3 ms·

My small rural town has setup a 'affordable housing council' and recently approved a 'general assistance fund for low income town residents'. I was under the im

My small rural town has setup a 'affordable housing council' and recently approved a 'general assistance fund for low income town residents'. I was under the impression that town governments work for the taxpayers, the homeowners, not non-residents wanting to move here from other places, who'll require subsidized housing and likely, dip into the general assistance fund (its just welfare, which they can claim on top of federal and state benefits). There are almost no employers/jobs here, so there's no push from business to attract workers who'll require cheaper housing. Its just bleeding hearts who moved here from cities and want to engage in activism.

softwaredoug 3y ago
I think the challenge is non-residents will move to your town. Your only control is how you shape your town between suburban / sprawl / commuting or denser / urban / walkable.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Why should property tax payers of a town subsidize people who don't even live in your town? There is no right to an affordable apartment/home in a place you don't live. Local governments should focus on being small and efficient, not inviting cost to the current property tax payers. And I do believe you have control over how your town is shaped. You can shape zoning and ordinance laws to prevent certain types of projects - whether it be fast food, drive-thrus, strip clubs, or dispensaries. Housing developers are trying to make money, and if you make it difficult to make a profit, they won't build.
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    Wouldn’t removing zoning make the local government smaller and more efficient? While also allowing the free market to take effect, and also decrease the tax burden on residents by adding new ones? You are arguing two completely unrelated topics as if they are connected: zoning and welfare.
  - softwaredoug 3y ago
    I would say they're not doing it so much for the new residents, but the current residents. It truly is about the character of your town. If your current residents wants to hire a teacher, firefighter, restaurant worker, etc that person may need to move in from out of town. So you can decide how / where people live through zoning. You also decide how easy/hard it is for people to live in your town, and thus how much goods and services costs. It's entirely in your hand... I just think most people focus on one aspect (buildings near them) and don't think about other tradeoffs (all the consequences of how/where people your town 'hires' could live as the economy grows). It's complicated and the whole point is you get to work with your zoning board to make those decisions informed by the data and needs of the town.
  - yunwal 3y ago
    Once every homeowner in your town is retired, how do you think this is going to end for you?
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      Retired people still pay property taxes on their homes.
      - buttercraft 3y ago
        Who does the labor then?
Georgelemental 3y ago
You can make housing legal to build without also subsidizing it with taxpayer money. The former doesn't require the latter.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Some things I support, like legalizing accessory dwellings, but radical measures such as banning single family development, or recklessly allowing large multifamily homes on small lots, I do not, as it changes the character of the town and doesn't help existing residents.
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    Has any jurisdiction in the US banned single family development? I am not aware of a single one. Some have done away with single family zoning, but it's still perfectly legal to build SFH there; it's just not the only thing that's allowed to be built.
  - danny_codes 3y ago
    Nobody is banning SFH. The push is to change zoning to allow more variety in residential structures. People without kids may prefer an apartment / greater density.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    > changes the character of the town What exactly do you mean by that? - New arrivals bring crime and disorder? Enforce the law, lock criminals up, problem solved. - Overcrowded schools/overused city services? Tax new residents as needed to support new services. - Packed roads? Public transit is one option, there are others but I confess to not being an expert in this area. - Just want to keep your town's culture the same? Legitimate desire, but consider how achievable it is—if young families can't afford to live in your area, it will just die out eventually.
gs17 3y ago
> a 'general assistance fund for low income town residents'. > not non-residents wanting to move here from other places Which is it? "Town residents" or "non-residents"?
mslate 3y ago
How is banning multi-family housing from being constructed on privately-owned land the same thing as your city’s subsidized housing commission? Ones banning humans from being able to physically move into town at all (or existing landowners from exercising their property rights), the other is using city funds to subsidize/incentivize some people’s housing costs. You seem to be equating the two.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I was under the impression that town governments work for the taxpayers, the homeowners No. They work for the residents, independently if whether they are taxpayers or homeowners. > not non-residents wanting to move here from other places, who'll require subsidized housing and likely, dip into the general assistance fund (its just welfare, which they can claim on top of federal and state benefits). Yeah, the assistance fund for low-income residents is for residents, not non-residents. > There are almost no employers/jobs here. That is a common cause of low-income residents.
smileysteve 3y ago
Your anecdote sounds like much of America; Where subsidized housing is a bandaid on income inequality and stagnated wage growth, in addition to the US's largest demographic shift in a century. Your town could seemingly cut out the middleman (the taxpayer) by raising minimum wage (which would either decrease opportunities or increase housing affordability). Ideally, increasing the highest margin progressive property and income taxes also to reduce income inequality and housing prices - while lowering the lower marginal brackets.
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
> the homeowners Well, this is a very old racial dog whistle — so much so that I don’t think it’s only a dog whistle even today: only the (white) land owners get to vote and have a say in government! Make sure housing prices stay high so that they buy folks with generational wealth today can buy in my “small town”! Absolutely fucking gross.
- ZacNorth 3y ago
  Thank you for pointing out the undertone that is very apparent in this thread. Disgusts me to see some other posters hide behind “homeownership” to avoid speaking the truth about their reprehensible beliefs.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  You're the weirdo who brought race into this. This is a serious forum, if you want to make inflammatory comments, you can go to twitter or reddit.
mrcrumb1 3y ago
Do you think your homeownership is unsubsidized?
- danny_codes 3y ago
  He probably believes he did it all by himself.
danny_codes 3y ago
It sounds like your town is not affordable to some residents, so your local government needs to help support those residents. Your non-resident/resident distinction is meaningless in the US, because we have freedom of movement. Anybody can move to your town if they feel like it, and would them be a resident. Internal movement restrictions come with their own problems, so probably not the best solution. Perhaps if your town allowed for development, there would be sufficient supply, and you wouldn't need to subsidize housing?
l33t7332273 3y ago
>its just welfare, which they can claim on top of federal and state benefits You say that like it’s a bad thing. Why shouldn’t people be getting help to afford homes?

softwaredoug 3y ago

I think the challenge is non-residents will move to your town. Your only control is how you shape your town between suburban / sprawl / commuting or denser / urban / walkable.

