A Simple Solution to Housing Crisis in some Major Cities

[Pangurstan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/maga ... using.html

[Ifreann]

It has nothing to do with the solutions being simple. The vast majority of politicians just fundamentally believe in the free market.

Free market is clearly not working.

It is working exactly as it is meant to work.

[San Lumen]

Free market is clearly not working.

It is working exactly as it is meant to work.

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It is working exactly as it is meant to work.

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

Why is it that you still insist on trying to flat out lie to peoples faces and expect to get away with it?

[San Lumen]

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

Why is it that you still insist on trying to flat out lie to peoples faces and expect to get away with it?

Nothing Ive said is a lie. You and others simply deny facts.

[The Two Jerseys]

Why is it that you still insist on trying to flat out lie to peoples faces and expect to get away with it?

Nothing Ive said is a lie. You and others simply deny facts.

Average rent in the Bronx is $1700. And it's only $1400 in Newark. These are far from "only rich people" prices.

[Haganham]

It has nothing to do with the solutions being simple. The vast majority of politicians just fundamentally believe in the free market.

Free market is clearly not working.

There is no free market. We live in a palace economy.
Excessive housing prices are a result of restrictive zoning and building codes, deliberate injection of money into the housing market, and deliberate wage suppression.

[HISPIDA]

It is working exactly as it is meant to work.

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

you are THIS close, SL...

[GCMG]

No-one compromises on location for anything. It's one of the things economists lament about free trade theory. If a city like, say, Detroit, starts dying everyone is meant to flee to somewhere that has, you know, jobs. Instead they don't and you have a quite intractable policy problem.

But compromising on location is kinda... you've heard the phrase economic refugee? Well, you're saying that economic displaced persons is morally neutral or even a good thing, if you actually think it's a valid response to what San Lumen's talking about. In reality, at best it's a non sequitur. Pointing out that house prices are more affordable in the middle of no-where or a dead city does not transform SL's complaint at all. It doesn't comment on the contention (which could well be false) that buying wherever he's actually talking about is unaffordable because, well, it's a statement about somewhere else. What is true of NYC isn't necessarily true of Chicago, let alone Houston, Detroit, Bismarck or Gary, Indiana... let alone random non urban settlements. At worst, it's motivated whataboutism. Why are you doing it? A land deal you stand to profit from? Internet clout from participating in a dogpile? Who knows? Who cares? It's meaningless hot air that has absolutely nothing meaningful to say about anything.

Unless, you know, your point is that it's a good thing to have economic displaced persons. In which case, yikes.

You are responsible for your own choices. Staying in an economically unviable area is a choice you have to make in blatant disregard of your condition. And the rest of us aren't required to subsidize a remedy. Going or staying is SL's choice, but if he makes one he can't afford, it sure ain't our problem.

So, if a company starts dumping nuclear waste in your garden, that's not our problem?

Like I said, yikes.

Unironically, you live in a society. That society has a very selfish interest in ensuring that it thrives. Get used to it.

Part of that means if people can't afford to live in places or areas become economically unviable or companies start dumping nuclear waste in your garden, those are policy problems... not irrelevant byproducts.

There are other reasons to be concerned, of course.

It is working exactly as it is meant to work.

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

That's a product of a badly, terribly, regulated market that has no resemblance whatsoever to a free market. I wouldn't use the term palace economy, not least because I've never heard it before, but basically this:

There is no free market. We live in a palace economy.
Excessive housing prices are a result of restrictive zoning and building codes, deliberate injection of money into the housing market, and deliberate wage suppression.

Let's see what a palace economy is... yeah that's definitely the wrong term entirely. But what Haganham is describing under the label is it.

I guess you could argue Palace Economy is appropriate given that what we're talking about is a colossal failure of government to maintain the economic garden appropriately, but it's not based on centralised administration (quite the opposite) or the flow of wealth to government (again, quite the opposite). The specific forces involved vary from country to country (e.g. the US didn't sell state homes to occupants en masse in the 1980s, but the UK did) but the general theme is a set of macro regulations by decentralised state actors absolutely obsessed with dictating that everyone live in a very specific way. The resultant regulatory environment robbed individual owners of property rights and handed them over not to the state but arbitrary community actors (businesses, individuals and neighbours), often to be enforced by dreaded covenants.

Yes, it is absolutely true that before 1900 and definitely before 1920 there was a distinct tendency for landed concerns to create enormously unsafe environments, but that doesn't mean the set of policies created in response to those concerns were better. In fact, I'd argue that the urbanism of the laissez faire 19th Century... give or take some Haussmanisation... was on balance superior to what's happening now. Yes you had workhouses and death traps and so on, but from a moral point of view that stuff's only differently bad to asset based retirement and economic displacement and all the other facets of how contemporary urbanism fails the most disavantaged. And, also, we still have the death traps, anyway.

[Ifreann]

It is working exactly as it is meant to work.

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

In the free market, the rich get to control the supply of housing and make it available at a price point which makes them the most money possible. The poor don't matter in the free market.

[GCMG]

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

In the free market, the rich get to control the supply of housing and make it available at a price point which makes them the most money possible.

What country does this describe? Not anywhere that speaks English.

We return again to the point... there is nothing close to resembling a free market in housing, nor even in land.

This system works for small minded home owners, who like static unchanging views. Why does it work for them? Because they are empowered. And no amount of money in the world can eliminate that power because it's enforced by the state and it's put to the singular purpose of dictating where development can happen.

There are some places where, maybe, you could buy every property in a radius of several kilometres and this would let you build what you want in the middle of that site. But that form of "zoning" is very far from universal.

[Ifreann]

In the free market, the rich get to control the supply of housing and make it available at a price point which makes them the most money possible.

What country does this describe? Not anywhere that speaks English.

We return again to the point... there is nothing close to resembling a free market in housing, nor even in land.

This system works for small minded home owners, who like static unchanging views. Why does it work for them? Because they are empowered. And no amount of money in the world can eliminate that power because it's enforced by the state and it's put to the singular purpose of dictating where development can happen.

There are some places where, maybe, you could buy every property in a radius of several kilometres and this would let you build what you want in the middle of that site. But that form of "zoning" is very far from universal.

Very amused at the idea that no amount of money could possibly sway the government.

[GCMG]

What country does this describe? Not anywhere that speaks English.

We return again to the point... there is nothing close to resembling a free market in housing, nor even in land.

This system works for small minded home owners, who like static unchanging views. Why does it work for them? Because they are empowered. And no amount of money in the world can eliminate that power because it's enforced by the state and it's put to the singular purpose of dictating where development can happen.

There are some places where, maybe, you could buy every property in a radius of several kilometres and this would let you build what you want in the middle of that site. But that form of "zoning" is very far from universal.

Very amused at the idea that no amount of money could possibly sway the government.

That you think "the government" is a singular entity here speaks volumes and probably explains why you think there's a free market in the first place.

Sure, some governments theoretically have the powers to legislate away all of the regulations. You can't find a single instance of this ever happening. You probably can find governments creating specific exceptions to normal planning rules operated by lower levels of government, but you can't find them just letting go of this power.

But even if you could find a company buying a government, that's not a free market.

[San Lumen]

Not when only the rich can afford to live in many cities.

In the free market, the rich get to control the supply of housing and make it available at a price point which makes them the most money possible. The poor don't matter in the free market.

This should be changed. The heck with the rich.

[GCMG]

In the free market, the rich get to control the supply of housing and make it available at a price point which makes them the most money possible. The poor don't matter in the free market.

This should be changed. The heck with the rich.

Reality is way ahead of you.

Of course, the system in place doesn't care about the poor either, but the rich do not control the supply of housing, except insofar as they happen to own land.

[Ifreann]

In the free market, the rich get to control the supply of housing and make it available at a price point which makes them the most money possible. The poor don't matter in the free market.

This should be changed. The heck with the rich.

Welcome the the revolution, comrade.

[HISPIDA]

This should be changed. The heck with the rich.

Welcome the the revolution, comrade.

"I never thought I'd revolt side-by-side with a liberal."
"How about side-by-side with a comrade?"
"Aye, I could do that."

