3 ms·

> Another way of expressing it is the government pays for housing to be built at cost plus and then charges rent according to what people can afford, i.e., inco

> Another way of expressing it is the government pays for housing to be built at cost plus and then charges rent according to what people can afford, i.e., income and expense-based rent. Does this sound like a realistic policy in any part of the US to you? Do you think the tax base in the US is eager to increase their taxes significantly to fund the creation of a government housing arm? My experience has been that even US megaprojects can't justify keeping staff in-house, let alone a housing authority. The stuff in this list is much more politically palatable.

rickydroll 1y ago
My opinion is influenced by what I've seen and read about Helsinki social housing. As for the stuff on the list being more palatable, I'm not so sure. Many of the things on the list are the reasons why I don't want to live in a city. Remember, I'm a country mouse. However, I don't see them as being particularly viable either, because each one has an impact on many other items on the list. And if you're going to change one, you need to change several to make it cost-effective in terms of money and political capital.