|
Ardennes posted:If you believe it is a supply issue then the solution is going to have to also be government intervention in supplying housing stock. Yes. No public housing with income restrictions on who can live in it, since they won't raise the entire supply. No super efficient housing, since many people just plain aren't interested, either. The government should just build a shitload of condos - enough of them that they could realistically be bought (with a 30-year mortgage) by a family with a houseold income of like $60k/y or something. Just raise the supply until the price crashes. Why wouldn't this fix everything?
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
lurker1981 posted:I don't think two people earning minimum wage will be bringing home $60k/y... Could two people making minimum wage afford to maintain a condo even if one was cheap enough for them own it? Once housing is that cheap, two people making minimum wage should easily be able to rent one. Though I would be fine with the housing supply being raised until even two people making minimum wage could own their home, so I'm not really sure what you're saying. quote:Also, for reasons unknown, I think crime increases in areas where there is unusually cheap housing. That's why you don't build it all in one area. Or in an unusually cheap area. Nothing about this is supposed to be cheap. The only part of it done with lower-income people in mind is the supply - not the area, not the amenities, not the size of individual units. Buy some property in an expensive area with a short building on it. Demolish it and build a much taller one that is just as nice. Repeat in another expensive area. Once you've done this for all the expensive areas, do it again until you've hit some important metric, like a 90% occupancy rate instead of a 97% occupancy rate. EB Nulshit fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:But if you have a lot of low-income folks in a high-income area, living in low-income housing, wouldn't that decrease the value of the high-value homes? It's not low-income housing. There is nothing that makes it low-income housing. It would probably take a decade before enough of it was built for it even middle-income people to afford it, let alone low-income people, since construction takes time and we auction off each condo as its building is completed. Of course, doing it one building at a time probably wouldn't be fast enough to make a difference. But basically, I'm saying that the approach should be to pick out the top N most expensive neighborhoods, build a huge, modern (what some laces refer to as "luxury") building in one at the same time, sell each condo to the highest-bidding individual or family (perhaps restricting only to those with less than $X net worth, or less than M properties already), and repeat. All the "high-income" areas get more housing simultaneous, so none of them change in value relative to the others. And initially, all the new property will simply be bought up by high-income earners, since we're auctioning it off to the highest bidders. quote:Also, I think it would make more sense to buy cheap land and put a bunch of cheap housing in it. That would be more cost-effective, don't you think? Unless you are spending someone else's money, in which case it doesn't matter. Solving problems is expensive. Buying cheap land and putting a bunch of cheap housing gets us to exactly the problem we're talking about now. If your idea of cost-effective is to spend a shitload of money just so that you can fail to solve a problem, then sure. That's more cost effective. I guess you don't mind wasting money like this, since you're spending someone else's money.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:But then there is the problem of how you said it was meant to help low-income folks, and if middle-income folks will barely be able to afford it, I don't really see how that will solve the issue. You are still going to have low-income folks without housing. That's very interesting. Why do you feel that way?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:My mommy was mean to me when I was a child. Whoah, no need to get nasty. I'm just asking questions. What makes you think it's a good idea to spend other people's money on something that doesn't work? Is it just because it's someone else's money?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So your proposal is to use mass eminent domain to seize properties, apparently arbitrarily, in city centres. I'm sure this would work out well...... Nope. There's got to be someone in an area willing to sell for a high enough price. I didn't say there was anything about this where one would step back and try to figure out how to gently caress it up on the cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:... how does nobody see the incredibly obvious problem with this idea? If you constructed a shitload of condos when there's no demand for them, you end up with a shitload of vacant buildings, at a loss of shitloads of money. Either your shiny new condos go unoccupied, or they suck people away from existing neighborhoods. Either way, you've wasted enormous amounts of brick and mortar in your attempt to subsidize housing, when instead you could have just... subsidized housing. There is demand. We're only doing this in cities where housing prices are insane, remember? For example, let's say an entire city government goes insane and actually does this: quote:So housing for 400 000 people gets "dropped" into the middle of a city. Don't drop a bunch of concentrated housing into a single area. That's dumb for a bunch of reasons that have already been posted.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Which is a much better solution and is more plausible to accomplish than, say, using eminent domain to build a high rise. Why is eminent domain being mentioned? Buildings go up for sale all the time. Buy a small one, stop renewing the leases, demolish it, and build a taller one. What's the need for eminent domain?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:82% of people in Singapore live in government-built housing. Of those, 95% own their unit under a 99-year lease. Yeah, this sounds cool: quote:Public housing in Singapore is generally not considered as a sign of poverty or lower standards of living, as compared to public housing in other countries. Although they are cheaper than privately built homes in Singapore, they are also built in a variety of quality and finishes to cater to middle and upper middle income groups. Bolded is the key part, I think. If they had just built a shitload of lovely housing in a cheap, remote area that nobody would actually want to pay good money to live in, I imagine the look article would read differently.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 20:57
|
|