Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if public housing were for everyone?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#11

Post by wolfram74 »

Aurornis wrote: post #5
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…

One way the super wealthy can over whelm the intent of voters is through emphasis of information. It doesn't matter if candidate A supports 2 or 3 things most people like, if they also support or symbolize something they hate. By emphasizing a less important true thing through disproportionate marketing budgets, you can decrease the chances of people voting in favor of their own interests.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#12

Post by consp »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #10
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> the program is perfectly palatable to voters. [...] The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. I'm not sure that's largely true. I suspect that many property-owning voters are okay with the concept of public housing, but are less ken on the actuality that building public housing increas…

> getting "something for nothing"

With renting, you never get anything. You just are allowed to live there while you pay.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#13

Post by alistairSH »

The apartment building they highlight (in Montgomery County,MD) might be a good start, but it’s also missing larger floor for families. By sqft, two plans are planet big (1100, 1200sqft) but only 2 bedroom (using space for large open plan living space).

I would like to see apartments more suitable for families. 3 bedrooms.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#14

Post by jonfw »

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market.

This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have a hard time getting involved in tight markets, where most development is now handled by the national builders on a huge scale.

We need to approach this from a different perspective. One is to kill speculative land investments with a land value tax, causing people who aren't using the land to sell off. Two is to streamline zoning and permitting processes to make it much easier for upstart developers to get started on smaller scales.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#15

Post by thworp »

pydry wrote: post #4
harimau777 wrote: post #2

My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply.

While this is obviously correct, you completely ignored that all owners of housing have the same incentives. "All homeowners" is a much more consequential demographic, especially in local elections.

More than that, these people aren't just against public housing, they are against any housing being built. It's so tiresome when people selectively ignore basic facts in order to pin the blame on their favourite scapegoats.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#16

Post by CommieBobDole »

I think one of the big problems with public housing in the US is that we had a big push for it in the past but went about it in the wrong way and managed it poorly, and had very notoriously terrible results. Now the idea of building any at all for any reason is basically radioactive in most of the country and no politician wants to touch it.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#17

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

Aurornis wrote: post #5
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…

Any weirder than the idea that, having managed to eventually buy my own home, I secretly want to go live in section 8?

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#18

Post by brtkdotse »

jonfw wrote: post #14

public housing doesn't address the root of the problem. Housing prices are insane because it's expensive and difficult to acquire and develop land. There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market. This make land very expensive to developers and limits competition. Developing, rezoning, acquiring land can take expertise and political capital. Small developers have…

> There's two primary reasons- zoning, and speculative investment that keeps good land off of the market.

While I agree with the second point, I’m having a hard time understanding how zoning can affect pricing. Isn’t it just “you can’t build industry next to residential”?

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#19

Post by yunwal »

Aurornis wrote: post #5
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…

> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…

The problem is that getting to run for president requires a constant stream of money throughout your entire political career (or you need to have your own funds to contribute). This acts as a filter for any candidates that take anti-investor stances.

Re: What if public housing were for everyone?

#20

Post by someonehere »

> Governments have successfully addressed housing shortages through publicly developed housing in places like Vienna, Finland, and Singapore in the past, but these examples have typically inspired little attention in the US

Those countries demographics are way different than the US for affordable housing. It’s comparing apples and tennis balls.

Post reply on HN