Fixing America

[acbytesla]

We can get working people off the street if they can afford rent. The simplest and best way to do that is to build more housing for whoever can pay for new housing. The more housing there is, the more cheap housing there is. But this only applies to people who can hold down a job and pay rent.

What do you do to get people off the street, who are too insane, or too committed to their addiction, to hold down a job and pay rent? Here in Portland, we either encourage them to camp on the street, which is bad for everyone, or we house them with people who can hold down a job and pay rent, which is even worse for everyone.

That is a tiny fraction of the people on the street. Still, they need to be helped too. But that cost money. But ever since Reagan cut spending on the mentally ill, the number has escalated. But here is an unpleasant fact. The longer people spend on the street the more likely they will develop mental illnesses. Human beings are necessarily social and few things damage their social connections than living on the street.

 

[acbytesla]

Look that would undermine the value of too many peoples houses and be politically unacceptable. Boomers would rather their grandkids be homeless than lose value on their homes.

Yep. You nailed it.

 

[acbytesla]

This kind of socialism will never fly in America, how does any of this benefit the rich and holders of capital in general. Remember as a capitalistic country capital is the king of all and this is better than socialism or communism.

It's not socialism to change zoning laws.

 

[acbytesla]

There's another thing you need to do to ensure the highlighted emulates the best European developments, make sure they are mixed income developments. If they're only available for the poor in society they will be neglected and become unliveable. But with a mixture of social classes in them they'll have a good chance of succeeding.

Yep. I agree entirely. Build a specific percentage of low income housing in every neighborhood. Period.

 

[Brainster]

Yep. I agree entirely. Build a specific percentage of low income housing in every neighborhood. Period.

This is why you don't want public housing projects as suggested by TGZ. They end up being exclusively inhabited by the poor, because anybody who can afford to moves out.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

While on the topic of urban planning and zoning laws, making communities less car-dependent would go a long way towards saving people money, too. Allow mixed-use zoning with shops, cafes, and the like in residential areas so people aren't forced to drive to get to them, for example. Allow for more walking and cycling. Properly fund public transport systems. US cities tend to be sprawling and decentralized, but so much can still be done here.

 

[acbytesla]

This is why you don't want public housing projects as suggested by TGZ. They end up being exclusively inhabited by the poor, because anybody who can afford to moves out.

Yep. But it's OK if they aren't huge projects. Much better if they are small and scattered and located close to transit.

There' are other good reasons as well. Cooks, maids, caregivers or others who work for the wealthy don't have to travel far.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Trump wants to "fix" America so that it has lots of money to not spend on its inhabitants.

 

[Orphia Nay]

This is why you don't want public housing projects as suggested by TGZ. They end up being exclusively inhabited by the poor, because anybody who can afford to moves out.

That's the whole point, isn't it? Give people homes so they can better their circumstances.

Also, your post reads as if you hate the poor.

 

[Brainster]

That's the whole point, isn't it? Give people homes so they can better their circumstances.

Also, your post reads as if you hate the poor.

? No, the point is that you don't want to have poverty concentrated in one area because it becomes a slum. If you require a certain percentage (say 10-20%) of housing everywhere be set aside for lower-income residents then you create opportunities for the poor to live in better areas, and their kids to attend better schools. The way this is typically done in the USA is with multifamily dwellings. Local communities can issue bonds to reduce the interest cost on the complex, which gives the developer a financial incentive to include the affordable component.

As it happens I worked in affordable housing for years and did the necessary supporting financial calculations to convert something like 1500 units in Florida from market rate to a mixture of market rate and affordable units (typically we were required to set aside either 20% of the units for families with incomes less than 90% of the poverty line or 10% of the units at less than 80% of the poverty line).

 

[Orphia Nay]

? No, the point is that you don't want to have poverty concentrated in one area because it becomes a slum. If you require a certain percentage (say 10-20%) of housing everywhere be set aside for lower-income residents then you create opportunities for the poor to live in better areas, and their kids to attend better schools. The way this is typically done in the USA is with multifamily dwellings. Local communities can issue bonds to reduce the interest cost on the complex, which gives the developer a financial incentive to include the affordable component.

