You Need A House To Live
May 3, 2018 8:42 AM Subscribe
“Social Housing In The United States” (PDF) is a report by the People’s Policy Project on the argument for increased social housing in the United States. With half the rental population facing crisis and few people foreclosed on during the Great Recession looking to buy again, the time has come to look to another way: The Case For Public Housing, And a lot of it (Mother Jones) It’s time to build mixed income public housing (Shelter Force). (Previously, Housing In America)
The main problem I have and have had with so-called social housing in the US is that it is still basically privatized and intended to make sure that, in the end, property owners are still profiting.
While the amount of rent expected from Section 8 residents is indeed low (although now increasing, fuck you very much Ben Carson), the Housing Authority (in my understanding) basically covers the difference between what the resident pays and the "real rent," the real rent being an amount that allows the property owner a tidy profit at the end of the day despite having residents who couldn't possibly afford that rent.
My problem is that public housing doesn't seem to exist simply for the sake of being public housing, and isn't owned by anyone except... the public.
All the "public housing" in my area is all owned by ONE incredibly shitty developing company. So supporting public housing here is supporting a fucking shitbag of a set of developers who likely give no fucks about public housing except that they can make a tidy profit off it. (Example: Instead of having one manager for each set of public housing that lives on site and is available all day, you have multiple properties with ONE housing manager shuffling between them all day, spending a few hours at each set of section 8 properties. Yet they seem to be able to afford to pay managers at other locations to actually spend all day there.)
If we get REAL public housing, I'm all for it. If it's just more of the same section 8 "lets fucking enrich the fucking property owners some more" horseshit, I'm really not biting. I'm pretty sick as fuck of Democrats offering us the half ass fucking Republican solutions (I'm looking at you, ACA).
I understand there isn't the political willpower to do so. Well, if there isn't the political willpower, that says exactly how much these people fucking represent the people versus how much they represent property owners and developers.
Can we just fucking admit that this country is literally fundamentally broken and that getting Democrats back into power will change nothing if they're still all fucking sucking from corporate teats to ensure they get re-elected? That the system needs to be fucking torn down and fundamentally re-imagined because we're officially like Microsoft trying to fix Windows at this point. Doesn't care about user input, ready to remove user control at any moment it pleases them, a steady decline of user rights, and would probably work a lot better if torn down and rebuilt from the ground up instead of trying to make it work with code (legalese) from 20 (200) fucking years ago.
Nancy Pelosi: We're capitalists, and that's just the way it is.
Talking about inequality as a problem while supporting capitalism just literally shows where your allegiences lie. You're willing to help the poor, but only if someone is making a fucking profit from it. ONLY if someone is enriching themselves to the point where they can influence politics more than anyone who lives in their subsidized housing. ONLY if it continues to support a completely inefficient, unethical, and immoral state of affairs where people like Trump are fucking given money and power just for being rich twats to begin with, and someone who breaks their back working themselves to death their whole life will end up on the fucking streets because their social security isn't enough to cover rent.
Yeah, they're capitalists all right, the last 40 fucking years have made that plain to fucking see.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:17 AM on May 3, 2018 [28 favorites]
While the amount of rent expected from Section 8 residents is indeed low (although now increasing, fuck you very much Ben Carson), the Housing Authority (in my understanding) basically covers the difference between what the resident pays and the "real rent," the real rent being an amount that allows the property owner a tidy profit at the end of the day despite having residents who couldn't possibly afford that rent.
My problem is that public housing doesn't seem to exist simply for the sake of being public housing, and isn't owned by anyone except... the public.
All the "public housing" in my area is all owned by ONE incredibly shitty developing company. So supporting public housing here is supporting a fucking shitbag of a set of developers who likely give no fucks about public housing except that they can make a tidy profit off it. (Example: Instead of having one manager for each set of public housing that lives on site and is available all day, you have multiple properties with ONE housing manager shuffling between them all day, spending a few hours at each set of section 8 properties. Yet they seem to be able to afford to pay managers at other locations to actually spend all day there.)
