3 ms·

Maybe? Or how about they are in no-way comparable.Unless you are talking mass subsidization there is an absolute floor for providing housing, not to mention fin

by skeeter2020 3y ago

Maybe? Or how about they are in no-way comparable.Unless you are talking mass subsidization there is an absolute floor for providing housing, not to mention finite capacity for both tent cities and affordable apartments.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Unless you are talking mass subsidization there is an absolute floor for providing housing Sure. We are nowhere close to that floor. Voters who reject supply and demand pay the consequence for their ignorance.
Ajedi32 3y ago
What would you say determines the level of that floor? It's an interesting question, because I can imagine lots of possible housing solutions that would be way cheaper than $2k/month and more pleasant than living in a tent on the street. So the question is why haven't those solutions been built?
fatfingerd 3y ago
The absolute floor is nothing, far less than the cost of tent cities which use a lot of horizontal space compared to high rises of prefab micro apartments. The trouble is that local government is coerced to eliminate people who don't directly or indirectly pay a lot of property tax, especially if they are minors and require school. The federal government should be required to pay general costs per head to local government from it's excessive collection of income tax to put an end to this nonsense of states and towns trying to evict the poor and steal the rich from each other.
dublinben 3y ago
The absolute floor is pretty low, and the market will provide these solutions if they're not regulated out of existence. My first "apartment" was a 100 square foot bedroom rented in a 4 bed / 2 bath unit with 3 other residents. At the time I moved in, it was only $350/month plus utilities, in a market where the median rent for a studio was $1750/month. That room would have been affordable for a single person working full-time at minimum wage. Was it code compliant? Hell no! Was it better than living on the street or in a car? Unquestionably. If you raise the floor to require every adult to have their own kitchen and bathroom, then you've consigned this segment of the market to homelessness. Someone who can pay $350/month certainly would need a massive subsidy to afford a $1750 studio, or you can just get out of the way and allow them to rent a room for $350.
- jjav 3y ago
  > My first "apartment" was a 100 square foot bedroom rented in a 4 bed / 2 bath unit with 3 other residents. That's called having roommates, why do call it not code compliant? It's done all the time.
  - dublinben 3y ago
    Each room was rented individually from the landlord, so we were legally separate tenants, not just roommates all on the same lease. The building itself was over a hundred years old, and had countless violations of modern building codes, health codes, and fire safety codes. It was pretty much a disaster waiting to happen, but it was affordable!

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Unless you are talking mass subsidization there is an absolute floor for providing housing Sure. We are nowhere close to that floor. Voters who reject supply and demand pay the consequence for their ignorance.

Ajedi32 3y ago

What would you say determines the level of that floor? It's an interesting question, because I can imagine lots of possible housing solutions that would be way cheaper than $2k/month and more pleasant than living in a tent on the street. So the question is why haven't those solutions been built?

fatfingerd 3y ago

The absolute floor is nothing, far less than the cost of tent cities which use a lot of horizontal space compared to high rises of prefab micro apartments. The trouble is that local government is coerced to eliminate people who don't directly or indirectly pay a lot of property tax, especially if they are minors and require school. The federal government should be required to pay general costs per head to local government from it's excessive collection of income tax to put an end to this nonsense of states and towns trying to evict the poor and steal the rich from each other.

dublinben 3y ago

The absolute floor is pretty low, and the market will provide these solutions if they're not regulated out of existence. My first "apartment" was a 100 square foot bedroom rented in a 4 bed / 2 bath unit with 3 other residents. At the time I moved in, it was only $350/month plus utilities, in a market where the median rent for a studio was $1750/month. That room would have been affordable for a single person working full-time at minimum wage. Was it code compliant? Hell no! Was it better than living on the street or in a car? Unquestionably. If you raise the floor to require every adult to have their own kitchen and bathroom, then you've consigned this segment of the market to homelessness. Someone who can pay $350/month certainly would need a massive subsidy to afford a $1750 studio, or you can just get out of the way and allow them to rent a room for $350.

jjav 3y ago
> My first "apartment" was a 100 square foot bedroom rented in a 4 bed / 2 bath unit with 3 other residents. That's called having roommates, why do call it not code compliant? It's done all the time.
- dublinben 3y ago
  Each room was rented individually from the landlord, so we were legally separate tenants, not just roommates all on the same lease. The building itself was over a hundred years old, and had countless violations of modern building codes, health codes, and fire safety codes. It was pretty much a disaster waiting to happen, but it was affordable!