Buying Airspace?

[Alvecia]

The problem with that is that no matter how affordable you make it, as long as it costs something, anything, some people won't be able to afford it. Because some people have nothing. And there are empty apartments and houses that are already built.

Salt Lake City did that. They took abandoned buildings and renovated them as housing for homeless people in addition to building housing for them. They also included facilities on site to help them with drug addiction and get them jobs. As a result homelessness is pretty much non existent in SLC.

Not the case according to several fairly recent news articles. Homelessness is still an issue, and several homeless camps have been broken up by police lately.
They housed a subset of the homeless population, but not all of them, and don't appear to have done the same for the rest since.

[Novus America]

Under my proposal anyone who truly wants housing and gets some form of housing.

I.e. some people won't get housing because they won't/can't jump through all your hoops.

Just not necessarily a conventional apartment.

A cot in a shelter isn't really "housing".

Did it ever occur to you some people do not even want a home though?

Fair enough, if that's what people want.

Banning housing as a thing with value is not the only way to fix the problem, not the best way, and has never been successfully implemented.

Not banning housing as a thing, banning housing as a commodity. And nothing ever worked before the first time it worked.

And you clearly have not thought through the details and impacts of your dogma.
The details of implementation.

I don't necessarily know the best possible way to organise this. I'm just a silly boi on the internet with big dreams of fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Your proposal is therefore not a valid proposal.
It is a bad idea.

:'(

My hoops will not be that restrictive.
Any reasonable person can easily go through them.
I agree drug use for example should not be entirely banned as it is often easier to rehabilitate people after they have housing.

But I would require they actually show some interest in trying to be responsible.
I do not think that unreasonable.

A cot in s shelter absolutely is housing, not everyone is going to get a McMansion.
Certainly beats freezing on the streets for most people.

And people can get more, but getting more requires showing more effort.
Again not unreasonable.

And your dreams of space communism cannot be called a realistic policy.
Nor is what you propose an actual way to get there, it would be counterproductive.

For fully automated luxury space communism to even theoretically work, we umm need space travel first.
We actually have to reach post scarcity first before everyone (even theoretically) gets everything they want.

You will never see it.

[San Lumen]

Salt Lake City did that. They took abandoned buildings and renovated them as housing for homeless people in addition to building housing for them. They also included facilities on site to help them with drug addiction and get them jobs. As a result homelessness is pretty much non existent in SLC.

Not the case according to several fairly recent news articles. Homelessness is still an issue, and several homeless camps have been broken up by police lately.
They housed a subset of the homeless population, but not all of them, and don't appear to have done the same for the rest since.

I dont understand why

[Alvecia]

Not the case according to several fairly recent news articles. Homelessness is still an issue, and several homeless camps have been broken up by police lately.
They housed a subset of the homeless population, but not all of them, and don't appear to have done the same for the rest since.

I dont understand why

I wouldn't presume to guess

[Free Arabian Nation]

Not the case according to several fairly recent news articles. Homelessness is still an issue, and several homeless camps have been broken up by police lately.
They housed a subset of the homeless population, but not all of them, and don't appear to have done the same for the rest since.

I dont understand why

Because big cities in small areas often have a problem with not having enough space?

[Yusseria]

The problem with that is that no matter how affordable you make it, as long as it costs something, anything, some people won't be able to afford it. Because some people have nothing. And there are empty apartments and houses that are already built.

Salt Lake City did that. They took abandoned buildings and renovated them as housing for homeless people in addition to building housing for them. They also included facilities on site to help them with drug addiction and get them jobs. As a result homelessness is pretty much non existent in SLC.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/24/commentary-salt-lake-countys-looming-crisis-in-unsheltered-homelessness/

[Gun Manufacturers]

If I won the lottery, I'd buy a city block in Manhattan, and build a 1-2 story house on it. Then, I'd sell some of the airspace above my property in order to defer my costs. I wouldn't be living in it full time, either.

The aesthetics of super tall, thin buildings is subjective. I see nothing offensive about the design of these buildings. They're not my style (partially because I dislike heights), but I don't think they're ugly.

[Big Jim P]

No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere, let alone NYC. Can't afford it? Tough shit. Live somewhere else.

[San Lumen]

No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere, let alone NYC. Can't afford it? Tough shit. Live somewhere else.

