3 ms·
We can just do both, since far from being conflicting targets, making it easier to build in general also makes it easier to build public housing.
by TulliusCicero 4y ago
We can just do both, since far from being conflicting targets, making it easier to build in general also makes it easier to build public housing.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoTheoretically yes, but they are really two different undertakings and I think it is important to advocate specifically for social housing. If you just advocate for building more, you're really just advocating for gentrification and making things harder for the poor.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago> but they are really two different undertakings Not really. You can't realistically pursue more public housing in the US without major zoning and other building changes anyway, it's just too hard to build anything now, and that includes potential public housing. You think the NIMBY's who show up at community meetings to shut down both for-profit high-end housing and also 100% affordable housing for seniors are going to hold off on blocking public housing? Without changes that deal with the nosy neighbor problem, we won't get anywhere. > If you just advocate for building more, you're really just advocating for gentrification and making things harder for the poor. Nope. This is a common talking point by the left, but it's wrong. If we had more reasonable rents like in Tokyo (compared to similar US major cities), that'd be great for the poor, working class, and middle class. Now, having renter protections as well would be fantastic, absolutely. I think it's terrible how little protection renters usually have in the states.