[Kernen]

You are responsible for your own choices. Staying in an economically unviable area is a choice you have to make in blatant disregard of your condition. And the rest of us aren't required to subsidize a remedy. Going or staying is SL's choice, but if he makes one he can't afford, it sure ain't our problem.

So, if a company starts dumping nuclear waste in your garden, that's not our problem?

Sounds like a me problem.

Like I said, yikes.

You don't gotta like it.

Unironically, you live in a society. That society has a very selfish interest in ensuring that it thrives. Get used to it.

Interesting how Society needs my cooperation when I am happy to thrive on my own corner of paradise without Society. Nah, I think I'll continue to leave Society hanging.

Part of that means if people can't afford to live in places or areas become economically unviable or companies start dumping nuclear waste in your garden, those are policy problems... not irrelevant byproducts.

They are absolutely irrelevant. Make more money or move.

There are other reasons to be concerned, of course.

Truly not worth wasting a worry.

[GCMG]

So, if a company starts dumping nuclear waste in your garden, that's not our problem?

Sounds like a me problem.

Like I said, yikes.

You don't gotta like it.

Unironically, you live in a society. That society has a very selfish interest in ensuring that it thrives. Get used to it.

Interesting how Society needs my cooperation when I am happy to thrive on my own corner of paradise without Society. Nah, I think I'll continue to leave Society hanging.

Part of that means if people can't afford to live in places or areas become economically unviable or companies start dumping nuclear waste in your garden, those are policy problems... not irrelevant byproducts.

They are absolutely irrelevant. Make more money or move.

There are other reasons to be concerned, of course.

Truly not worth wasting a worry.

Your signature is wrong. You are not lawful. You are chaotic. I suppose if you believe yourself to be evil, you must therefore be chaotic evil.

[Cook-Out]

Thanos

[El Lazaro]

Why uh huh? Our leaders chose to overcomplicate things. My solution is simple but no one thinks to do it.

You should run for office and make it happen.

He did (run for a school board or smth, I forgot), but I guess he’s a quitter who just wants to complain now instead of trying again.

[Haganham]

Push?
Build GOOD commie blocks, prevent capitalist see-you-next-tuesdays from B2Ling them, and the poor will quite gladly move onto those blocks on their own... assuming they're not so poor they can't even afford to do that (or if there is a mountain of red tape to get through first), which could be an issue depending on how the whole thing is handled.

"We will be different"
No, you wont, because you are subject to the same political and economics considerations that caused the first projects to fail. Indeed the factors that caused the failure of public housing are even more severe then they were in the 80's

[Kernen]

Sounds like a me problem.


You don't gotta like it.


Interesting how Society needs my cooperation when I am happy to thrive on my own corner of paradise without Society. Nah, I think I'll continue to leave Society hanging.


They are absolutely irrelevant. Make more money or move.


Truly not worth wasting a worry.

Your signature is wrong. You are not lawful. You are chaotic. I suppose if you believe yourself to be evil, you must therefore be chaotic evil.

A wrong signature is precisely what a CE character would have.

[San Lumen]

So, if a company starts dumping nuclear waste in your garden, that's not our problem?

Sounds like a me problem.

Like I said, yikes.

You don't gotta like it.

Unironically, you live in a society. That society has a very selfish interest in ensuring that it thrives. Get used to it.

Interesting how Society needs my cooperation when I am happy to thrive on my own corner of paradise without Society. Nah, I think I'll continue to leave Society hanging.

Part of that means if people can't afford to live in places or areas become economically unviable or companies start dumping nuclear waste in your garden, those are policy problems... not irrelevant byproducts.

They are absolutely irrelevant. Make more money or move.

There are other reasons to be concerned, of course.

Truly not worth wasting a worry.

Once again you show you care about no one but yourself and prove why everything I proposed is needed and if greedy landlords, the rich and suburbs don’t like it tough.

[Australian rePublic]

Unfortunately, we have to contend with NIMBYism.Here in Sydney, NIMBYism is such a problem that we have morons who move next to the airport then complain about plane noise. That's the level of NIMBYism we're dealing with. And all your ideas are easier said than done. Affordable housing doesn't build itself. Someone has to pay for it.