Why don’t we just make all major cites gated communities that only the rich can afford? It’s more profitable after all

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I can understand frustration with stuff like this, and I think some degree of rent control would be valuable if only on behalf of the low-wage workers every city needs. If a city had only rich people, no one could clean the place.

However, when a city becomes more desirable to live in, it will become disproportionately more livable to the wealthy. This needs to be offset by some extent of exodus, from that city, of everybody else. The advantages will be twofold; helping the poor save on rent, and giving other cities a chance.

[UniversalCommons]

You can get your "Golden Visa" if you spend $500,000 in the United States. Quite a lot of these are investments to become citizens. Some of these towers are subsidized housing for the rich.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/ ... k_gol.html

I don't see them as particularly good investments. Have stricter limits on where money can be invested might help. Less towers might go up like this. Also, we might get some better investments than this.

Affordable housing would be subsidized housing for the poor. So we would subsidize both the rich and the poor to live in Manhattan.

[Big Jim P]

No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere, let alone NYC. Can't afford it? Tough shit. Live somewhere else.

Why don’t we just make all major cites gated communities that only the rich can afford? It’s more profitable after all

Why don't we just quit whining about things we cannot afford?

[Big Jim P]

I can understand frustration with stuff like this, and I think some degree of rent control would be valuable if only on behalf of the low-wage workers every city needs. If a city had only rich people, no one could clean the place.

However, when a city becomes more desirable to live in, it will become disproportionately more livable to the wealthy. This needs to be offset by some extent of exodus, from that city, of everybody else. The advantages will be twofold; helping the poor save on rent, and giving other cities a chance.

That is what suburbs and bedroom cities are for.

[San Lumen]

Why don’t we just make all major cites gated communities that only the rich can afford? It’s more profitable after all

Why don't we just quit whining about things we cannot afford?

Or why don’t we stop pandering to the rich and allowing them to build these ugly towers

[Big Jim P]

Why don't we just quit whining about things we cannot afford?

Or why don’t we stop pandering to the rich and allowing them to build these ugly towers

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not much in a city is beautiful.

[San Lumen]

Or why don’t we stop pandering to the rich and allowing them to build these ugly towers

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not much in a city is beautiful.

A lot is. You simply don’t like cities. I think suburbs are ugly

[Big Jim P]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not much in a city is beautiful.

A lot is. You simply don’t like cities. I think suburbs are ugly

Meh. I am not the one attempting to push my aesthetics on others.

[Novus America]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not much in a city is beautiful.

A lot is. You simply don’t like cities. I think suburbs are ugly

You like cities but hate tall buildings?

But anyways what make your aesthetic views better than the people building those buildings you hate?

[San Lumen]

A lot is. You simply don’t like cities. I think suburbs are ugly

You like cities but hate tall buildings?

But anyways what make your aesthetic views better than the people building those buildings you hate?

These buildings discussed in the OP are a waste of land in a place where its already at a premium

[Grinning Dragon]

You like cities but hate tall buildings?

But anyways what make your aesthetic views better than the people building those buildings you hate?

These buildings discussed in the OP are a waste of land in a place where its already at a premium

That's just like your opinion, man. You see it as a waste others see it as being utilized.

[San Lumen]

These buildings discussed in the OP are a waste of land in a place where its already at a premium

That's just like your opinion, man. You see it as a waste others see it as being utilized.

for rich people who will never occupy it.

[Grinning Dragon]

That's just like your opinion, man. You see it as a waste others see it as being utilized.

for rich people who will never occupy it.

Again, who gives a flying fornication, people do all kinds of wasteful things with money, it's theirs to do with as they see fit.

[San Lumen]

for rich people who will never occupy it.

Again, who gives a flying fornication, people do all kinds of wasteful things with money, it's theirs to do with as they see fit.

at the expense of everyone else and pushing them out of the city

[Grinning Dragon]

Again, who gives a flying fornication, people do all kinds of wasteful things with money, it's theirs to do with as they see fit.

at the expense of everyone else and pushing them out of the city

It can be argued, doing just about anything in life will be at the expense of another or group. Such is life.

[Des-Bal]

The loophole you're talking about isn't one. It's people buying additional airspace exactly as they should and can under the law. I don't see why the height of buildings should be checked by anything other than structural concerns and possibly their interference with air travel. I also don't see why a rich person not owning that territory would mean a poor person would own it instead. If you can't afford to live somehwere live somewhere else.

at the expense of everyone else and pushing them out of the city

Boo fucking hoo. Live somewhere else.