have lived their whole lives in places like SF, Oakland, LA, and are illegally displaced, and would rather wait years for permanent housing under the current system. Is it really helping them to force them to move far away?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  My experience is in NYC. If you have no working class neighborhoods in your city, you have a different problem. One that is also unlikely to be solved by the standard “affordable housing” playbook.

bombcar 6y ago

Working-class areas and luxury areas aren’t a problem if there’s effective transportation. As it is most of California is packed to the gills with freeways and little in the way of rail. (Sadly rail is often opposed by the luxury areas - the Santee extension of the Trolley was campaigned against as “importing crime”.)

gnopgnip 6y ago

The government already builds "too much" public housing in undesirable areas. For instance the San Francisco Housing Authority has had all waitlists closed for 10+ years. Many other relatively desirable areas are the same. But places like San Joaquin county have units available right now in Manteca. There are many people who have lived their whole lives in places like SF, Oakland, LA, and are illegally displaced, and would rather wait years for permanent housing under the current system. Is it really helping them to force them to move far away?

bradleyjg 6y ago
My experience is in NYC. If you have no working class neighborhoods in your city, you have a different problem. One that is also unlikely to be solved by the standard “affordable housing” playbook.