this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023

366 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers

4632 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

366

First American City to Tame Inflation Owes Its Success to Affordable Housing (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 1 year ago by tintory@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] NotSpez@lemm.ee 101 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nooo my TrIcKlE DoWn EcOnOmIcS is the only thing that works. If we allow affordable housing, what’s next, can people marry a toaster!?

[–] DrTeeth@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nooooo. Think of the children!!

[–] brawleryukon@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Think of how much productive work we can get out of them, you mean?

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I hear there are children willing to give capitalism a hand.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Those pedophiles wanting to marry a brave little toaster. Terrible people.

[–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 97 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Minneapolis, MN for those who don’t want to open.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Props. Minnesota seems to be doing some really progressive stuff

[–] Ikaros@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it wasn't cold as fuck id consider moving there

[–] Letto@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Looking at weather trends in the US it will probably be outright tropical in another decade lmao. Consider it an investment.

[–] JIMMERZ@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I live there. The cold really is cold AF, but it’s only half the time. It’s tolerable and the changing seasons are beautiful.

[–] Countsheep@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

It’s like their Scandinavian ancestors awoke from some code word

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It even looks like they got rid of the zoning laws that forced everything to be a bungalow! This picture could easily be mistaken for some place in Europe now

[+] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, you could simply not make a payoff possible. If you build, you must also build affordable housing. Period.

Alternatively, the city could just have its own housing company. In my hometown in Germany, more than half of all apartments are owned by the city or non-profit cooperatives.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is non profit coops the model in tower blocks?

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They took over the old East German blocks, but also build new, modern houses.

The blocks are also far less bleak than they might appear. Usually the surroundings are pretty green and all buildings have been renovated.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ahh yes that's the same model that was adopted here in CZ. 1/3 of the population lives in commie blocks and those were also mostly made into housing co-ops.

[–] brawleryukon@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we have a very small middle class.

That assumes there even is a middle class.

(Spoiler alert: there isn't.)

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 7 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Nd7cohTdRAo

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Net-new luxury housing is good for affordability, because when someone moves into a more expensive unit, that frees up their current more affordable unit.

More to the point, Seattle literally just legalized missing middle housing in most of the city earlier this year. That's good for affordability, but new housing takes time to build. And developers will try to build the most lucrative project they currently can.

Housing is a matter of supply and demand. When you're in a housing shortage, prices will be high and most of the new supply will be luxury. The solution to a housing shortage is to build more housing, period. If you build housing faster than increasing demand from population growth, prices of units will go down. If you build housing and prices stay high, you didn't build enough. Build more. Remove NIMBYs ability to prevent new builds.

Which is not to say that building public housing or other projects to subsidize housing is a bad idea. But it's really, really hard to do that effectively during a housing shortage and solving the shortage is good for everyone except homeowners who wanted to use their equity as their retirement nest egg.

[+] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] theGimpboy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not about trickle down, it's about building to meet the capacity. I live in this area and can tell you first hand. I live in a cheap building and all the luxury condos going up has made it so my landlord cannot jack up rents anymore. They were doing it constantly before the building boom and now they can't even fill multiple units at the rents they want to charge.

[+] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Vacancy rates don't reflect what people think they do, and actual long term vacancy rates are a fraction of what people think they are.

In particular: the census' published vacancy rates includes all housing that isn't someone's primary occupancy on census day to be unoccupied.

The vacancy rate includes buildings that are tied up in estate, forclosure or divorce proceedings, housing that is actively being renovated, that can't be rented until it's renovated or is mostly constructed. It includes units that are actively on the market. It includes units that just got rented or sold but where the new tenants will move in a week after the census. It includes housing where the owner is in jail, or on an extended work assignment elsewhere. It includes private vacation homes and AirBnBs.

You can argue about the ethics of evictions, forclosures, AirBnB and vacation homes, but the vacancy rate is fundamentally a snapshot of current occupancy. A certain amount of short term transient vacancies are expected, because many normal processes take time. You don't sell your parents house and have someone move into it the day your parents die, after all. Vacancy rates are not evidence of a conspiracy to artificially lower the amount of housing in an area by holding units off market.

To my knowledge, the census doesn't actually track the rate of long-term habitable vacancies, units that could be sold or rented tomorrow but aren't on the market.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would almost guarantee that the amount of people leaving affordable housing to luxury housing is a completely negligible percentage, like <1% of home buyers. Prove me wrong, I guess, but your argument that building more luxury housing somehow benefits the middle and poor classes just reeks of nonsensical bullshit, sorry.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Directly? Obviously, that's pretty rare.

But housing is something like a game of musical chairs. If Alice moves into a luxury unit, that leaves their old unit open. Bob then moves into Alice's old unit, Charlotte moves into Bob's old unit, Dave moves into Charlotte's old unit, etc. until Zoey moves into Xanders old unit.

The question isn't 'how likely is Alice's old unit to be affordable?', it's 'how likely is it that Zoey's old unit is affordable?'

[–] LastOneStanding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago

Things are so in the shits even Bloomberg reports on these things.