45 ms·
Alright, amigo, let's build some affordable housing
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- doingtheiroming 5y agoHorrifying. So much human ingenuity and energy burned in a process seemingly designed to prevent the thing it is supposed to encourage.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- YATA0 5y agoThis Twitter thread hits the nail on the head. Imagine this process in California, where just working with PG&E to get utilities to the site may be a six figure adventure, then another $40-60k for an electrician to wire the house. That could be close to $200k for electrical alone. This could be for a 1,000 square foot shed in Oakland, not somewhere around Malibu. Add on the planning costs that the Twitter author goes on about, and your "affordable housing" is now near a million dollars. Is that really affordable?
- cagenut 5y agofor single family detached, no but that was never actually an economically viable product, so it makes sense to simply not expect it to work. for four to sixteen units that seems like it could be fine?
- YATA0 5y ago>but that was never actually an economically viable product It is the most economically viable product, which is why they dominate. >for four to sixteen units that seems like it could be fine? Those costs have also skyrocketed because now you have additional requirements like fire, egress, additional structural when going over two stories, etc. It's why most new apartments are "luxury" apartments. The costs have grown so out of control that the only way to break even is to make them outrageously priced.
- occz 5y ago>It is the most economically viable product, which is why they dominate. Only because they are the only thing that most zoning codes in the U.S permit to build. With U.S zoning being what it is, there's literally no honest discussion to be made on what type of housing is most economically viable.
- nemo44x 5y agoI think it’s quite viable if we look back to when it started. Back then hones we’re 800sq feet. Even 100 years ago an average home was about there. Today they are 2400 so feet on average. So if we go back to smaller places it’s viable. The only reason it’s not viable in places like Europe is because there are so many people in a small space. In the USA we could get adequate population density with 1200 sq foot homes and 1/8 acre plots.
- kaibee 5y agoThe land has gotten so expensive that the kind of people who can afford a SFH lot for their personal use, not to become a duplex or quadplex or whatever, can also afford to build a 2400 sqft house without it really mattering. Now a quadplex in the same spot could split that lot cost across 4 families.
- sethammons 5y ago> but that was never actually an economically viable product There are clearly lots of these buildings. And have been for decades. It may not work "forever" but it has worked. Your argument reminds me of the economist who steps over the $100 bill on the ground since it couldn't possibly be there because if it was, someone would have picked it up by now.
- virtualwhys 5y ago> $40-60k for an electrician to wire the house. Think I'm in the wrong profession, what on earth does a Californian electrician make per year? At that rate I'd guess 500K+
- giantg2 5y agoMany of the trades can make good money. Especially in areas that forbid owners to work on their own homes, even to replace an existing water heater (like NYC).
- vasco 5y agoHow would they know?
- tehlike 5y agoThey don't, but the moment you need real permits or need to refi etc they might ask for and enforce permits.
- gorbachev 5y agoTry buying or selling a house with unlicensed "modifications". It's an interesting exercise.
- giantg2 5y agoVery true. Depending on the modifications (like electrical), insurance could deny claims if they find unapproved/unpermitted work, even if it wasn't the cause, or the cause was unknown (depends on the policy).
- sokoloff 5y agoAround here, if you don’t want to buy a house with un-permitted work, it’s no problem; there’s another buyer standing right behind you (often literally) who will.
- vbezhenar 5y agoI can build the entire house with everything included. And not from those pesky woodsticks, but from a real concrete and bricks. For around $40k. Something in US is seriously wrong. I understand that labour cost difference is huge, but it can’t be the only factor.
- YATA0 5y agoWhere do you live? $40k in concrete will get you your concrete driveway in California.
- zip1234 5y ago$4000 for the concrete and $36000 for everything else.
- pas 5y agoKazakhstan https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30804120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30804120
- bombcar 5y agoA cinder block in the US is almost $2 - let’s assume on discount you can get it for $1. Still expensive. Here’s the cheapest kit at Menards if you’d like to compare: 29551 - Tahoe Cabin Material List at Menards https://www.menards.com/main/p-1569392867885.htm https://www.menards.com/main/p-1569392867885.htm And that’s materials only. And would be considered quite small by US standards. But hey 11% rebate.
- unnouinceput 5y agoAnd that's why you pour the concrete directly into walls with rebars inside. Much stronger than cinder blocks and 10 times cheaper. But hey, nobody wants to actually do quality work, let's just fuck around with lego.
