4 ms·

"Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus redu

"Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus reducing the “bang for the buck” of public spending." So, yes, if you want low homelessness, you build a lot of housing and make sure that rents are low. This is true, and a good strategy.

Scoundreller 2y ago
And don’t “fix” the problem at the expense of the paycheque-to-paycheque lower-working class. Otherwise it’s zero sum and you create a homeless for every homeless you remove and disincentivize work.
- TinyBig 2y ago
  How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class?
  - markus_zhang 2y ago
    For example just add tax to shoot at the target, eventually salary owners get hurt while riches can get away with an army of lawyers and accountants.
  - fooker 2y ago
    If you force owners to artificially reduce rent for a single class of properties (here: cheap flats made for the homeless) the rent for others go up a bit. This has happened in several US cities.
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      But that's not what is being discussed. Increasing supply is being discussed, which would lower prices for everyone.
  - Scoundreller 2y ago
    > How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class? Not sure if you intended to phrase your question as you did, but if you give cash to the unhoused to rent housing, that takes supply from the bottom of the rental market if you don’t build any more. Builders tend to build for those that can afford to pay and don’t target the bottom of the market. Most stock of low-cost housing is due to building neglect or depopulation rather than being purpose-built, in a free market anyway.
    - vkou 2y ago
      I mean, yes, it doesn't matter how you distribute money, when there are 9 beds in town, and 10 people, someone's going to be sleeping rough.
      - bluefirebrand 2y ago
        This is obviously true, but misses the point Even if there are 10 beds and 10 people, if 9 people can afford to pay 2000 for their beds, and that last one can only afford 500, that last one is still going homeless Because the person selling the last bed is going to want around 2000 for it, just like the other 9 are paying Edit: and no, telling them they have to give up that bed for 500 is not a real option
        Scoundreller 2y ago
        sufficient vacant property taxes can make it a real option
        SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
        Taxes! Of course; there is no problem just taking more money from other people can’t solve.
        throwawayq3423 2y ago
        Taxes have made our modern societies possible, so yes they are often the answer to a problem. The American insistence taxes are wrong or "theft" is a malign view that, if adopted widespread, would destroy the ability of most democracies to function.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  > And don’t “fix” the problem at the expense of the paycheque-to-paycheque lower-working class. More supply means their rent goes down too.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
enaaem 2y ago
People hate om commie blocks but it was an excellent solution to mass produce affordable housing in war torn Europe. The free market is full of cheap mass produced stuff. Why can't housing be mass produced? Why are there not more economic options? It's almost always restrictive regulations that stops these solutions from happening.
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  Good luck getting commie blocks pushed through planning approvals today. NIMBYs in general are violently against any kind of public housing.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    Large scale public housing is driven by the state or federal governments, which can simply ignore NIMBYs and local zoning laws. The issue with public housing is not NIMBYism.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Large scale public housing is driven by the state or federal governments, which can simply ignore NIMBYs and local zoning laws. No, they aren't. They are generally run by local housing authorities with state and federal financial participation, and, in any case, there have been basically no major new public housing projects in the several decades, with many existing projects decommissioned, and public housing assistance shifting from project-based to tenant-based vouchers. Traditional government housing projects started falling out of favor in the 1950s and 1960s as the new projects were often both viewed as worse than the slums they were supposed to replaced and failed to even replace most of the housing units that were destroyed in the urban renewal efforts that created them, and support for them was essentially completely halted by the Nixon Administration in 1973, though it is possible (though, again, rare since the 1980s) for project-based subsidized housing to be created under Section 8, as well as the (far more common) voucher-based aid under Section 8.
      - 2y ago
spauldo 2y ago
Just search for "Habitrail for Humanity" (and make sure you read that right).

Scoundreller 2y ago

And don’t “fix” the problem at the expense of the paycheque-to-paycheque lower-working class. Otherwise it’s zero sum and you create a homeless for every homeless you remove and disincentivize work.

TinyBig 2y ago
How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class?
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  For example just add tax to shoot at the target, eventually salary owners get hurt while riches can get away with an army of lawyers and accountants.
- fooker 2y ago
  If you force owners to artificially reduce rent for a single class of properties (here: cheap flats made for the homeless) the rent for others go up a bit. This has happened in several US cities.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    But that's not what is being discussed. Increasing supply is being discussed, which would lower prices for everyone.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  > How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class? Not sure if you intended to phrase your question as you did, but if you give cash to the unhoused to rent housing, that takes supply from the bottom of the rental market if you don’t build any more. Builders tend to build for those that can afford to pay and don’t target the bottom of the market. Most stock of low-cost housing is due to building neglect or depopulation rather than being purpose-built, in a free market anyway.
  - vkou 2y ago
    I mean, yes, it doesn't matter how you distribute money, when there are 9 beds in town, and 10 people, someone's going to be sleeping rough.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      This is obviously true, but misses the point Even if there are 10 beds and 10 people, if 9 people can afford to pay 2000 for their beds, and that last one can only afford 500, that last one is still going homeless Because the person selling the last bed is going to want around 2000 for it, just like the other 9 are paying Edit: and no, telling them they have to give up that bed for 500 is not a real option
      - Scoundreller 2y ago
        sufficient vacant property taxes can make it a real option
        SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
        Taxes! Of course; there is no problem just taking more money from other people can’t solve.
        throwawayq3423 2y ago
        Taxes have made our modern societies possible, so yes they are often the answer to a problem. The American insistence taxes are wrong or "theft" is a malign view that, if adopted widespread, would destroy the ability of most democracies to function.
throwawayq3423 2y ago
> And don’t “fix” the problem at the expense of the paycheque-to-paycheque lower-working class. More supply means their rent goes down too.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

enaaem 2y ago

People hate om commie blocks but it was an excellent solution to mass produce affordable housing in war torn Europe. The free market is full of cheap mass produced stuff. Why can't housing be mass produced? Why are there not more economic options? It's almost always restrictive regulations that stops these solutions from happening.

teractiveodular 2y ago
Good luck getting commie blocks pushed through planning approvals today. NIMBYs in general are violently against any kind of public housing.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  Large scale public housing is driven by the state or federal governments, which can simply ignore NIMBYs and local zoning laws. The issue with public housing is not NIMBYism.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Large scale public housing is driven by the state or federal governments, which can simply ignore NIMBYs and local zoning laws. No, they aren't. They are generally run by local housing authorities with state and federal financial participation, and, in any case, there have been basically no major new public housing projects in the several decades, with many existing projects decommissioned, and public housing assistance shifting from project-based to tenant-based vouchers. Traditional government housing projects started falling out of favor in the 1950s and 1960s as the new projects were often both viewed as worse than the slums they were supposed to replaced and failed to even replace most of the housing units that were destroyed in the urban renewal efforts that created them, and support for them was essentially completely halted by the Nixon Administration in 1973, though it is possible (though, again, rare since the 1980s) for project-based subsidized housing to be created under Section 8, as well as the (far more common) voucher-based aid under Section 8.
    - 2y ago

spauldo 2y ago

Just search for "Habitrail for Humanity" (and make sure you read that right).