|
It's not exactly hard to find places with cheap rent. For example, if you wanted to live someplace with cheap housing, you could move to Detroit, where a house can literally be purchased for less than $1,000. Of course, would you really want to live in a city where the local economy has apparently collapsed, and crime might be rampant? Similarly, one could almost understand "white flight" in some places, like Ferguson, where the inhabitants seem to riot when the laws are enforced. Even though the Boondocks (tv show) attempts to explain this kind of behavior and make it seem funny, it probably isn't all that desirable for folks that don't want to have to deal with that kind of drama. VVVVV - Does the evidence support your statement? Besides, generally speaking, if you don't want to get shot by a white police officer, you shouldn't physically attack him and try to steal his gun. In many parts of the USA, that is considered common sense. The "victim" was also shown robbing a store before the incident. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 19, 2014 |
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:Yes. I don't think two people earning minimum wage will be bringing home $60k/y... Also, for reasons unknown, I think crime increases in areas where there is unusually cheap housing. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted: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. Why should they necessarily have to own the home? Why can't we bring back what was once known as "indentured servitude"? Most people spend the vast majority of their lives working anyway, so why not create a system where in exchange for working a certain number of hours a week, the employees get free housing, food, water, clothing, and maybe some wooden coins that they can use to buy things (from the company store) that entertain them when they aren't working. It really wouldn't be all that different from how some people already live. quote: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. 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? If you were bringing home $200k a year, would you really want to live next door to a convicted felon that is living there because section 8? Or even if they weren't convicted felons, would you want someone to build section 8 housing next to your $2 million dollar house? I guess it's easier for everyone else to do that, but God forbid that they should do that in YOUR neighborhood. 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. SedanChair posted:Oh, a live one. Yes, I am not dead. I am alive. Thank you for informing me of that, Captain Obvious. I wasn't sure that I could have figured that out for myself. mugrim posted:I'll give you a hint, the protesters are mad because the law was NOT enforced. So they were upset that the law was not enforced, so they rioted and looted stores. I'm white and if my daughter assaulted a cop, and tried to steal his gun, I would not be happy, but I would not be surprised if she was shot and killed as a result. I'm not even going to continue debating the Ferguson thing anymore, because I just don't understand the logic. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted: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. 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. Also, building a high-value building while simultaneously expecting it to significantly drop in value within a decade does not seem like a good plan. quote: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. I don't really see how creating new condos in super-rich neighborhoods will help out the poor when even you are stating that maybe not even the middle class will be able to afford to live there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Once again I think Sweden's program in the 60s and 70s is useful. If the problem is too few apartment units, build more units. It doesn't need to be for low wage people, just construct large apartment complexes as good or better than privately developed ones and rent them for slightly below market rates. It doesn't have to be profitable, any more than police departments, healthcare or the military needs to turn a profit. You can set rates in such a way that they will apply some downward pressure to private sector rents but not drive them out of business immediately. Why not just build more apartment units in areas that have a lower cost of living, and then encourage people to move there? Why spend $1400 for a studio apartment when you can spend $200 a month for the same thing somewhere else? The USA does in fact have a lot of real estate, and lots of undeveloped land. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted: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. You could rebuild the slums and turn them into something that isn't quite so ghetto. It may be inconvenient for some, but in the long term, it could improve the quality of life for a lot of people. Do you really want some cities and towns to continue to exist as blights or crime havens? While it does fall into the realm of science fiction (Robocop 3, specifically), would it really be so bad if a corporation came into Detroit and rebuilt it? VVVVV - You could create bus routes, or create housing in areas where there are already jobs available, but not enough workers. Dunno about the politician thing, though. The only real solution to that is to become filthy rich and donate a couple million dollars to each of your favorite politicians every year. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:And when you tear down, some times you don't ever rebuild and people are kept stranded for years despite promises of the right to return (Chicago, also.) I'm getting the feeling that there isn't an easy solution to this problem. quote:Zoning is also an important issue that should be discussed in this thread. There are lots of stories of developers seeing "unprofitable" neighborhoods, then dropping in Targets and other stores right in the middle with the express purpose of pricing out the people currently living there so they can buy the properties up, gentrify it and start building more expensive complexes for higher-income people. I understand that it is inconvenient for some, but unfortunately, in the USA most Americans have a saying: "Money talks, and bullshit walks." What incentive would some folks have to rent out properties if they weren't making some kind of profit? They probably have families to feed, too. EB Nulshit posted:That's very interesting. Why do you feel that way? My mommy was mean to me when I was a child. Sorry, but I can respond to specific questions better than extremely vague questions. I don't know how to answer your question because I do not know what you are taking issue with, or why. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted: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? I know it's hard to detect such things from the written word, but I was being sarcastic when I previously posted about spending other people's money on things that don't work. I don't have a solution, but at the same time, it is also possible to point out things that might not work as desired. Right now this appears to be a sort of brainstorming session where we are playfully bandying ideas for how we might solve this crisis. I'll be the first to admit that if I were a politician, I would pay someone else to figure this sort of thing out for me. And naturally, I would crucify them if they did something that might prevent me from getting re-elected. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This is the worst possible thinking. Undeveloped land and real estate is cheap. Building roads, hospitals that don't serve enough people to sustain their equipment, public trans that serves an extremely small amount of people, and entitlements are expensive. Believe it or not, places with expensive rent are often relatively cheap per capita in terms of total dollars spent compared to counties with like 8000 people. A lot of places are 'cheap' because they're not properly serviced and then people bitch about healthcare and roads and communication tech, etc. But then what would be the solution? Pay money you can't afford to spend to live with all of your services, or have fewer luxuries, and have more money that you can use to pay off debts, and maybe even put some money in the bank? Humans have survived for a least 600 years (or however long the bible says we've existed as a species), and it wasn't until the discovery of penicillin that we started having many of our modern conveniences. Some things, like the internet, are a luxury, and you will not die if you don't have access to it (if you didn't already know how to do a quintuple bypass, the internet won't help you with that). Ardennes posted:It sounds like he basically wants to ship people off to wilderness where "they won't be a problem any more." God no... that's what the British did with the American pilgrims back in the day, and that didn't work out too well for them. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Okay you are just trolling. Seriously? You don't think it is possible to live without the internet? I feel old. (And technically, it is true that many of our modern conveniences did in fact arrive after the discovery of penicillin.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
mugrim posted:Right, but some things like roads and hospitals and postal service and electricity are not considered luxuries and for good reason. Those things are hella expensive once you leave metro areas. It is dumb to save money on real estate to just then turn around and throw billions at medical services, roads, utilities, etc. But there are a lot of existing towns (with an infrastructure) that lie outside of metro areas that could probably be updated and made cost-efficient for less than the cost of creating an entirely new town or city. And honestly, I do think everyone should have access to the internet (with the possible exception of the Church of Scientology). You could probably even home school kids over the internet. I know some folks use it to do college courses. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 18:07
|
|