- 5y ago
- gsk22 5y agoThe thing I don't understand in conversations around affordable housing is why does it have to be new construction? Of course new construction is going to be expensive and full of bureaucracy. Many US cities have large stocks of older housing in moderate condition -- sure, it'd take some money to get them up to snuff, but nothing near what new construction would cost.
- seibelj 5y agoThis is why luxury housing and condos is actually helpful for lower-income housing - the luxury housing of 60 years ago becomes the affordable housing as the top of the market continues moving into better places. Basically all housing whatsoever is helpful. But the optics of it makes it difficult to understand.
- dv_dt 5y agoUnless of course the luxury housing gets periodically torn down and rebuilt or remodeled making it even higher end housing. If the core neighborhood is already high-rent and or desirable real estate, why would high cost real estate buildings somehow allow themselves become low rent?
- seibelj 5y agoIf you don’t build new luxury housing, then the top end goes to the next best thing, and the next to the next best, and so on. Building more helps increase total supply which alleviates pressure everywhere.
- dv_dt 5y agoThat step down doesn't necessarily happen at all - old luxury housing may get upgraded in place, or upgraded to higher luxury housing which then becomes less efficient at serving many. The total supply may shrink from serving the luxury market.
- 5y ago
- giantg2 5y agoI wonder what is actually looked at or calculated for number of bedrooms and services offered. In my opinion, people's preferences for more stuff/room/services are what drives housing prices in general, especially location. It seems racist to call people who are concerned about the project racists. Some of them may be, but some of those people concerned about traffic may have legitimate concerns. I've seen it for fancy developments too. Edit: why downvote?
- anamax 5y agoIt's poor form to point out that a racism accusation is one of the most effective political attacks/responses. Said effectiveness is not that dependent on the "truth" of said accusation. (The sneer quotes are because "you're a racist" is somewhat ill-defined, vague, etc.)
- 6510 5y agoIt's twitter! He is going over the countless hurdles one has to successfully jump. Each has been designed to do something sensible but may turn out quite senseless. Twitter has room for a single example of that not an elaborate write up. He also illustrates how frustration grows and one might not have the patience to sensibly respond to the thousand cuts. There should be a single government body that deals with the hurdles in a timely, professional and affordable way.
- 6510 5y agoHe is referring to racist racists.
- rubyist5eva 5y agoGovernments want affordable housing to be built but the number one enemy to affordable housing is the government.
- alexklark 5y agoGovernments only want other people money (so called taxes/donations), and, sometimes, be elected. Thinking that governments can not provide themselves affordable and usually free housing is somehow contradict reality.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- KerrAvon 5y agoWith statements like this, it’s important to define “government” — for example, the specifics in the Twitter thread are hugely helpful in identifying the actual bottlenecks.
- crate_barre 5y agoLandlords despise tenant protection laws. They’d rather just treat the place as an investment than deal with tenants that have rights.
- ceeplusplus 5y agoTenant protection laws seem like failures to me. They don't prevent landlords from being bad actors (by neglecting maintenance and not giving a shit about the quality of the property) and they don't protect landlords from bad tenants. All they do is allow a few people to get evicted 6 months and thousands of dollars in legal fees later instead of in a week.
- AussieWog93 5y agoI'm guessing you've never had a bad landlord! Our previous landlord was an absolute nutjob (we found out later he'd been doing all sorts of strange/illegal things and had a ridiculously high tenant turnover; shame since it was a nice unit). Eventually, his wife came on one of the inspections and decided we weren't fit to grace her property, so we were given 120 days to vacate. This is the minimum in Victoria for "without cause" eviction. While incredibly stressful (and I still don't think the laws are strict enough; "without cause" eviction should be as difficult as "without cause" firing), it was long enough to find another suitable property to move to. I couldn't imagine how terrible it would be to only be given, say, a week's notice until we were homeless.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lr4444lr 5y agoNot for nothing, but, if you're a private developer looking to get the public's money to build something that you're going to sell and profit from either directly or through special tax breaks that the rest of us have to are up for, usually in special variance of zoning that the rest of us have to abide by, you SHOULD have to jump through a lot of hurdles to prove you aren't a grifter.
- crate_barre 5y agoOk I feel you, what if I own a sports team and promise promise promise that that stadium you are going to pay for is going to improve the community? Is that enough proof? How about an Amazon warehouse? But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof.
