…And the net result would be that they would charge more on rent. And since taxing at higher rates would deter people from building more rental properties, the housing shortage would get worse.
That would be great! Except that cities refuse to do that, and no one wants to put high density housing anywhere near their cute, historic neighborhood.
If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.
If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.
Any solution to the housing crisis necessarily would require the political will to do that. There’s no getting around it.
But yeah, I think we more or less reached a point of agreement. We need to change the culture, it must become more collectivist. We gotta finally start caring for one another.
The problem isn’t political will per se, but specifically steamrolling local NIMBYs. The people with the most political power and will tend to push high density housing out of more desirable areas and into less desirable areas. If you wanted to, for instance, but a 100 unit building in Ukrainian Village or Wicker Park in Chicago, you’d have a really stiff fight on your hands from local property owners who want to keep their neighborhood all brownstones. OTOH, if you want to demo a square block near Garfield Park and build there–and I wouldn’t recommend doing that–you’ll have the local alderman holding a golden shovel for the groundbreaking.
Developers are not generally landlords. They want to build and are fully capable of setting up building co-ops. (They already do it) So fucking with landlords does not in any way mean less housing available.
Then we lift the restrictions that Clinton put on government housing, and increase the supply.
I don’t care what the racists trained by the Chicago school of economics say, the real world has only proven them right when the rich are pushing on the scales.
Keynes is correct, and 2020 proved that far too well, to the point that the rich started screaming about their wage slaves.
Great! I’m all for gov’t increasing housing supply! But, frankly, most of the pushback from building affordable, high-density housing is coming from the local level. If we build high-density, affordable (e.g., low-income only, versus mixed-income) housing in it’s own area, rather than integrating it into existing communities, we’re only building the slums of the future. As it stands, well-off communities, even in areas that are heavily Democratic (such as, most of California), have been strongly opposed to locating such housing in their neighborhoods, and do everything they can to prevent it.
…And the net result would be that they would charge more on rent. And since taxing at higher rates would deter people from building more rental properties, the housing shortage would get worse.
Housing is a public good and should be funded as such.
That would be great! Except that cities refuse to do that, and no one wants to put high density housing anywhere near their cute, historic neighborhood.
If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.
Any solution to the housing crisis necessarily would require the political will to do that. There’s no getting around it.
But yeah, I think we more or less reached a point of agreement. We need to change the culture, it must become more collectivist. We gotta finally start caring for one another.
The problem isn’t political will per se, but specifically steamrolling local NIMBYs. The people with the most political power and will tend to push high density housing out of more desirable areas and into less desirable areas. If you wanted to, for instance, but a 100 unit building in Ukrainian Village or Wicker Park in Chicago, you’d have a really stiff fight on your hands from local property owners who want to keep their neighborhood all brownstones. OTOH, if you want to demo a square block near Garfield Park and build there–and I wouldn’t recommend doing that–you’ll have the local alderman holding a golden shovel for the groundbreaking.
Developers are not generally landlords. They want to build and are fully capable of setting up building co-ops. (They already do it) So fucking with landlords does not in any way mean less housing available.
Fine. Cap the rents and tie them to inflation. These fuckers are greedier than literal dragons, and I’m down for some dragon slaying.
Okay, now you have waiting lists like they do in Copenhagen.
Pretty much every economist will tell you that rent control creates disincentives to building more housing.
Then we lift the restrictions that Clinton put on government housing, and increase the supply.
I don’t care what the racists trained by the Chicago school of economics say, the real world has only proven them right when the rich are pushing on the scales.
Keynes is correct, and 2020 proved that far too well, to the point that the rich started screaming about their wage slaves.
Great! I’m all for gov’t increasing housing supply! But, frankly, most of the pushback from building affordable, high-density housing is coming from the local level. If we build high-density, affordable (e.g., low-income only, versus mixed-income) housing in it’s own area, rather than integrating it into existing communities, we’re only building the slums of the future. As it stands, well-off communities, even in areas that are heavily Democratic (such as, most of California), have been strongly opposed to locating such housing in their neighborhoods, and do everything they can to prevent it.
The YIMBY movement is gaining traction in IB and San Diego