If we get REAL public housing, I'm all for it. If it's just more of the same section 8 "lets fucking enrich the fucking property owners some more" horseshit, I'm really not biting. I'm pretty sick as fuck of Democrats offering us the half ass fucking Republican solutions (I'm looking at you, ACA).
I understand there isn't the political willpower to do so. Well, if there isn't the political willpower, that says exactly how much these people fucking represent the people versus how much they represent property owners and developers.
Can we just fucking admit that this country is literally fundamentally broken and that getting Democrats back into power will change nothing if they're still all fucking sucking from corporate teats to ensure they get re-elected? That the system needs to be fucking torn down and fundamentally re-imagined because we're officially like Microsoft trying to fix Windows at this point. Doesn't care about user input, ready to remove user control at any moment it pleases them, a steady decline of user rights, and would probably work a lot better if torn down and rebuilt from the ground up instead of trying to make it work with code (legalese) from 20 (200) fucking years ago.
Nancy Pelosi: We're capitalists, and that's just the way it is.
Talking about inequality as a problem while supporting capitalism just literally shows where your allegiences lie. You're willing to help the poor, but only if someone is making a fucking profit from it. ONLY if someone is enriching themselves to the point where they can influence politics more than anyone who lives in their subsidized housing. ONLY if it continues to support a completely inefficient, unethical, and immoral state of affairs where people like Trump are fucking given money and power just for being rich twats to begin with, and someone who breaks their back working themselves to death their whole life will end up on the fucking streets because their social security isn't enough to cover rent.
Yeah, they're capitalists all right, the last 40 fucking years have made that plain to fucking see.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:17 AM on May 3, 2018 [28 favorites]
It would need to be done properly, or else fuck it. "Public" shouldn't mean "substandard." I have a buddy who does commercial fire and security servicing in MA and some of the tales that he tells about the state of the public housing projects he goes into are harrowing. Ankle-deep standing sewage in the basement is just the start of it. People shouldn't have to live in places like that.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:14 AM on May 3, 2018 [14 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:14 AM on May 3, 2018 [14 favorites]
Public does mean substandard, and it also means some asshole corporate entity is profiting and it means a certain amount of the people who would profit by living there can go fuck right on off, because, you're not our kind.
Goddamned capitalist racist shitheads.
But I'm not angry at all.
Honestly, some of my best friends are centrists.
posted by evilDoug at 11:19 AM on May 3, 2018 [9 favorites]
Goddamned capitalist racist shitheads.
But I'm not angry at all.
Honestly, some of my best friends are centrists.
posted by evilDoug at 11:19 AM on May 3, 2018 [9 favorites]
'Our' reps don't see the value in feeding starving kids and you think they'll pull off something as complicated as housing?
And that's just the funding angle. Look at how many places manage to build appropriate density market housing in the teeth of entrenched property owner opposition. You can probably count 'em on your fingers.
Not holding my breath.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:31 AM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
And that's just the funding angle. Look at how many places manage to build appropriate density market housing in the teeth of entrenched property owner opposition. You can probably count 'em on your fingers.
Not holding my breath.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:31 AM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
It's only "complicated" because the powers that be don't actually want to do it. If the desire to do it existed, it would be as simple as "build lots of housing, give it to poor people, and pay someone to maintain it." What complicates it is all the people who are standing in the way.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:38 AM on May 3, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:38 AM on May 3, 2018 [11 favorites]
It's only "complicated" because...
Really
Is that why one of the most well known journalists on the subject compared affordable housing to rocket science? Either you don't know what you're talking about or you have innovative solutions to these that no one else has seen yet:
(1) racism
(2) NIMBYism
(3) securing of federal funding
(4) public contracting of construction goods
(5) urban planning (rezoning/transit infrastructure/utilities)
(6) property management on a depreciating income stream
...?
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:53 AM on May 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
Really
Is that why one of the most well known journalists on the subject compared affordable housing to rocket science? Either you don't know what you're talking about or you have innovative solutions to these that no one else has seen yet:
(1) racism
(2) NIMBYism
(3) securing of federal funding
(4) public contracting of construction goods
(5) urban planning (rezoning/transit infrastructure/utilities)
(6) property management on a depreciating income stream
...?