- hammock 5y agoWhat makes you feel that it's easier to build a stadium than subsidized housing? How many people, man-hours and money do you believe is spent on the efforts to get a ballpark or Amazon campus approved? Really believe it's less than a multifamily development?
- pas 5y agoadjusted for cost-benefit to taxpayers and profitability for developers the stadium suddenly doesn't look so good, or, um, looks amazing for those special interests.
- hammock 5y agoWould be interested in an actual analysis of that, not just hand waving. A devil's advocate might say that a stadium comes with built-in jobs and attracts 10,000s of intercity spectators every week who have a lot of money burning a hole in their pocket, whereas subsidized housing brings a few families, most of whom have very little money or income. Of course there are other metrics to consider than economic impact.
- crate_barre 5y agoI feel like one thing that is often not said enough is that solving housing solves a lot of things for fucking everyone. When everyone isn’t dying to rent or get a house, then you get more sane prices and inventory everywhere. This literally the most important issue in America because it is simply the largest cost for every single American across all classes.
- panic 5y agoThere is also a ton of abuse that can only continue because the people being harmed can’t afford to move out.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago> it is simply the largest cost for every single American across all classes. I don't think that's quite correct. It's the largest expense for almost everyone, but it's a huge source of income and wealth for a much smaller non-overlapping group. Also totally coincidentally I'm sure that same group is disproportionally represented in all seats of power.
- andromeduck 5y agoThe price of housing affects everything as it increases the price of labor and logistical overhead required to minimize it.
- knowaveragejoe 5y ago
- adamsvystun 5y agoThe key quote is this: > 300-500k in upfront costs. So before building anything just the application process will cost you up to half a million, that's an enormous hurdle.
- mtoddsmith 5y ago"they're concerned about indigenous moths" Love thy neighbor?
- jmyeet 5y agoI find it odd that you almost never hear about the car's role in the housing crisis. And in the US it has been a massive factor since WWII. First, it allowed the building of suburbs, which just wasn't feasible before. This in turn led people to push zoning laws such that building anything other than a SFH became illegal. Second, it contributed to the dismantling of street cars and other forms of public transportation. Third, all these cars new housing developments needed roads and this typically led to the destruction of poorer and usually more ethnic neighbours. Fourth, driving everywhere is like living in an insulated bubble. You don't have to deal with your fellow man. Things like Skid Row (LA) or the Tenderloin (SF) don't touch you because you can just drive around them in an airconditioned bubble. I honestly think this contributed to making people care less about the plight of their fellow man. Fifth, voters routinely complain about the cost and taxes of public transportation but think nothing of all the subsidies governments provide for driving (eg building roads, having gas stations, building so much parking, having cheap or free street parking even in densely populated cities with good public transportation like NYC). Yes there are fuel taxes. No they don't pay all these costs. Lastly, we seem to be comoletely comfortable with the cost in death and crime of car ownership because of the personal convenience. Tens of thousands die in motor vehicle accidents every year. There are crimes like being a serial killer or kidnapping that almost require having a car. Do we really wonder why such things exploded post-WWII? The affordable housing crisis is depressing because it's another stark reminder of just how little a fuck people give to people who aren't in their tribe. The many barriers erected are simply aimed at making poor people go away. That's it. And the problems are at every level of government.
- pas 5y agoNot to mention that cities subsidize suburbs in many ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/qrn9i7/in_what_ways_do_cities_subsidize_suburbs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/qrn9i7/in_wh...
- nomaxx117 5y agoI've also noticed that attitudes towards the homeless are completely different between those who walk and those who drive. I'm personally willing to pay whatever it takes in extra taxes to get them shelter and deal with the current crisis in my city, but I've noticed that people who drive are often far less willing to support action here.
- imgabe 5y agoPerhaps we should just keep building unaffordable housing until there’s so much of it that it becomes affordable
- deepakhj 5y agoYou're right if supply was corrected all over the region, prices would drop and it would be more affordable.
- pas 5y agothere's an argument that prices are higher than they would be because of the spillover from the East coast (https://fullstackeconomics.com/the-2000s-housing-bubble-was-greatly-exaggerated/ https://fullstackeconomics.com/the-2000s-housing-bubble-was-...)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- llampx 5y agoThis is what happened in big cities in India. There was so much demand and apparently few regulations, so builders just kept building huge apartment complexes which sold for millions of $. Then at some point the demand was satiated and prices didn't increase in the last decade or so as much as they have in Europe and NA + Aus/NZ.
