4 ms·

> Not if the state funds housebuilding Chicago, Detroit, and NYC all tried that and abandoned it due to cost overruns, corruption, high liabilities, and the li

> Not if the state funds housebuilding Chicago, Detroit, and NYC all tried that and abandoned it due to cost overruns, corruption, high liabilities, and the limiting of eminent domain powers following the civil rights movement - most urban housing projects were built by demolishing historically African American neighborhoods, and the resulting structures were segregated (as James Baldwin eloquently pointed out in 1963 during the height of the civil rights movement) The same thing happened in Western Europe as well with France and the UK abandoning similar urban housing projects. Singapore and HK are unique in that the governments are authoritarian and can kick people out with minimal notice or recourse if they really want to. The biggest blocker is always going to be land acquisition - either we reject the entire notion that you have property rights and the right to recourse, or you accept that these basic civil liberties are a requirement for a democracy and thus building will have to be done by the private sector because unlocking public funds would take 3-5 years on top of 2-3 years of construction. For a more recent example, look at China's urban renewal projects in the 2000s and 2010s, and how local governments would use forced evictions as well as minimal compensation and occasionally shooting protesters [0][1][2] or the mass evictions in Beijing in 2017-18 [3] - this was how Housing Projects were built across America from the 1930s-1960s. Opposition to that policy was also a major reason why Xi Jinping was initially quite popular, because he was opposed to these kinds of projects at scale, and Fujian never saw the kind of mass demolitions that you'd see in other Chinese provinces. [0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6968-2004Oct4.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6968-2004Oct... [1] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4507130.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4507130.stm [2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-evictions-idUSPEK5747220080807/ https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-evictions-idUSPEK57... [3] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/china-beijing-migrants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/china-beijing-...

Agentus 2y ago
“ The biggest blocker is always going to be land acquisition - either we reject the entire notion that you have property rights and the right to recourse, or you accept that these basic civil liberties are a requirement and thus building will have to be done by the private sector because unlocking public funds would take 3-5 years on top of 2-3 years of construction.” Reflecting on the conflict of Israel and also in the show “yellowstone” basically originates from land ownership issues, i really think this human constructed abstraction and entitlement is fundamentally flawed. I really think it needs reworking and needs to be held as less sacred in America. Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes? So long as housing is so fundamentally stressful in current systems with resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter thats long paid for its investment yet still inflates in costs applying pressure on low income residents: i dont think mostly inalienable rights to property ownership in many cases is a public good.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  If my family has owned this house for multiple generations, why should I give it up to at best be resettled in a 2 bedroom apartment in the boonies? There is no good answer to that. Either you accept civil liberties of which property ownership is a critical part or you accept that civil liberties like ownership do not matter. Owning property is a right every human agrees with (it's literally article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). This is why you either need to compensate exhorbitantly or threaten to break a few legs and skulls in order to gain property. The mass urban housing projects of the 30s to 60s were literally built by mass demolishing black neighborhoods - look at Central Boston's redevelopment for example, as well as Cincinnati's. And that's why these projects ended once the Civil Rights movement succeeded - why should black residents lose their property and intergenerational wealth to urban projects built by governments that didn't care for them. Look at how the 1968 DC Riots and 1967 Detroit Riots were exacerbated by HUD plans to revitalize "slums" (black majority neighborhoods) like Capitol Hill and Lafayette Park > Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes In return for those taxes they get piped water, roads, police, local schools, sewers, garbage collection, and other basic services. > resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter Mass Eminent domain of land only leads to crony capitalism anyhow. Either way it's the same contractors and builders who are doing development - the difference is now instead of wooing voters you just woo the political class instead. Nor is there actually a need for mass development to alleviate homelessness - housing subsidies can and do help, as SLC and Houston have both shown as well as Section 8. That said, you will have to follow the law - meaning no substance abuse or criminal activity.
  - Agentus 2y ago
    According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these civil liberties have in different scenarios, suddenly these civil liberties start imposing a staggering cost on others that becomes intolerable to pay. In less abstract wording it’s like the one hold out property preventing the building of a dam. Civil liberties are just a human abstract construct which go at odds with reality and as such cause inevitable downstream problems no matter how the civil liberties or laws are constructed or fabricated. Like you said theres no good answer but as such (while fully cognizant of issues with all sides) im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups).

Agentus 2y ago

“ The biggest blocker is always going to be land acquisition - either we reject the entire notion that you have property rights and the right to recourse, or you accept that these basic civil liberties are a requirement and thus building will have to be done by the private sector because unlocking public funds would take 3-5 years on top of 2-3 years of construction.” Reflecting on the conflict of Israel and also in the show “yellowstone” basically originates from land ownership issues, i really think this human constructed abstraction and entitlement is fundamentally flawed. I really think it needs reworking and needs to be held as less sacred in America. Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes? So long as housing is so fundamentally stressful in current systems with resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter thats long paid for its investment yet still inflates in costs applying pressure on low income residents: i dont think mostly inalienable rights to property ownership in many cases is a public good.

alephnerd 2y ago
If my family has owned this house for multiple generations, why should I give it up to at best be resettled in a 2 bedroom apartment in the boonies? There is no good answer to that. Either you accept civil liberties of which property ownership is a critical part or you accept that civil liberties like ownership do not matter. Owning property is a right every human agrees with (it's literally article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). This is why you either need to compensate exhorbitantly or threaten to break a few legs and skulls in order to gain property. The mass urban housing projects of the 30s to 60s were literally built by mass demolishing black neighborhoods - look at Central Boston's redevelopment for example, as well as Cincinnati's. And that's why these projects ended once the Civil Rights movement succeeded - why should black residents lose their property and intergenerational wealth to urban projects built by governments that didn't care for them. Look at how the 1968 DC Riots and 1967 Detroit Riots were exacerbated by HUD plans to revitalize "slums" (black majority neighborhoods) like Capitol Hill and Lafayette Park > Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes In return for those taxes they get piped water, roads, police, local schools, sewers, garbage collection, and other basic services. > resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter Mass Eminent domain of land only leads to crony capitalism anyhow. Either way it's the same contractors and builders who are doing development - the difference is now instead of wooing voters you just woo the political class instead. Nor is there actually a need for mass development to alleviate homelessness - housing subsidies can and do help, as SLC and Houston have both shown as well as Section 8. That said, you will have to follow the law - meaning no substance abuse or criminal activity.
- Agentus 2y ago
  According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these civil liberties have in different scenarios, suddenly these civil liberties start imposing a staggering cost on others that becomes intolerable to pay. In less abstract wording it’s like the one hold out property preventing the building of a dam. Civil liberties are just a human abstract construct which go at odds with reality and as such cause inevitable downstream problems no matter how the civil liberties or laws are constructed or fabricated. Like you said theres no good answer but as such (while fully cognizant of issues with all sides) im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups).