Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing • Hacker News Board

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#301

Post by staringback » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:55 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #284

slibhb wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American culture doesn't like to think about how much of "success" is down to luck. As often as possible, we want to think it's earned. The idea of trying to make up for some of the luck factor by taking some from those with more and giving it to those with less is almost instinctively repugnant, even if it might lead to higher quality of life for everyone involved. The US is in the ballpark of other OECD countries…

The US government actually spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK or Japan despite it not being universal. We're terribly inefficient with its social spending because have politics is so adversarial and nobody is interested in doing any due diligence.

> We're terribly inefficient with its social spending because have politics is so adversarial and nobody is interested in doing any due diligence.

And I'm sure it has nothing to do with the United States having a very unhealthy population and pays doctors the highest salaries in the world.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#302

Post by verisimi » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:56 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #268

digging wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Light pollution is relatively easily solved, there's just not much will to do so. Noise pollution is best solved by reducing car-dependency which is a non-starter in most North American cities; I can't speak for Europe but I understand Paris to have undertaken a serious revolution in purging cars within the past decade.

Both the fight against car dependency and the housing policy in TFA have been spearheaded by the current mayor, Anne Hidalgo

[flagged]

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#303

Post by kelipso » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:56 PM UTC

93po wrote: post #183

TacticalCoder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup this makes no sense. Note that the original is also wrong: "How does Paris stays Paris..." . To me Paris is not Paris at all anymore. The government is in damage control before the olympic games and shall try to hide that Paris is not Paris anymore but Paris honestly became a sad thing to see. There are many tourists having an actual shock and it can be really bad: if I'm not mistaken japanese even have a hotline…

Paris syndrome is fairly over-hyped. From wiki: "Although the BBC reported in 2006 that the Japanese embassy in Paris had a "24-hour hotline for those suffering from severe culture shock",[4] the Japanese embassy states[clarification needed] no such hotline exists[clarification needed].[9][10] Also in 2006, Miyuki Kusama, of the Japanese embassy in Paris, told The Guardian "There are around 20 cases a year of the syn…

A dozen of them having shock at the reality of the city and call the Japanese embassy. Don't know about you but it would take me way more than culture shock to call my embassy when I'm traveling.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#304

Post by locallost » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:56 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #174

Ragnarork wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you that - they don't intend to buy, in which case you can proceed with the sale - they buy at the price you've set - they make a counter-offer, which you have the right to refuse but then you also renounce to sell If there's a dispute on the price (especially in…

I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks. That's bs If government is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the government counter offer or I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbor…

That's what libertarians want until it's time to use eminent domain to build a freeway so they can exercise their freedoms. Then it's fine to cap your property value to something else because you can always prop the goal of progress as very important. But if you want to prop something else, dare I say something left leaning, something they're not interested in, then it's outrageous.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#305

Post by TimPC » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

UncleEntity wrote: post #281

TimPC wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the old libertarian cop-out. The most free market healthcare system in the world is too highly regulated and if we just take the regulations away it will perform better because ideology. This is despite the fact that if you look at healthcare systems in the world most performance metrics improve with more regulation but not less. But lets forget about being data-driven when ideological purity is at stake.

I don't have any real issue with regulations per se but with people claiming that a highly regulated market is 'free market'. I'm actually quite happy with my socialized health care aside from the last time I went to the emergency room they sent me home to die and when I came back a day later they were rapidly pulling out faulty body parts before I did indeed die. Well, then there's the Phoenix VA death list scandal.…

My issue is less with what we call the individual markets in the experiment. It's more with looking at healthcare across a large data set of countries and finding a general trend that more regulations lead to better cost structures and better health outcomes for the population and then somehow jumping to the conclusion we need no regulation for everything to work. That's just inconsistent with empirical reality and it's one of these purely ideological fantasy-land claims.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#306

Post by verisimi » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #164

rsynnott wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can certainly cause light issues, but I'm not sure why it would cause _congestion_?

More people in a smaller area? Congestion doesn't just refer to car traffic Edit: think about crowded grocery stores and restaurants. Think community spaces like parks and libraries being packed all the time. Think about never being able to stop and get a coffee without waiting in a long line. Congestion

> think about crowded grocery stores and restaurants. Think community spaces like parks and libraries being packed all the time. Think about never being able to stop and get a coffee without waiting in a long line.

It also changes behaviour. People are under stress all the time. It's not a nice or natural way to live. But it is easier to govern people.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#307

Post by mrguyorama » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #193

bezier-curve wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it takes more energy and more carbon emissions to walk a mile than it takes to drive a vehicle a mile Do you have a source for this? Sounds questionable.

It's false. People will not go into suspend mode when not walking; they still burn calories. A very large person would burn about 130 calories walking a mile. i.e. one large latte. And most people who are this large are not at risk of a caloric deficit by burning an extra 130 calories.

Humans are INSANELY efficient at walking. That's why walking and running are terrible ways to lose weight.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#308

Post by robertlagrant » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

moconnor wrote: post #235

robertlagrant wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it can be rewarded by subsidised rents because people prefer to live in cities with a population of cool and arty people for the non-monetary benefits they bring to that society. Well, some people do. But everyone is paying for it, even if they'd rather save.

I guess ideally people who live in the city pay for such subsidies through various municipal taxes. People who do not value this policy and choose to live in a different city that aligns with their values would not pay for it. Everybody gets what they want.

> People who do not value this policy and choose to live in a different city that aligns with their values would not pay for it. Everybody gets what they want

Well, not necessarily. People stay for jobs, family and friends. They will just pay for something they're not bothered about if it's not so expensive they're forced to move. That doesn't mean them staying is anything to do with the thing some people want.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#309

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #246

dv_dt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It causes congestion if the city refuses to invest in public transportation - which is more a problem in US cities - though some European cities could be behind on keeping up with changes to different degrees

Congestion is a problem even in cities with excellent public transportation. Have you ever been on the Tokyo subway at 8:30 am?

Yes, it always a balance of factors in the system, but what you're talking about is a higher threshold of capacity already. They've built up to higher rise density in Tokyo and are already managing much higher people movement in core higher density areas than the edges of Paris.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#310

Post by pas » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:58 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #182

mumblemumble wrote: post #33

My understanding is that excise taxation is generally agreed upon as the preferred method for governments to manipulate the market, both because it incurs fewer deadweight losses and because it tends to actually work better. So, what if we get rid of all these complicated rent control and rent freezes and affordable housing schemes, and instead just implement a rent tax, to be paid by the landlord, and make it progre…

People who don't understand market pricing are against rent taxes because they think landlords can pass them through.

how could/would they not?

everything is paid by the renters, and if the price is not high enough (to turn a risk-weighted profit) it will be removed from the market.

(if there's a high enough vacancy tax and/or security costs against squatting, then eventually it will be sold. which is a one time boon for the market, but it ends up crowding out new developments for a while, and altogether this just leads to crazy waitlists and the usual discrimination.)