- jimbob45 5y agoI’ve always understood the process (in a certain US state that will remain unnamed) to be that apartments can dedicate some portion of their units to be Section 8 which then allows the owner to get some fat tax breaks. In return, the owner agrees to submit to periodic inspections to prove that the units are well-kept and to only offer those units to tenants the city seems low-income/needful. This idea of purpose-building one entire low-income/needful apartment building seems insane. Apportioning units from regular apartment blocks seems like a much better approach. At the very least, the investors aren’t holding their breath for the profit to come in.
- kome 5y agoAmerican market-centric approach to social policy is a mess. It's self defeating. Another way is possible, tried and tested in many countries.
- rasz 5y ago>9% credits. If it scores well, but not top 10% well, then the non-competitive 4% credit is the path. >Because you are pursuing 4% credits, you will also want to pair that with tax-exempt bond financing >it's a rough ride that will take 9-12 months if you're hustling. What is this BS. You have to be an idiot to burn 12months for 4%. >A problem you will likely face, is that 4% credits, bonds, and traditional bank debt aren’t enough to close the funding gap. What funding gap? How about you build what you can afford instead of burning time for some magical 4%? >You need more subsidy to make this project viable. Ah. So this isnt a story about bureaucratic hurdles when trying to build affordable housing. This is a story about people trying to milk subsidies/tax credits an complaining about the approval process.
- georgeoliver 5y ago> What is this BS. You have to be an idiot to burn 12months for 4%. It's better than it sounds. Only a portion of the project's units need to be affordable, so you're still making market rate on the remainder.
- rasz 5y agoThat even worse :/ I thought the whole point was to build affordable housing, not make more money.
- Vixel 5y agoJe. Sus. Can anyone give an example of this process in another (easier) country? I guess what i'm asking is, is this a local, state or federal red tape issue?
- Eji1700 5y agoWhile i can't give you an example i can say it's often all 3. It does depend on the area but you're always worrying about all sorts of overlapping regs.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dsr_ 5y agoIf the state and city are putting up the money to build it, they are the customers -- and it looks to me like they are making a terrible mistake in the name of having a free market. Publish sets of acceptable plans, put together an expert committee to approve variances, make all the variance decisions published and binding precedent. Size the expert committee suitably for the workload. Then get the towns to specify where they want the housing to go and acquire the land. Pay contractors to execute the plans. That's socialism, of course, so it won't work in America.
- chiefalchemist 5y agoHousing is yet another example of how the more government - The Fed + Federal and local - weighs in (read: thumb on the scale) the more things get distorted. Slapping "fixes" on top of that isn't going to fix anything, as we keep seeing time and again. Those calling for more and more of that same? You're part of the problem.
- caiob 5y ago
- forrestthewoods 5y agoI wish “affordable housing” meant “cheap to build housing” and not “subsidized housing”.
- mchusma 5y agoI agree. I don't want the government to subsidize housing by 4-20%. I just want them to stop pursuing policies that drice up prices 2-10x. This includes things like minimum size requirements, minimum parking requirements, maximum height requirements, excessive permitting, community review requirements, environmental reviews, mortgage subsidies, and more. Solving housing is "easy", there are just tradeoffs, none of which to me seem like so bad. I typically only see NIMBYs on the other side.
- brody_hamer 5y agoYes. The term “Affordable housing” is used in such different contexts, that it holds little meaning. But I just want us to be building condos and simple homes geared that middle income families can afford at 30% of their annual income.
- SilasX 5y agoHaha, yes! That's so annoying, that we've contorted the language to the point that one can end up saying things like, "I support making housing affordable, but I'm not for Affordable Housing(tm)."
- markus_zhang 5y agoNot surprised. Construction projects, especially large scale, requires friends in government.
- JaceLightning 5y agoI don't want to live in "affordable housing." Does anyone want to live in affordable housing? It's cheap for a reason: it's small, it's not in a good location, construction materials are cheap, it's packed with people. We don't need affordable housing. We need people to stop buying houses they don't live in-- especially if they are renting them out to others. We need to cut population growth. We need to stop subsidizing home buying.
