|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Good thing prices don't stay fixed in markets then. Someone will be able to afford to live in the new properties, even if it's just Mr. Moneybags. And Mr. Moneybags was presumably living somewhere before he moved into the new properties. And the place he just moved out of is now empty Unless he's just buying/renting a second property.
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:The politicians across the U.S. are fully aware that they could fund universal public healthcare, education, housing and transportation via proper progressive taxation on both income and capital gains. Housing and transportation are both gigantic messy projects (even if you're only talking about a city level) that would displace large numbers of people and make a lot of people very angry and I don't fault any politician that wants to avoid hitting that wasp's nest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Again, this is because most low-income housing is just hand-me-down falling apart rat traps that nobody else wants to live in, because nobody builds new housing for the lower or lower middle class. There's an interesting book that touches on this that I just read - Brown in the Windy City by Lilia Fernández. In it, she describes how Mexicans & Puerto Ricans moved into Chicago during the 1950s and 1960s, and how a lot of the apartments they moved into were built up to 100 years ago. Not only that, but the migrants were being charged rents comparable to what others (read: whites) in nicer neighborhoods paid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:Similarly, one could almost understand "white flight" in some places, like Ferguson, where the inhabitants seem to riot when the laws are enforced. Laws like "black people don't have the right to not get shot by police".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:Why not just build more apartment units in areas that have a lower cost of living, and then encourage people to move there? Lower cost of living means either slums or rural areas. The latter you don't want to do for obvious reasons, the former means you have to clear out all of those slums first and displace a bunch of people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:You could rebuild the slums and turn them into something that isn't quite so ghetto. Because when you rebuild you have to tear down, which means that people are displaced. Construction for complexes can take between a few months and a few years, even in the best case scenario people still have to live somewhere else and change their work/travel/grocery/school/etc habits. And this isn't taking into account that most new construction is usually made for middle to upper class people, and what isn't is usually not well maintained or is shoddily built in the first place. OwlBot 2000 posted:lurker1981, I asked a bit about the public housing situation in Britain over in the UKMT, and one of the main problems they pointed out was the shift from public housing being for everyone to it being charity for the poorest of the poor. Warehousing thousands of poor people in areas of the city farther away from jobs is a great way to end up with very violent, run-down and hopeless housing projects. And, once everyone who lives in those apartments is a low-income or unemployed minority, it becomes very easy for politicians to slash funding without any real opposition. The exact same thing happened in Chicago in the 50s, though that was more concentrated around race. I highly suggest this book for people who want a look into historical urban development: http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Windy-C...+the+windy+city
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:In another fifty years I'd be cool with turning the interior of the country that's not used for farmland into a big wilderness preserve. Just let it return to grasslands and forests. That's what most of it already is (farm + ranch land anyway).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is more or less how our highway systems were built. And that was extremely controversial at the time (but it primarily went through poor neighborhoods and segregated whites from blacks so who cares).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Forums Poster Fangz appears to not understand that eminent domain involves the big scary government handing you a sack of cash in exchange for your land at market value. A lot of people will say "you didn't give me what it's really worth and anyway I don't want to move even for ten times what it's worth".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is Sweden the only nation that has experimented with this? Any country currently doing this? Chicago did it in the 50s. It broke down because racism and white flight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 01:41
|
|