6 ms·

Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensura

Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.

refurb 4y ago
Hilarious how your system gets more and more complex requiring more and more rules. You’re basically taking a market that has an artificially constrained supply and trying to replace it with an entirely planned system. Why?
- turtledove 4y ago
  Why? Because the current system leads to poverty, inequity, homelessness, waste, inefficiency, etc. And to be clear, I've proposed a system of adjusted incentives followed by but not necessarily required to be followed by a more planned system.
  - refurb 4y ago
    No doubt you'll need more "fixes" before you're done. It's like rent control in SF or public housing in Singapore. Design a new system and you'll create loopholes to be exploited. Fix those and new loopholes are created. And on and on. Easier to just remove government restrictions to supply and build until prices come down.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      >public housing in Singapore Which is a huge success.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        For who? How's that working out for the 1/3 of Singapore who is completely ineligible, yet pays taxes into the public coffers? Singapore is unique in that they have a massive well (proportionally much bigger than US) of workers paying taxes who are ineligible for much of the fruits of those taxes. Only the 2/3 with Citizenship or PR can meaningfully get public housing. I'm sure about any nation could have more affordable housing if they have endless wells of guest workers who can shoulder the cost without yielding that benefit for themselves.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Success how? If you're talking about providing housing in a country that had little quality housing 70 years ago, then yes, it's successful. If it's providing affordable housing for young people, then I'd challenge that. You can't even apply for public housing unless you are married (otherwise wait until after you are 35). The government overbuilt before, so now it's a 4-5 year wait after you win a lottery to get a house. People are still pumping real estate like crazy and the average home in the resale market is >$1M now (which is a 3 bedroom, 100 sq m apartment with a 99 year lease). Singapore is stuck in the exact same situation as every other developed country - housing is an asset that the middle class expects a healthy return on, yet increasing costs are a barrier to new owners.
notch656a 4y ago
>Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, Great, so the shit-show we have now, except without any incentive to efficiently spend. Sure that will go over swimmingly. Everyone knows that government construction projects are known for coming on-time and on-budget, and for the best value.
- turtledove 4y ago
  Seattle just built a major light rail expansion ahead of schedule and under budget. But I specifically believe in building more, smaller units. Places with eg 20 apartments. By building smaller scoped projects, costs are better understood up front, maintenance costs are lower, and you need less specialized construction expertise. Building 50 20-unit complexes to house a thousand families is going to serve everyone better than building one mega project to house a thousand families.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    This light rail [0]? [0] "Light-rail cost soars $1 billion" https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20001213&slug=TTGI2KF2J https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20001213&slug... -------- Edit: here's another one "Sound Transit’s light-rail system, called Link, has also had its share of challenges. The 25 miles of light rail that voters were told would be completed by 2006 at a cost of $1.7 billion, have resulted in 23 miles of track which, when completed, will end up costing $5.2 billion." "The $2.6 billion spent so far on the starter light-rail line takes the rider from Westlake Station downtown to an airport station 0.4 mile from the terminal in 37 minutes. " https://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/why-sound-transits-projects-are-so-costly#:~:text=The%2025%20miles%20of%20light,end%20up%20costing%20%245.2%20billion https://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/why-sound-transits-pr....
    - turtledove 4y ago
      Sort of? That's a very old article. The project was voted on as a $1.6B project, and was approved. It came in almost two hundred million under budget in 2016. This is the project I'm describing: https://mynorthwest.com/24890/university-link-light-rail-to-open-early-under-budget/ https://mynorthwest.com/24890/university-link-light-rail-to-...

refurb 4y ago

Hilarious how your system gets more and more complex requiring more and more rules. You’re basically taking a market that has an artificially constrained supply and trying to replace it with an entirely planned system. Why?

turtledove 4y ago
Why? Because the current system leads to poverty, inequity, homelessness, waste, inefficiency, etc. And to be clear, I've proposed a system of adjusted incentives followed by but not necessarily required to be followed by a more planned system.
- refurb 4y ago
  No doubt you'll need more "fixes" before you're done. It's like rent control in SF or public housing in Singapore. Design a new system and you'll create loopholes to be exploited. Fix those and new loopholes are created. And on and on. Easier to just remove government restrictions to supply and build until prices come down.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >public housing in Singapore Which is a huge success.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      For who? How's that working out for the 1/3 of Singapore who is completely ineligible, yet pays taxes into the public coffers? Singapore is unique in that they have a massive well (proportionally much bigger than US) of workers paying taxes who are ineligible for much of the fruits of those taxes. Only the 2/3 with Citizenship or PR can meaningfully get public housing. I'm sure about any nation could have more affordable housing if they have endless wells of guest workers who can shoulder the cost without yielding that benefit for themselves.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Success how? If you're talking about providing housing in a country that had little quality housing 70 years ago, then yes, it's successful. If it's providing affordable housing for young people, then I'd challenge that. You can't even apply for public housing unless you are married (otherwise wait until after you are 35). The government overbuilt before, so now it's a 4-5 year wait after you win a lottery to get a house. People are still pumping real estate like crazy and the average home in the resale market is >$1M now (which is a 3 bedroom, 100 sq m apartment with a 99 year lease). Singapore is stuck in the exact same situation as every other developed country - housing is an asset that the middle class expects a healthy return on, yet increasing costs are a barrier to new owners.

notch656a 4y ago

>Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, Great, so the shit-show we have now, except without any incentive to efficiently spend. Sure that will go over swimmingly. Everyone knows that government construction projects are known for coming on-time and on-budget, and for the best value.

turtledove 4y ago
Seattle just built a major light rail expansion ahead of schedule and under budget. But I specifically believe in building more, smaller units. Places with eg 20 apartments. By building smaller scoped projects, costs are better understood up front, maintenance costs are lower, and you need less specialized construction expertise. Building 50 20-unit complexes to house a thousand families is going to serve everyone better than building one mega project to house a thousand families.
- notch656a 4y ago
  This light rail [0]? [0] "Light-rail cost soars $1 billion" https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20001213&slug=TTGI2KF2J https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20001213&slug... -------- Edit: here's another one "Sound Transit’s light-rail system, called Link, has also had its share of challenges. The 25 miles of light rail that voters were told would be completed by 2006 at a cost of $1.7 billion, have resulted in 23 miles of track which, when completed, will end up costing $5.2 billion." "The $2.6 billion spent so far on the starter light-rail line takes the rider from Westlake Station downtown to an airport station 0.4 mile from the terminal in 37 minutes. " https://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/why-sound-transits-projects-are-so-costly#:~:text=The%2025%20miles%20of%20light,end%20up%20costing%20%245.2%20billion https://seattlebusinessmag.com/article/why-sound-transits-pr....
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Sort of? That's a very old article. The project was voted on as a $1.6B project, and was approved. It came in almost two hundred million under budget in 2016. This is the project I'm describing: https://mynorthwest.com/24890/university-link-light-rail-to-open-early-under-budget/ https://mynorthwest.com/24890/university-link-light-rail-to-...