- 0des 5y agoThen where do people live who can't afford to buy if renting is gone
- more_corn 5y agoWhy don’t we make all housing more affordable by drastically increasing the supply of housing? How do you do that you might ask? Look at that list of blockers and uncertainty. Stack rank them by importance and start removing them. If we want more affordable housing the answer is supply. And if we (god forbid) decide we want the government involved in building it we should copy the one place with an inarguably successful project. That’s Vienna. It astounds me we can be this bad at picking policies that lead to the outcomes we actually want.
- chii 5y agoWho's "we"? There's so many interest groups in this pronoun that it is impossible to pick a policy to please them all.
- czbond 5y agoHousing will become affordable; this happened in 2000 and 2008 - but more so this go 'round because of low rates and free money. Recessions solve this in the long term, when the Fed allows them to happen.
- chmod600 5y agoThere's a difference between affordable housing and "affordable housing"(tm) qualifying for a LIHTC. Affordable housing is simply developing new housing that serves the market you intend to serve. It might be more humble, etc., to make it affordable for that market. Part of the equation is realizing that there are also poor people who simply don't have enough to pay the rent on any place at all that is built according to building codes. Developers can't solve that problem, even with some kind of tax credit bible and tax consultants.
- paxys 5y agoThe problem is that the difference in market price of a house built to regular standards and one built to be "humble" isn't all that large. Most of the costs are fixed – land, permits, designs, materials and construction that are all up to code, utilities hookups, inspections, listing, sale process. So the distinction comes down to finishings and appliances, which are overall minor. So whenever you force a developer to build affordable housing by placing caps on price, they will always be doing so at a loss and making up for it by inflating all the other units, skewing the market further.
- georgeoliver 5y agoHomes in the US now are about 1000 sf bigger than they were 50 years ago. I would bet this is mostly market-driven to maximize profit, but it's also politically created by zoning and ordinances, with the added bonus of keeping poor people who might afford a smaller home or a portion of a duplex/triplex out of your neighborhood.
- JamesAdir 5y ago"if the community is full of idiots" - When you are so condescending to other people and society rules, I really can see why there are so many rules and regulations preventing other "non-idiots" to build houses.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- TheDudeMan 5y agoSo weird that service that limits posts to 280 characters is also a long-form blogging platform.
- wraptile 5y agoInitially it started out as a brilliant idea - a Twitter thread that serves as a bullet point hook for an article with more details and upsells. Reader gets quick value and the writer gets exposure, clicks and leads - everybody wins! On the other hand some managed to completely miss the point and mangle this whole scenario to the point where the effect is essentially reversed. Impressive really.
- AlexanderTheGr8 5y agoI think it's due to most users' preference to stay on the same platform and not have to go to another (e.g. browser) to read about something. Even if moving from Twitter from chrome takes just as much time as opening a thread, most users would prefer to open the thread rather than chrome. This could be a good opportunity to figure out why users prefer to stay on the same platform. Some interesting psychology must be at play.
- renewiltord 5y agoNot at all weird. You are guaranteed that to get to the next interesting checkpoint you only need readahead 280 chars.
- Valord 5y agoI agree. On the odd occasion something interesting pops up as a Twitter thread I use an unroller. Much better UX.
- GrumpyNl 5y agoBuilding a affordable house is easy. Its the paperwork and infrastructure and land that makes it expensive.
- ianai 5y agoCan housing be something like a college dorm? Ie individual bedrooms with shared dining/kitchen areas or even a cafeteria. Ie could that be offered outside of a college campus.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoThis is a technical answer ignoring human factors, as you can often see on HN. Poor areas are prone to have more violence, and sharing intimacy will make the consequences of that dreadful. It's already hard to be weak or a pray in the dangerous part of town. But if you have to be in close contact with aggressive groups for your daily living, it will turn into a nightmare. Imagine a woman having the pee at night, how safe would she be if she had to exit her flat, cross the corridor and go to public toilets where people also sell drugs ? Doorm rooms are fine in universities or back packers because people seeking education or travelling are usually not the same ones are those who will mug you. But as someone who went to a poor high school: the rules are not the same there, and the law is going to help you. In short, such proximity would allow a minority of destructive people to make the entire neighborhood hell.
