Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Should the U.S. Build More Public Housing?" video.

At the same time, sprawling north american cities and CBDs surrounded by suburbs make it difficult/impractical to place Public housing outside of certain areas, like near malls or regional rail stations, because otherwise you're forcing people with low income to live a completely car dependent life style.
47
@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Central Business District, the typical Noeth American down town/ office building area.
24
@nunyabidness3075 Why are they not realisitic. The average living space has decreased over the last several decades, and adults are living with thier parents at higher rates, so if you're accusing them of demanding to much I don't think thats accurate. Also, your stating people won't want to live in social housing when there are literal waiting lists, and Co-op housing is ranked most enjoyable in New York City. I mean what evidence is there Americans won't live in denser urban housing, if law makers really thought they wouldn't they wouldn't have written laws against it.
11
@mohammedsarker5756 A red Vienna type social deal that eveyone is entiled to a small apartment at reasonable cost is certainly a good way to get this result. Just build enough that anyone can live there, and anyone will.
10
@nunyabidness3075 Which portion of American culture do you think clashes with Singapore's public housing scheme? I assumed it was the idea middle income people willingly living in dense multi family housing.
8
@nunyabidness3075 I think your mistaken about willingness of American culture to change. More importantly, I think you're ignoring the different demographic subcultures that exist in America. The average suburbanite will have a very different view from someone from the inner city, or even thier own children around whats acceptable for a house. And the later groups are the ones more likely to use this housing scheme, so thats particularly relevant.
6
I think we need to be far more flexible in what we provide as public housing. For example, I would like to see publicly opperated dorms with shared kitchens (and potentially washrooms) to provide very low cost rooms offered at a few hundred dollars a month. These would disproportionately be used by students, but it would open up current rentals they occupy. Fannie Mae directly fund construction, and provide loans for coops. Although, tbh, you could solve the majority of the issue with upzoning and shifting taxes off of building value and on to land value to push time property costs and increase return on capital.
6
@Cr3stfa113n While your right on the technical definition of slum requiring impermanent shelters, I don't think OPs use of the term was invalid. After all, we get the term slum-lord from US cities. When referencing North American or Western slums, I think you're referring to a high proportion of renters, deteriorated housing, lower than average sanitary conditions (trash, people using the outdoors as a wash room, needles), a substantial portion of the population engaged in the informal/black market, a high level of policing with a negative effect on the community, and localized alternatives to government services. You also might see little green space, a large number of vice type stores (alcohol, strip clubs, gun stores), a large number of road ways cutting through, and usage to host other activities that are regected by other neighborhoods, including public housing. In many ways, illegal apartments that are put up or space usage from crowded generational housing might even consitute the type of shelter you require. There are also ",suburbs" in places like Detroit where 9/10 houses are abandoned, which some may call a slum. And I think its meaningful to consider that if you move everyone of low income to one area to could create slum conditions. You tie in laws around rights to public housing and another layer of property security along with the realities if American (and other countries) policing systems, with the fact it was likely built in a poorer area and historically have suffered inferior maintenance, and I think outcomes may be less beneficial than spreading out public housing in mixed neighborhoods.
5
@f430ferrari5 The biggest problems with what your saying is you're identifying these people as mentally ill or addicts, but then acting as though allowing them to be homeless will solve that. But clearly they don't think like an average person, because they continue to be homeless. It's not a cure. And it's been well established that providing housing costs less then dealing with the fallout of having homeless people on your streets; city sanitation, the cost of policing, the medical costs of violent altercation, the loss of local property values, etc. People aren't going to become heroine addicts because they get a small apartment, normal people don't chose to be addicts and addicts don't prioritize having a house. It also becomes easier to target services to help people when you know where people will be, to help rehabilitation. And its easier to go through rehabilitation when you have a secure, safe environment, which is why rehabs are built to be tranquil, calm environments. Like you said, addicts become intoxicated and can destroy thier place of living. This is one reason I support public housing, instead of a housing vouchet for people to destory some average house, what is needed is houses with plaster or concrete walls you can't break while drunk, and hard floors you can't spill things on and let rot while stoned. The fact they will be harder on housing means harder housing is needed for them. And again, building this is the less expensive option. I would also say by emphasizing this group (which is the majority), you are ignoring that there are mentally healthy people who end up in this situation. And the people who aren't on the street homeless, but living off a relatives couch or something should also be able to have a home. Since it's clear the private market doesn't build the supply needed to lower prices to bring these people in reach, public housing is the most effective tool to add supply.
4
@LucasDimoveo The only grey area I get squeemish with on that point is should Walmart be allowed to build small apartments for workers on site. I want to say yes but then I remember every book I've ever read
2
Low income doesn't have to mean no consumption or people living in poverty. For example students are by definition low income, but I would like to see dorm style units targetted toward this segment of the population. Providing low cost units would move a great deal of people out of family or other market rentals and increase availability/lower cost. You can also include first floor shops and such given high consumption rates which keeps the area vibrant woth eyes on the street for safety. I think low income towers in general can work as well, but you certainly have to provide transit and green space so that people are able to leave thier box.
1
@nehcooahnait7827 Why is HK housing being connected to a free market issue? Like 40% of people live in public housing, and land available for building housing is tightly controlled by the gov. Also I don't think OP sounds genocidal so much as concerned about social mobility and neighborhood resource availability?
1
@Arjay404 Both Singapore amd Hong Kong offer considerably lower taxes than the US. And a large portion of the "well off" nature of the regions is the affordable transit and housing ensured by the government. Yes the houses are sold, but its at a loss in some cases and the purchase price is spread out over time. The US has had very good experience with social housing based on government build, forms a Co-op, and residents buy in.
1
@Ben-jq5oo The issue is this would cause a financial crisis as people went bankrupt from mortgages with a long term value higher than the house which would be a massive financial sector break down along side the drop in demand causing economic recession. And since houses represent retirement plans, we would face the social security crisis boomers represent even more acutely. I'd say its safer to aim to freeze values, maybe target inflation at 4%, and encourage policies like converting a garage or basement into a rental unit, which increases housing availability while providing an alternative income for owners to replace losses.
1
@nunyabidness3075 I don't think you have "Two totally disparate cultures". There are many similarities, perhaps most importantly, in both cultures people value having a house. In regards to making the problems worse and demands greater, I actually agree given the American system. The solution used is housing vouchers, which literally are just money to pay rent and increase "demand", making the problem of housing prices worse. Which is why the solution is more housing, as singapore does. Along with a Land value tax of some form, again, as singapore does.
1
@nunyabidness3075 Not sure which goverment is yours, but Singapore's government is very involved in housing (80% of pop lives in government built housing), which is how they built a supply to match demand. Also, I guess I'd agree its largely semantic since most cultures now are sedintary, but there are lots of nomadic cultures in history and some even today who don't value housing in the same way. So I think it should count as a cultural element.
1
@confusedcynic9073 I don't know why people bother arguing with you when your user name literally says you're both cynical and confused lol.
1
@jasonreed7522 Even if the housing is nice though, do I want part of the population living and working in a box store with limited ability to go anywhere else? Plus it gives your employer direct control over your housing which is problematic. Its hard to say I'd rather homeless people then a 100% serf society, but I think I'll say it.
1