3 ms·

I think whoever sold high density housing policy as a progressive issue needs the get an Oscar for propaganda as it seems to be working extremely well. It has b

I think whoever sold high density housing policy as a progressive issue needs the get an Oscar for propaganda as it seems to be working extremely well. It has been so entrenched in the minds of people that this is a progressive solution. Only real estate groups can finance housing like this and it would create a situation where most people pay rent to their own detriment in the long term if you also criticise wealth divide, because this particular position would most certainly increase it. Of course real estate would love nothing more than high value cities zoning land for them to build thousands of housing units. That is like printing money if you have the capital to invest. I firmly believe people reject progressivism because they feel they would end up exploited and positions like this make that seem sensible. Public transport is a classical progressive issue, also trying to curb police violence. In general I would agree, but the "progressive" strategy for policy makers seems to be more talk than action.

comicjk 5y ago
The reason it's "like printing money" to build an apartment building is that there are so few relative to demand. You're using the result of a shortage as an argument not to fix the shortage.
stormbrew 5y ago
Eh, I think this is a pretty complicated thing really. Part of the problem I think is that American-style land-use policies create a very bipolar concept of density. Everything has to be either SFH or high rises and the middle gets squeezed out. Both of these I think favour big developers: either big enough to buy large tracts of land to build houses on or big enough to afford the capitally intensive process of building large scale buildings. Other parts of the world seem to be less keen on both kinds of housing and also often manage to have healthier cities by most metrics. Also, broad home ownership as a kind of free market mechanism for wealth transfer has been a big push, but I think the results are pretty mixed in practice. It worked for a while, particularly while family incomes were growing thanks to the workforce growing post-WWII, but it's also likely that it contributed to creating a new kind of wealthy elite that has become protective of itself, and that manifests particularly badly in California where property tax law is... comically absurd? I dunno. Leftism existed before there was literally any hope of "everyone owning a home." Landlords are also deeply problematic from a left or progressive perspective, but I don't think that means the answer is the opposite. Also, in practice, it doesn't really seem like developers are that keen on building "thousands of units". They seem much happier to build hundreds of really expensive ones. But it's hard to tell what they'd do without modern zoning laws.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Home ownership isn't just wealth building, I would not recommend it for that aspect. But it also has an effect in your investment in communities around you, which is pretty important to build support systems for people less fortunate. The economic advantages and insurances are a side effect. Home owners are not a wealthy elite and if they have become that you might want to address this problem.
  - stormbrew 5y ago
    Perhaps 'elite' is too much, though I think it's at least somewhat accurate in California where the vast majority of people are priced out of home ownership in much of the state. At any rate, it's all relative, but as a 'class' of sorts homeowners often actively and politically work against creating affordable housing of any sort in their neighborhoods. I don't even think that should be considered controversial, it's a thing that very evidently happens. I'm also just plain not sure I buy anything like the idea that home owners have greater investment in their communities in any particular ways that help 'less fortunate' people. I'm not sure what you're even thinking of there. At this point, thanks to housing price inflation, most homeowners wind up tying up substantial assets into debt service, which is about as far from something that helps the local community as you can get imo. I'm not strictly against home ownership, I am one myself. I just don't think you've really presented a compelling argument (nor am I aware of one) that they are somehow the true embodiment of progressivism.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      If you have a home, rising prices would be of benefit to you and another incentive to invest in your community. Yes, people are protective about their neighborhoods, that is not difficult to understand I think. That can have reasons, correct or wrong ones. > I'm not strictly against home ownership, I am one myself. I am not surprised. I believe your form of progressivism is pretty protective of your own status but you deny it to yourself. Will you sell your home and rent an apartment in high density housing? Do you want that?

comicjk 5y ago

The reason it's "like printing money" to build an apartment building is that there are so few relative to demand. You're using the result of a shortage as an argument not to fix the shortage.

stormbrew 5y ago

Eh, I think this is a pretty complicated thing really. Part of the problem I think is that American-style land-use policies create a very bipolar concept of density. Everything has to be either SFH or high rises and the middle gets squeezed out. Both of these I think favour big developers: either big enough to buy large tracts of land to build houses on or big enough to afford the capitally intensive process of building large scale buildings. Other parts of the world seem to be less keen on both kinds of housing and also often manage to have healthier cities by most metrics. Also, broad home ownership as a kind of free market mechanism for wealth transfer has been a big push, but I think the results are pretty mixed in practice. It worked for a while, particularly while family incomes were growing thanks to the workforce growing post-WWII, but it's also likely that it contributed to creating a new kind of wealthy elite that has become protective of itself, and that manifests particularly badly in California where property tax law is... comically absurd? I dunno. Leftism existed before there was literally any hope of "everyone owning a home." Landlords are also deeply problematic from a left or progressive perspective, but I don't think that means the answer is the opposite. Also, in practice, it doesn't really seem like developers are that keen on building "thousands of units". They seem much happier to build hundreds of really expensive ones. But it's hard to tell what they'd do without modern zoning laws.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Home ownership isn't just wealth building, I would not recommend it for that aspect. But it also has an effect in your investment in communities around you, which is pretty important to build support systems for people less fortunate. The economic advantages and insurances are a side effect. Home owners are not a wealthy elite and if they have become that you might want to address this problem.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  Perhaps 'elite' is too much, though I think it's at least somewhat accurate in California where the vast majority of people are priced out of home ownership in much of the state. At any rate, it's all relative, but as a 'class' of sorts homeowners often actively and politically work against creating affordable housing of any sort in their neighborhoods. I don't even think that should be considered controversial, it's a thing that very evidently happens. I'm also just plain not sure I buy anything like the idea that home owners have greater investment in their communities in any particular ways that help 'less fortunate' people. I'm not sure what you're even thinking of there. At this point, thanks to housing price inflation, most homeowners wind up tying up substantial assets into debt service, which is about as far from something that helps the local community as you can get imo. I'm not strictly against home ownership, I am one myself. I just don't think you've really presented a compelling argument (nor am I aware of one) that they are somehow the true embodiment of progressivism.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    If you have a home, rising prices would be of benefit to you and another incentive to invest in your community. Yes, people are protective about their neighborhoods, that is not difficult to understand I think. That can have reasons, correct or wrong ones. > I'm not strictly against home ownership, I am one myself. I am not surprised. I believe your form of progressivism is pretty protective of your own status but you deny it to yourself. Will you sell your home and rent an apartment in high density housing? Do you want that?