- ianai 5y agoNot all dorms have shared bathrooms. Like put that stuff at the back of it. There’s even probably a way to combine all the requirements into one living area with minimal partitioning at another extreme. In a sense people are already experimenting with this with tiny homes. People will be people, but a good portion of your concern can be addressed through design.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoIn France we used to have a lot of common living areas. And we got rid of them. Why ? Because indeed we realized that we could address those problems with design. In this case, the good design is called a private appartment. Honestly those things are so important that anybody stating they can create them differently should be forced to live in them for 10 years in the worst part of the city, like roman bridge builders were forced to sleep under their construction.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ilamont 5y agoThis is a chance for you to meet the folks on your city council. Most will believe that supporting affordable housing is correct, but many are worried about the “public perception” of voting for low-income housing. Not where we live. Perception is they are voting for mostly high end, luxury housing at the behest of the developer who of course is trying to maximize profit.
- throw10920 5y agoLegal code is identical to software in the respect that they are bounded by complexity and human understanding more so than physical constraints, and so both need to be periodically refactored to reduce complexity. Software engineers get this, politicians seem to not.
- Aeolun 5y ago> politicians seem to not They just keep revising one line at a time. Putting another wrapper on the object so they can modify it without breaking anything else. That’s how you get the ability to appoint privateers in 2022 xD
- JasonFruit 5y agoThe assumption here is that housing can't be affordable by nature, but has to be made affordable by government intervention. Is that the case? Would it be possible to build an apartment building that simply will be affordable, without the government giving the developer a pile of other people's money? I also wonder about the incentive that's created when artificially affordable housing is provided in an area that's expensive because of high demand: doesn't that prevent a shortage of low-skill labor that would otherwise be a limiting factor in that demand? That is, if it's too expensive for many people who might work low-paying service and manual jobs to live nearby, the rising cost of that sort of labor might begin to lessen other people's desire to live there and businesses' desire to locate there, mitigating the housing problem.
- sandwichinvest 5y agoIn both cases, we have quite a lot of historical evidence. There aren't many prominent examples of housing at all income levels being created without government intervention. And when there's an affordable housing crunch in a desirable city with a wide spectrum of jobs, people commute and live further away, which is bad for everyone involved.
- datavirtue 5y agoIf they simply did not charge income tax on home sales we would have an army of solo developers and house flippers engaging in a flurry of small builds. There is still cheap land to be had where single family 1500sq ft homes can be built but developers can't do it because of the up front costs and taxes making such a thing impossible for them. Solo builders can do it...until they factor in the governments' cut. The margins too thin, risk too great. Eliminating income tax on home sales is dead simple, has no cost, and would enable a lot of one-off projects. I am trying to build a two bedroom house in a small country township in Ohio. My upfront costs just to get county, state, and township approval are already at $15k with me doing all the work. No approval yet. The piece of land (1ac) I'm developing was held by various corporate builders for years until I bought it from another individual for $7k. This house is for myself but it could easily be built on speculation and sold but I would have to live in it for three years to avoid the $30k income tax on the sale. No way am I fighting through all this red tape and risk to hand over $30k in taxes. That $30k is another piece of land brought to shovel ready for another build...pissed away. Income taxes are a regression to solo builders that make each build a daunting risk. The government is not allowing profit on smaller single family homes...period.
- nicholascgilpin 5y agoA land value tax or exclusive land use fee would fix this. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/land-value-tax-housing-crisis/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/land-value-tax-housin...
- xyst 5y agoIn the US, at least, a majority of development is largely dedicated to SFH developments or multi family housing (ie, "duplexes"). We have a large emphasis on encouraging urban sprawl rather than scaling vertically. Any remaining land that is not zoned for SFH is mostly sold to private developers where it only makes financial sense to develop luxury condos (especially in some hostile markets where the building code is constrained). Solving the affordability crisis in the US will require a multifaceted approach involving radical changes in existing land zoning and building code; decoupling our city planning from roads + cars to alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, or public transportation; and having the O&G and auto industries pay their share for getting us into this mess.
- foogazi 5y agoI thought this was going to be about building affordable housing, but it’s about a particular government program and the process to access the funds If you don’t have any money to build that’s one way to do it I guess
- specialist 5y ago"Administrative burden" is the phrase that pushed to the front of my head. So much bureaucracy. Hearing tales from my activist friends, this LIHTA tale most reminds me of the gauntlet exfelons brave to get their voting rights restored. My own state had 20+ steps. Like getting the original sentencing judge to signoff. For people who already have the legal right to vote, were it not for the paperwork. My second thought is about the strategy of housing advocates. Instead of lobbying, maybe they should be underwriting. PKIs showing how many units got built would mosdef help with fund raising.