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:53 AM on May 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
people who are standing in the way
Large scale social planning has a vivid history of people striking this pose. Robert Moses is one of the most indelible examples that comes to mind.
His reputation has not aged well.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:59 AM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
Large scale social planning has a vivid history of people striking this pose. Robert Moses is one of the most indelible examples that comes to mind.
His reputation has not aged well.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 11:59 AM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
1. People standing in the way
2. People standing in the way
3. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
4. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
5. Legitimate problem
6. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
Sounds to me like almost all the problems you just listed can easily be described as "people standing in the way" because they are selfish in one way or another. Racists are selfish and want housing to themselves. NIMBY's are selfish and don't want that stuff in their area, affecting their housing prices, which are important to them. The other three could also be insanely less complex if, say, we didn't have elected representatives who refuse to fund things like housing (gee, that sure sounds like someone standing in the way to me), or didn't need to farm the work out to private laborers, and finally, if we didn't treat housing as something that deserved an "income stream" as much as something that needs to be funded without desire to make a profit.
Explain to me again that this isn't a bunch of jackholes standing in front of an excitingly simple solution of:
1. Take public resources and public workers to refine resources to be used. (Yes, we shouldn't have sold away most of our resources to be used by private corporations instead of saving them for THE PUBLIC FUCKING GOOD and this might still be a possibility instead of feeling like we're destroying the last vestiges of wilderness by dipping into our resource laden national forests.)
2. Use those resources to build housing, and use those resources to maintain housing. Use the public workers to both manage and maintain housing without a profit motive.
I understand that it actually is more complex than that, which is why I see the problem of urban planning and rezoning as obviously a more realistic issue (nonetheless one that is also likely affected by NIMBYism, and thus ends up being affected by those people standing in the way.), and that while I feel like there are simpler, more straightforward solution, that doesn't mean they are "simple" or "straightforward." Just moreso than the fucking insanity we have that CLEARLY ISN'T FUCKING WORKING.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:07 PM on May 3, 2018 [12 favorites]
2. People standing in the way
3. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
4. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
5. Legitimate problem
6. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
Sounds to me like almost all the problems you just listed can easily be described as "people standing in the way" because they are selfish in one way or another. Racists are selfish and want housing to themselves. NIMBY's are selfish and don't want that stuff in their area, affecting their housing prices, which are important to them. The other three could also be insanely less complex if, say, we didn't have elected representatives who refuse to fund things like housing (gee, that sure sounds like someone standing in the way to me), or didn't need to farm the work out to private laborers, and finally, if we didn't treat housing as something that deserved an "income stream" as much as something that needs to be funded without desire to make a profit.
Explain to me again that this isn't a bunch of jackholes standing in front of an excitingly simple solution of:
1. Take public resources and public workers to refine resources to be used. (Yes, we shouldn't have sold away most of our resources to be used by private corporations instead of saving them for THE PUBLIC FUCKING GOOD and this might still be a possibility instead of feeling like we're destroying the last vestiges of wilderness by dipping into our resource laden national forests.)
2. Use those resources to build housing, and use those resources to maintain housing. Use the public workers to both manage and maintain housing without a profit motive.
I understand that it actually is more complex than that, which is why I see the problem of urban planning and rezoning as obviously a more realistic issue (nonetheless one that is also likely affected by NIMBYism, and thus ends up being affected by those people standing in the way.), and that while I feel like there are simpler, more straightforward solution, that doesn't mean they are "simple" or "straightforward." Just moreso than the fucking insanity we have that CLEARLY ISN'T FUCKING WORKING.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:07 PM on May 3, 2018 [12 favorites]
deadaluspark pretty much said everything that I would have said there. Almost all the barriers boil down to people just not wanting it to happen. If it were a real priority that people genuinely wanted to make happen, we could find the money and the space and the people to do it. We do great things in this country all the time, when the resources are there and the way is clear. If people (powerful people) wanted this, it would be done. We know how to build and maintain housing. We know how to find people who need housing. What we don't have are the resources or the policies, but if people wanted them, we could have them.
