5 ms·

> Someone wanting even more government involvement in housing at this point would be quite surprising. Zohran Mamdani supports a new Social Housing Development

> Someone wanting even more government involvement in housing at this point would be quite surprising. Zohran Mamdani supports a new Social Housing Development Authority. https://citylimits.org/proposed-state-social-housing-authority-would-build-affordable-homes-outside-the-private-market/ https://citylimits.org/proposed-state-social-housing-authori...

hypeatei 1y ago
> The state-run public authority would act as an alternative to private sector development, which the bill’s sponsors say has failed to create enough affordable homes to keep up with the state’s growth, citing the current housing shortage, rising rents and surging homelessness Hmm, that seems a bit contradictory and circular: government makes it hard to build --> market reacts to that with higher prices --> government blames private sector --> government decides public housing with a bunch of regulations needs to be built? Obviously there are certain localities like NYC that probably require something like this due to limited physical space but the bill[0] is at the state level. It seems like it'd be better to focus on de-regulation rather than something like this state-wide. 0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S8494 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S8494
- mcv 1y ago
  Only when your assumption is that the government wants to make it hard to build houses, but why would the government want that? That's the part that makes no sense.
  - appreciatorBus 1y ago
    The government does the things that organized voters care about. And the most organized voters are homeowners afraid of living next to someone poorer than they are, or a building taller than theirs. So they lobby the government, as they have for the last 100 years, to implement a raft of land used laws that make it all that impossible to do anything but sprawl on the edge of the city, or demolishing & evicting apartments and to build slightly taller apartment buildings. Wherever you live, I guarantee the largest bylaw in your municipality is the one that is composed of the government listing the residential buildings you aren’t allowed to build on most of the land in the municipality.
    - mcv 1y ago
      And yet there's tons of building going on. It's true, you can't build everywhere, but there are a lot of places you can build.
steveBK123 1y ago
The problem with housing in much of the country, including NYC is it's just too hard to build, due to combination of local construction laws, zoning laws, various avenues of NIMBY holdup tactics (city council, lawsuits, studies, etc). In NYC so much of the high-rise residential development is done in locations that are terrible commutes with 10 to 15 minute walks to the train... because there was no one there before to protest the zoning change. Meanwhile the buildings around the closest subway stops remain 4 story walk ups. I don't see how the city getting more directly involved in social housing is going to help, as we already have NYCHA, which is run so poorly that the feds had to step in for oversight. The city just piles on regulation on top of regulation for buildings, but then doesn't really follow them themselves. That Legionnaires' disease outbreak uptown was mostly city owned buildings that were in violation of city water tower inspection laws. Meanwhile some on city council have suggested tightening up the law to increase inspection cadence (cost) city wide, when again, the city isn't following its own law in the first place. Another example - mandating $10k/elevator safety software upgrades after an elevator fatality due to elevator maintenance guy messing around with the elevator safety mechanisms (was like a safety patch to precent that particular override). Does anyone in their right mind think the city did these updates in city owned buildings?

hypeatei 1y ago

> The state-run public authority would act as an alternative to private sector development, which the bill’s sponsors say has failed to create enough affordable homes to keep up with the state’s growth, citing the current housing shortage, rising rents and surging homelessness Hmm, that seems a bit contradictory and circular: government makes it hard to build --> market reacts to that with higher prices --> government blames private sector --> government decides public housing with a bunch of regulations needs to be built? Obviously there are certain localities like NYC that probably require something like this due to limited physical space but the bill[0] is at the state level. It seems like it'd be better to focus on de-regulation rather than something like this state-wide. 0: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S8494 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S8494

mcv 1y ago
Only when your assumption is that the government wants to make it hard to build houses, but why would the government want that? That's the part that makes no sense.
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  The government does the things that organized voters care about. And the most organized voters are homeowners afraid of living next to someone poorer than they are, or a building taller than theirs. So they lobby the government, as they have for the last 100 years, to implement a raft of land used laws that make it all that impossible to do anything but sprawl on the edge of the city, or demolishing & evicting apartments and to build slightly taller apartment buildings. Wherever you live, I guarantee the largest bylaw in your municipality is the one that is composed of the government listing the residential buildings you aren’t allowed to build on most of the land in the municipality.
  - mcv 1y ago
    And yet there's tons of building going on. It's true, you can't build everywhere, but there are a lot of places you can build.

steveBK123 1y ago

The problem with housing in much of the country, including NYC is it's just too hard to build, due to combination of local construction laws, zoning laws, various avenues of NIMBY holdup tactics (city council, lawsuits, studies, etc). In NYC so much of the high-rise residential development is done in locations that are terrible commutes with 10 to 15 minute walks to the train... because there was no one there before to protest the zoning change. Meanwhile the buildings around the closest subway stops remain 4 story walk ups. I don't see how the city getting more directly involved in social housing is going to help, as we already have NYCHA, which is run so poorly that the feds had to step in for oversight. The city just piles on regulation on top of regulation for buildings, but then doesn't really follow them themselves. That Legionnaires' disease outbreak uptown was mostly city owned buildings that were in violation of city water tower inspection laws. Meanwhile some on city council have suggested tightening up the law to increase inspection cadence (cost) city wide, when again, the city isn't following its own law in the first place. Another example - mandating $10k/elevator safety software upgrades after an elevator fatality due to elevator maintenance guy messing around with the elevator safety mechanisms (was like a safety patch to precent that particular override). Does anyone in their right mind think the city did these updates in city owned buildings?