Eumenes 3y ago
Why should property tax payers of a town subsidize people who don't even live in your town? There is no right to an affordable apartment/home in a place you don't live. Local governments should focus on being small and efficient, not inviting cost to the current property tax payers. And I do believe you have control over how your town is shaped. You can shape zoning and ordinance laws to prevent certain types of projects - whether it be fast food, drive-thrus, strip clubs, or dispensaries. Housing developers are trying to make money, and if you make it difficult to make a profit, they won't build.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  Wouldn’t removing zoning make the local government smaller and more efficient? While also allowing the free market to take effect, and also decrease the tax burden on residents by adding new ones? You are arguing two completely unrelated topics as if they are connected: zoning and welfare.
- softwaredoug 3y ago
  I would say they're not doing it so much for the new residents, but the current residents. It truly is about the character of your town. If your current residents wants to hire a teacher, firefighter, restaurant worker, etc that person may need to move in from out of town. So you can decide how / where people live through zoning. You also decide how easy/hard it is for people to live in your town, and thus how much goods and services costs. It's entirely in your hand... I just think most people focus on one aspect (buildings near them) and don't think about other tradeoffs (all the consequences of how/where people your town 'hires' could live as the economy grows). It's complicated and the whole point is you get to work with your zoning board to make those decisions informed by the data and needs of the town.
- yunwal 3y ago
  Once every homeowner in your town is retired, how do you think this is going to end for you?
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Retired people still pay property taxes on their homes.
    - buttercraft 3y ago
      Who does the labor then?

Georgelemental 3y ago

You can make housing legal to build without also subsidizing it with taxpayer money. The former doesn't require the latter.

Eumenes 3y ago
Some things I support, like legalizing accessory dwellings, but radical measures such as banning single family development, or recklessly allowing large multifamily homes on small lots, I do not, as it changes the character of the town and doesn't help existing residents.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Has any jurisdiction in the US banned single family development? I am not aware of a single one. Some have done away with single family zoning, but it's still perfectly legal to build SFH there; it's just not the only thing that's allowed to be built.
- danny_codes 3y ago
  Nobody is banning SFH. The push is to change zoning to allow more variety in residential structures. People without kids may prefer an apartment / greater density.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > changes the character of the town What exactly do you mean by that? - New arrivals bring crime and disorder? Enforce the law, lock criminals up, problem solved. - Overcrowded schools/overused city services? Tax new residents as needed to support new services. - Packed roads? Public transit is one option, there are others but I confess to not being an expert in this area. - Just want to keep your town's culture the same? Legitimate desire, but consider how achievable it is—if young families can't afford to live in your area, it will just die out eventually.

gs17 3y ago

> a 'general assistance fund for low income town residents'. > not non-residents wanting to move here from other places Which is it? "Town residents" or "non-residents"?

mslate 3y ago

How is banning multi-family housing from being constructed on privately-owned land the same thing as your city’s subsidized housing commission? Ones banning humans from being able to physically move into town at all (or existing landowners from exercising their property rights), the other is using city funds to subsidize/incentivize some people’s housing costs. You seem to be equating the two.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I was under the impression that town governments work for the taxpayers, the homeowners No. They work for the residents, independently if whether they are taxpayers or homeowners. > not non-residents wanting to move here from other places, who'll require subsidized housing and likely, dip into the general assistance fund (its just welfare, which they can claim on top of federal and state benefits). Yeah, the assistance fund for low-income residents is for residents, not non-residents. > There are almost no employers/jobs here. That is a common cause of low-income residents.

smileysteve 3y ago

Your anecdote sounds like much of America; Where subsidized housing is a bandaid on income inequality and stagnated wage growth, in addition to the US's largest demographic shift in a century. Your town could seemingly cut out the middleman (the taxpayer) by raising minimum wage (which would either decrease opportunities or increase housing affordability). Ideally, increasing the highest margin progressive property and income taxes also to reduce income inequality and housing prices - while lowering the lower marginal brackets.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

> the homeowners Well, this is a very old racial dog whistle — so much so that I don’t think it’s only a dog whistle even today: only the (white) land owners get to vote and have a say in government! Make sure housing prices stay high so that they buy folks with generational wealth today can buy in my “small town”! Absolutely fucking gross.

ZacNorth 3y ago
Thank you for pointing out the undertone that is very apparent in this thread. Disgusts me to see some other posters hide behind “homeownership” to avoid speaking the truth about their reprehensible beliefs.
Eumenes 3y ago
You're the weirdo who brought race into this. This is a serious forum, if you want to make inflammatory comments, you can go to twitter or reddit.

mrcrumb1 3y ago

Do you think your homeownership is unsubsidized?

danny_codes 3y ago
He probably believes he did it all by himself.

danny_codes 3y ago

It sounds like your town is not affordable to some residents, so your local government needs to help support those residents. Your non-resident/resident distinction is meaningless in the US, because we have freedom of movement. Anybody can move to your town if they feel like it, and would them be a resident. Internal movement restrictions come with their own problems, so probably not the best solution. Perhaps if your town allowed for development, there would be sufficient supply, and you wouldn't need to subsidize housing?

l33t7332273 3y ago

>its just welfare, which they can claim on top of federal and state benefits You say that like it’s a bad thing. Why shouldn’t people be getting help to afford homes?