Even the urban planning aspect is hardly impossible, I mean right here in Boston we were on the verge of bulldozing and rebuilding an entire section of the city so that we could host the Olympics, and we are in the process of rebuilding another section of the city to put in a cluster of luxury apartment buildings. It can be done. Those luxury apartments could have been public housing, rather than being destined to become half-empty "investment" properties for the ultra-rich.
It's a matter of priorities, not inherent difficulty. It's only politically difficult.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:43 PM on May 3, 2018 [12 favorites]
Even the urban planning aspect is hardly impossible, I mean right here in Boston we were on the verge of bulldozing and rebuilding an entire section of the city so that we could host the Olympics, and we are in the process of rebuilding another section of the city to put in a cluster of luxury apartment buildings. It can be done. Those luxury apartments could have been public housing, rather than being destined to become half-empty "investment" properties for the ultra-rich.
It's a matter of priorities, not inherent difficulty. It's only politically difficult.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:43 PM on May 3, 2018 [12 favorites]
It's a matter of priorities, not inherent difficulty. It's only politically difficult.
Yeah, all right. That is — true.
If people thought the same way and had the same motivations, they would also have the same priorities.
posted by FJT at 1:01 PM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
Yeah, all right. That is — true.
If people thought the same way and had the same motivations, they would also have the same priorities.
posted by FJT at 1:01 PM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
Ah yes, because at the precipice of the extinction of our species, we still need to be worried about the PRIORITIES of those who literally give so little of a fuck about our species future that they are LITERALLY THE PEOPLE DRIVING OUR EXTINCTION.
But we really should be more concerned with their ideals and priorities, absolutely. /s
This is why our species will go extinct, and unwillingness to excise personal seflishness at the expense of the rest of the fucking species.
You know, the same rich assholes who knew about global climate change for almost fifty fucking years and spent AS MUCH MONEY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE EVERYONE ELSE IT DIDN'T EXIST and even if it DID exist, it certainly wasn't the fault of the Oil companies, oh no!
I mean, they've only driven government policy for the last fifty years while we've had almost no voice whatsoever, but their priorities are still more important than ours! /s
Fucks sake.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:24 PM on May 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
But we really should be more concerned with their ideals and priorities, absolutely. /s
This is why our species will go extinct, and unwillingness to excise personal seflishness at the expense of the rest of the fucking species.
You know, the same rich assholes who knew about global climate change for almost fifty fucking years and spent AS MUCH MONEY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE EVERYONE ELSE IT DIDN'T EXIST and even if it DID exist, it certainly wasn't the fault of the Oil companies, oh no!
I mean, they've only driven government policy for the last fifty years while we've had almost no voice whatsoever, but their priorities are still more important than ours! /s
Fucks sake.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:24 PM on May 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
Yes, it's not like these differing priorities are just a harmless difference of opinion. We're not talking about cilantro here, we're talking about half a million people with noplace to live. 125,000 of those people are kids. Deprioritizing or opposing the creation of housing for them is not morally neutral.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:08 PM on May 3, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:08 PM on May 3, 2018 [12 favorites]
There’s a real problem with encouraging people to rent for the rest of their lives, though. Like - it may or may not be good for them, but it’s definitely not good for their children. If middle- class people in NYC rent at slightly less than market (what’s being encouraged in that link for mixed income public housing), if they live for fifty-sixty years in a place, their rent still keeps going up and by the time they die, their children, at best, get the possibility of paying even more rent. And you still, the whole time, have restrictions on what you can and can’t do with the place you’ve lived all your life.