As it happens I worked in affordable housing for years and did the necessary supporting financial calculations to convert something like 1500 units in Florida from market rate to a mixture of market rate and affordable units (typically we were required to set aside either 20% of the units for families with incomes less than 90% of the poverty line or 10% of the units at less than 80% of the poverty line).

Well, that sounds a lot better.

 

[Mike!]

Trump wants to "fix" America so that it has lots of money to not spend on its inhabitants.

Trump's version of a 'fix' is the same as someone who threatens, "I'll fix your wagon!", when the truth is, they have no intention of repairing your Radio Flyer at all.

 

[acbytesla]

The fly in the ointment, the monkey in the wrench, the pain in the ass, is what building a lot more housing does to home values.

More housing reduces them since it puts its thumb on the supply demand scale. All if a sudden it devalues investments and retirement plans. That is not attractive to real estate moguls like Trump

But, here's the thing. If we want manufacturing and businesses to flourish in the US, keeping wages completive is important. But we can't expect people to work for wages that don't give them a life. And the only way to do that is to find a way to lower the cost of the essentials. We must make food, medical care, shelter, transportation and energy affordable to the masses.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If housing were just places to live, rather than an investment, people wouldn't need to be so damn uptight about protecting their precious, precious property values.

 

[Thermal]

If housing were just places to live, rather than an investment, people wouldn't need to be so damn uptight about protecting their precious, precious property values.

Do you think the same about any other investments or savings? Our home I was able to make much more valuable, little by little, and have something of value to give my kids a better life. It's important.

 

[acbytesla]

If housing were just places to live, rather than an investment, people wouldn't need to be so damn uptight about protecting their precious, precious property values.

True. But it is an investment. For a lot of people, they buy the house thinking they can raise a family in it and then when the kids grow up, they can downsize, move to a smaller place or move to a place with lower property values and pocket the difference.

That said, it makes things much harder for the next generation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do you think the same about any other investments or savings? Our home I was able to make much more valuable, little by little, and have something of value to give my kids a better life. It's important.

I'm saying homes should be reasonable prices, things to be bought and used for their intended purpose. Investments should be financial instruments: stocks, bonds, certificates, mutual funds, t-bills. When you buy a car, do you buy it as an investment, hoping it will increase in value over time? No, you use it for its purpose. Houses are trapped in a very vicious cycle: they're super expensive so they've become investments, in most cases the middle class's main or only investment. Which makes their value rise, which makes them more expensive...

 

[acbytesla]

I'm saying homes should be reasonable prices, things to be bought and used for their intended purpose. Investments should be financial instruments: stocks, bonds, certificates, mutual funds, t-bills. When you buy a car, do you buy it as an investment, hoping it will increase in value over time? No, you use it for its purpose. Houses are trapped in a very vicious cycle: they're super expensive so they've become investments, in most cases the middle class's main or only investment. Which makes their value rise, which makes them more expensive...

I agree. But since when does "should" matter? Shoud'a, would'a, could'a, whether we like it or not, it is. And the biggest one most people make. Me included.

 

[Thermal]

I'm saying homes should be reasonable prices, things to be bought and used for their intended purpose.

That's a side helping of benefit that they do that too, yes.

Investments should be financial instruments: stocks, bonds, certificates, mutual funds, t-bills.

Real Estate is considered by many to be the original financial investment, I think.

When you buy a car, do you buy it as an investment, hoping it will increase in value over time? No, you use it for its purpose.

Commodities v investments. Plus a Harley owner does actually expect his ride to hold or increase in value.

Houses are trapped in a very vicious cycle: they're super expensive so they've become investments, in most cases the middle class's main or only investment. Which makes their value rise, which makes them more expensive...

Right. A house is a generational savings account that provides you shelter and collateral and coziness to boot. I don't know why it should be seen as a disposable item that you should work for your whole life and just kind of break even at the end.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A house is a generational savings account

I'm saying it shouldn't be. Ideally we'd all have reasonably-priced homes, and our actual investments would be, well, actual investments. You don't think it would be better if a good house cost $150K and you had $500K in your retirement account, versus having to borrow money to buy that same house for $650K?