21–30 of 49 posts
Why don't they start a basic income project in California? If there is one place where you have money and lots of inequality it is California. Is there really noone there from the bigger corps willing to initiate something like this?
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…
Why don't they start a basic income project in California? If there is one place where you have money and lots of inequality it is California. Is there really noone there from the bigger corps willing to initiate something like this?
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.
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?
Those same subsidies apply to rental properties as well (now, with fewer caps as a result of recent limits to owner-occupied). Mortgage interest deduction for owner-occupied property serves to put owner-occupant usage (generally considered “good” for a neighborhood) on equal footing with commercial renting of property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You don't need to repeal proposition 13. It bans ad valorem taxes only. It technically does not ban adding a tax on the raw square footage of land in specific areas that need additional development - only if it's based off the assessed value of the property.
Surely this would still require the 2/3rds majority of voters and lawmakers required by prop 218.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
If I buy an expensive house/flat in a nice neighbourhood the last thing I want is a new building full of problematic people. Sounds like political suicide, really.
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?
It makes sense to put those less well off around more affluent folks to help keep criminal activity from pooling.
Cabrini Green showed that these large scale public housing projects are unpoliceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, two honest questions: - Is there evidence that they would be less safe than makeshift homeless communities? My instinct would be to assume that homeless people in California are already congregating somewhere , and that those areas have increased crime risks. Does public/low-income housing make it worse than the current situation already is? - Should we weigh the overall loss in safety for middle-income residents…
I don't know California specifically, but the homeless in Chicago congregate in the business areas and tourist places, not the residential areas as much. I would assume California is similar since most people who live there are less likely to give things to them every day.