Encouraging mixed income ownership has certain benefits. But renting in order to do it is not a good idea just because you’re renting from the state instead of a private landlord.
posted by corb at 3:06 PM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
Encouraging mixed income ownership has certain benefits. But renting in order to do it is not a good idea just because you’re renting from the state instead of a private landlord.
posted by corb at 3:06 PM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
You know, the same rich assholes who knew about global climate change for almost fifty fucking years and spent AS MUCH MONEY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE EVERYONE ELSE IT DIDN'T EXIST and even if it DID exist, it certainly wasn't the fault of the Oil companies, oh no!
I am not even certain where to start here. You are clearly very angry, but I'm not sure this is the thread nor the subject matter.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 4:08 PM on May 3, 2018 [6 favorites]
I am not even certain where to start here. You are clearly very angry, but I'm not sure this is the thread nor the subject matter.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 4:08 PM on May 3, 2018 [6 favorites]
1. People standing in the way
2. People standing in the way
3. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
4. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
5. Legitimate problem
6. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
As I see it:
(1) racism - Legitimate problem
(2) NIMBYism - Legitimate problem
(3) securing of federal funding - Legitimate problem
(4) public contracting of construction goods - Legitimate problem
(5) urban planning (rezoning/transit infrastructure/utilities) - Legitimate problem
(6) property management on a depreciating income stream - Legitimate problem
Wave it all away if it satisfies you, but decent public housing is an extremely tough nut to crack for some very complicated reasons. Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone saw things like you, but this kind of rage-y incoherence doesn't help.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:25 PM on May 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
2. People standing in the way
3. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
4. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
5. Legitimate problem
6. Capitalism (People standing in the way to ensure people make profit)
As I see it:
(1) racism - Legitimate problem
(2) NIMBYism - Legitimate problem
(3) securing of federal funding - Legitimate problem
(4) public contracting of construction goods - Legitimate problem
(5) urban planning (rezoning/transit infrastructure/utilities) - Legitimate problem
(6) property management on a depreciating income stream - Legitimate problem
Wave it all away if it satisfies you, but decent public housing is an extremely tough nut to crack for some very complicated reasons. Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone saw things like you, but this kind of rage-y incoherence doesn't help.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:25 PM on May 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, Iowa, if not the heartland is awash in withering municipalities, all for sale on the cheap compared to whats destined if not earmarked to be pork barrell funded give aways to patrons of the powers that be.
posted by Fupped Duck at 6:34 PM on May 3, 2018
posted by Fupped Duck at 6:34 PM on May 3, 2018
In the long run capitalism only works for capitalists.
posted by notreally at 7:44 PM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by notreally at 7:44 PM on May 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
The PDF states there are 2 million people in public housing, out of 320 million people in America - that's about 0.6% of people.
I'm in Australia, we're at about 4%, but this is obviously concentrated in the major cities - in the suburb adjacent to mine, 31% of all dwellings are public housing. In the suburb I work in, it's about 15%. The rent and utilities on those are capped at 25% of income, so once you're in, you can't get kicked out. Also if your financial situation changes you can continue staying (otherwise it would be a disincentive for people to get a good job). In areas with particularly high densities they have turned into a nexus for drug use and distribution. I mean, we're basically warehousing tens of thousands of homeless / unemployed / uneducated / mentally unstable people in high density apartments to keep them off the street. They get food (there's a regular schedule of charity food distribution points for all meals all days of the week) and welfare money from the government. Yes, it's a huge improvement to "not" having these services but it feels like we have a long way to go... just warehousing them out of sight / out of mind isn't where we want to be at, surely.
Singapore is the other extreme, over 80% of the population live in public housing. Now most of what I know is secondhand from my friends, but I hear the selection process is tightly controlled - the government sorts you by ethnicity, to ensure everyone is spread equally and no enclaves of a single ethnicity is allowed to dominate. They also don't really allow single people to obtain housing (too precious a resource to be wasted on singles.. unless you're past your "use by" date, over a certain age) so typically you need to be married and even better have children: the waiting lists for these units will stretch for many years, so I have heard of people being pressured to marry their partner as soon as possible just so they can get on the waiting list for an apartment... it's tied to having children as well, if you have more than 2 children you are eligible for an "upgrade" to a bigger apartment.
