California's constitution makes affordable housing hard to build

Post by rcpt » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #9

Pharmakon wrote: post #2

Talk about burying the lede. Today, as the state grapples with an unprecedented affordable housing shortage, Article 34 has limited effects on the construction of low-income developments. But it remains an obstacle: Los Angeles officials believe that without a public vote in the coming years, the city will no longer be able to finance such projects — even though it has the money to do so. I realize that screaming at…

> Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. I've become a firm supporter of the idea of gradually increasing non-occupancy taxes, with some scaling factor based off local overall vacancy rates.

Post by MagicPropmaker » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #6

aninteger wrote: post #3

The biggest problem with public housing and low income housing is that they become unsafe (at least in Los Angeles). Many of these places are not safe enough to walk around at night. Is it really any surprise that people don't want areas of high crime in their neighborhoods?

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

Post by stevenwoo » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

rcpt wrote: post #11

crooked-v wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather increased housing leads to billionaires, Russian oligarchs and others buying up expensive real estate and not actually living there. I've become a firm supporter of the idea of gradually increasing non-occupancy taxes, with some scaling factor based off local overall vacancy rates.

The vacancy rates in CA cities are typically low. Vacant apartments aren't the problem - non-existent ones are. If you want to fix this with taxes it's easy: repeal prop 13. We don't need golf courses in city centers or untaxed empty lots in prime locations.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 10:18 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #6

aninteger wrote: post #3

The biggest problem with public housing and low income housing is that they become unsafe (at least in Los Angeles). Many of these places are not safe enough to walk around at night. Is it really any surprise that people don't want areas of high crime in their neighborhoods?

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

Post by ygkkojr6 » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #6

aninteger wrote: post #3

The biggest problem with public housing and low income housing is that they become unsafe (at least in Los Angeles). Many of these places are not safe enough to walk around at night. Is it really any surprise that people don't want areas of high crime in their neighborhoods?

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.