Of course if you get divorced before you obtain the house you get struck off from the waiting list and have to start again. It's mind boggling that over 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing, and their GDP per capita is close to the US.
posted by xdvesper at 8:47 PM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
I'm in Australia, we're at about 4%, but this is obviously concentrated in the major cities - in the suburb adjacent to mine, 31% of all dwellings are public housing. In the suburb I work in, it's about 15%. The rent and utilities on those are capped at 25% of income, so once you're in, you can't get kicked out. Also if your financial situation changes you can continue staying (otherwise it would be a disincentive for people to get a good job). In areas with particularly high densities they have turned into a nexus for drug use and distribution. I mean, we're basically warehousing tens of thousands of homeless / unemployed / uneducated / mentally unstable people in high density apartments to keep them off the street. They get food (there's a regular schedule of charity food distribution points for all meals all days of the week) and welfare money from the government. Yes, it's a huge improvement to "not" having these services but it feels like we have a long way to go... just warehousing them out of sight / out of mind isn't where we want to be at, surely.
Singapore is the other extreme, over 80% of the population live in public housing. Now most of what I know is secondhand from my friends, but I hear the selection process is tightly controlled - the government sorts you by ethnicity, to ensure everyone is spread equally and no enclaves of a single ethnicity is allowed to dominate. They also don't really allow single people to obtain housing (too precious a resource to be wasted on singles.. unless you're past your "use by" date, over a certain age) so typically you need to be married and even better have children: the waiting lists for these units will stretch for many years, so I have heard of people being pressured to marry their partner as soon as possible just so they can get on the waiting list for an apartment... it's tied to having children as well, if you have more than 2 children you are eligible for an "upgrade" to a bigger apartment.
Of course if you get divorced before you obtain the house you get struck off from the waiting list and have to start again. It's mind boggling that over 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing, and their GDP per capita is close to the US.
posted by xdvesper at 8:47 PM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile in New Zealand, a country that's often left off world maps [funny new ad featuring the PM], Prime Minister Ardern has announced a plan to find shelter for all NZ's homeless people before the start of winter next month.
posted by Thella at 9:10 PM on May 3, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Thella at 9:10 PM on May 3, 2018 [4 favorites]
Being a landlord is immoral.
Owning your own home and nothing more may be moral, I need to do more readings.
Dividing up the commons so you can sell the use of them piece by piece for profit is immoral.
Owning any part of the means of production yourself is immoral.
Housing issues seem like such a clear case of capitalism dgaf about society.
We need mass-expropriation to occur if we're going to be able to really fix any of these issues long term.
Mansions are lovely to look at and all, but they should be a relic of the past, not being built anew.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 10:47 PM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
Owning your own home and nothing more may be moral, I need to do more readings.
Dividing up the commons so you can sell the use of them piece by piece for profit is immoral.
Owning any part of the means of production yourself is immoral.
Housing issues seem like such a clear case of capitalism dgaf about society.
We need mass-expropriation to occur if we're going to be able to really fix any of these issues long term.
Mansions are lovely to look at and all, but they should be a relic of the past, not being built anew.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 10:47 PM on May 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
Just came in to say Singapore. Pretty much if anyone tells you it can't be done, well, it can be done.
posted by saysthis at 3:04 AM on May 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by saysthis at 3:04 AM on May 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
If you're saying "well of course it would be easy if only everybody agreed," I'd ask you to consider how it could possibly be OK to disagree about whether half a million people should have to live outside or not. From where I stand, this is a major humanitarian crisis and allowing it to go on in the face of obvious solutions is a crime against humanity.
They taught us in grade school that humans need three basic things to survive: food, water, and shelter. A society that cannot provide these things to all its members is a failure. A state that could provide them but refuses to is illegitimate.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:54 AM on May 4, 2018 [6 favorites]
They taught us in grade school that humans need three basic things to survive: food, water, and shelter. A society that cannot provide these things to all its members is a failure. A state that could provide them but refuses to is illegitimate.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:54 AM on May 4, 2018 [6 favorites]
I mean, just a few months ago we blew 1.5 trillion dollars (at least) on unnecessary tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. We've blown 2.4 trillion on wrecking Iraq and Afghanistan, sparking civil wars and terrorist empires in the process, generating millions of homeless refugees. Under what possible moral calculus are those better uses of our resources and ingenuity (not to mention lives!) than building and maintaining public housing for America's homeless?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:03 AM on May 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:03 AM on May 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
I'd ask you to consider how it could possibly be OK to disagree about whether half a million people should have to live outside or not
To address this specific issue - I’ve done social work specifically around literal homelessness, which is people sleeping rough as you describe, and it’s actually not a simple problem to solve even if everyone was able to be offered public housing. One of our greatest challenges actually came /after/ housing people. There’s a lot of freedom that comes with sleeping rough that does not exist when you are communally sharing an apartment building.
The “best” way to deal with people who are literally homeless - not couch surfing, but sleeping outside- is a centralized building with support and wraparound social and medical services. But not only do people often not like living with other formerly homeless people, they also don’t generally see the need for continued social services, meaning you often have evictions shortly after the housing point.
So it may be a good idea to build more and better public housing, but it may /also/ not solve the homelessness problem.
posted by corb at 6:04 AM on May 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
To address this specific issue - I’ve done social work specifically around literal homelessness, which is people sleeping rough as you describe, and it’s actually not a simple problem to solve even if everyone was able to be offered public housing. One of our greatest challenges actually came /after/ housing people. There’s a lot of freedom that comes with sleeping rough that does not exist when you are communally sharing an apartment building.
The “best” way to deal with people who are literally homeless - not couch surfing, but sleeping outside- is a centralized building with support and wraparound social and medical services. But not only do people often not like living with other formerly homeless people, they also don’t generally see the need for continued social services, meaning you often have evictions shortly after the housing point.
So it may be a good idea to build more and better public housing, but it may /also/ not solve the homelessness problem.
posted by corb at 6:04 AM on May 4, 2018 [4 favorites]
I do understand that merely getting these people into shelter will not solve all of their problems, and that there are better and worse ways of doing public housing. (My first comment in this thread was to say that it has to be done right if it's to be worth doing at all.) However I still say that getting people houses is an essential first step, and that while it shouldn't be seen as the end of the road, guaranteed housing alone would be a massive improvement over the status quo.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:33 AM on May 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:33 AM on May 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
I mean, just a few months ago we blew 1.5 trillion dollars (at least) on unnecessary tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. We've blown 2.4 trillion on wrecking Iraq and Afghanistan, sparking civil wars and terrorist empires in the process, generating millions of homeless refugees. Under what possible moral calculus are those better uses of our resources and ingenuity (not to mention lives!) than building and maintaining public housing for America's homeless?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:03 PM on May 4 [2 favorites +] [!]
One advantage of the huge tax package, if our politicians can play it right, is that we brought back all the money companies were stashing overseas and that they're now turning into shareholder paybacks and stock buybacks.
Well, great, got that all back in the country. Once we get Dems in power again, we can put up real firewalls against capital flight and tax the crap out of companies and fund at least a significant portion of everything forever. The advantage of allowing rich people to accumulate wealth is that, hey, we know right where it is now. It's not like that $1.5 trillion is gone, it's just sequestered in caches rich people bury like squirrels, and it's a hell of a lot easy to raid those caches of idle capital once it's in your relative back yard. Yo you using that money in a way provably tied to the real economy? No? Gimme that.
And then you know what we can do? Drop it all into a giant sovereign wealth fund, set up a nice lil' online poll we fine every American for not participating in when they file their taxes, and then direct democracy the sovereign wealth fund's uses, with preferential weighting and a special court system to force re-votes. See how quickly "mandated affordable housing" wins the ballot on that one.
What? It's basically Singapore's plan and every other stupid country with a sovereign wealth fund plus direct democracy to avoid authoritarian concerns. You're free to use your money any way you see fit, keep a comfortable threshold, like, I dunno, like 5 million in your savings account, and then any more actively bound up in productive capital, otherwise we all get to decide what you do with it after a year, rather than some council of socialist elders or whatever. You yourself are totally allowed to submit proposals and vote. You could facken write the law tomorrow. Not rocket surgery.
We could have Boaty McBoatface class nuclear aircraft carriers and social housing.
posted by saysthis at 7:15 PM on May 4, 2018
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:03 PM on May 4 [2 favorites +] [!]
One advantage of the huge tax package, if our politicians can play it right, is that we brought back all the money companies were stashing overseas and that they're now turning into shareholder paybacks and stock buybacks.
Well, great, got that all back in the country. Once we get Dems in power again, we can put up real firewalls against capital flight and tax the crap out of companies and fund at least a significant portion of everything forever. The advantage of allowing rich people to accumulate wealth is that, hey, we know right where it is now. It's not like that $1.5 trillion is gone, it's just sequestered in caches rich people bury like squirrels, and it's a hell of a lot easy to raid those caches of idle capital once it's in your relative back yard. Yo you using that money in a way provably tied to the real economy? No? Gimme that.
And then you know what we can do? Drop it all into a giant sovereign wealth fund, set up a nice lil' online poll we fine every American for not participating in when they file their taxes, and then direct democracy the sovereign wealth fund's uses, with preferential weighting and a special court system to force re-votes. See how quickly "mandated affordable housing" wins the ballot on that one.
What? It's basically Singapore's plan and every other stupid country with a sovereign wealth fund plus direct democracy to avoid authoritarian concerns. You're free to use your money any way you see fit, keep a comfortable threshold, like, I dunno, like 5 million in your savings account, and then any more actively bound up in productive capital, otherwise we all get to decide what you do with it after a year, rather than some council of socialist elders or whatever. You yourself are totally allowed to submit proposals and vote. You could facken write the law tomorrow. Not rocket surgery.
We could have Boaty McBoatface class nuclear aircraft carriers and social housing.
posted by saysthis at 7:15 PM on May 4, 2018
Oh yeah, and dirty accumulators are enemies of freedom, enemies of the people, and should be gently scolded with a postcard while their bank accounts are rebalanced and/or foreign title to any assets they hold outside the system are gently redirected by property courts to the sovereign wealth fund. Right to privacy and no cruel or unusual punishment and all that. I ain't asking for lynch mobs.
Except for those who call for violence on behalf of an individual property owner. But, gentle lynch mobs, the kind that name and shame and maybe impose a few hours of community service.
posted by saysthis at 7:21 PM on May 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
Except for those who call for violence on behalf of an individual property owner. But, gentle lynch mobs, the kind that name and shame and maybe impose a few hours of community service.
posted by saysthis at 7:21 PM on May 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
-Changing the Game on Housing
-Why Was California's Radical Housing Bill so Unpopular?
-How to beat the NIMBYs without handing over cities to developers
also btw...
-Cars Are Ruining Our Cities
-So...can someone remind me why we continue to build our cities around cars?
posted by kliuless at 10:52 AM on May 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
-Why Was California's Radical Housing Bill so Unpopular?
-How to beat the NIMBYs without handing over cities to developers
also btw...
-Cars Are Ruining Our Cities
-So...can someone remind me why we continue to build our cities around cars?
posted by kliuless at 10:52 AM on May 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
Why Bad Men Love Real Estate - "Property markets reap profit from human necessity. We recognize that shelter is a human right. And yet, in our market societies, we accept that landlords have the right to get rich from this basic need."
Meet the Rising New Housing Movement That Wants to Create Homes for All - "From rent regulation to social housing, activists are pushing for serious solutions to the affordable-housing crisis."
posted by kliuless at 8:26 PM on May 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
Meet the Rising New Housing Movement That Wants to Create Homes for All - "From rent regulation to social housing, activists are pushing for serious solutions to the affordable-housing crisis."
posted by kliuless at 8:26 PM on May 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
« Older The Longest Straight-Line Ocean Voyage Is Pretty... | You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:57 AM on May 3, 2018 [10 favorites]