| ▲ | atomicnumber3 7 hours ago |
| So, do we just need to nationalize housing construction? If the free market apparently just can't handle it? |
|
| ▲ | matheweis 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s not a free market construction issue at all, it’s a regulatory zoning and permitting issue. Read the article and the peer comments here; Austin’s boom came about from reducing regulatory constraints. Nationally remove the artificial restrictions and the supply side will fix itself. |
| |
| ▲ | shimman 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems like a free market issue, any profit resulting from development is a free market issue. Your profit margins mean worse quality housing for people, and we can see what actual public housing programs look like with Singapore and Vienna where rents can typically cost less than 20% of median salaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuCZMLeWko As renown corporate welfare recipient Bezos would say: "your margin is [our] opportunity." If the only thing stopping development is that rich developers want to make more money, then maybe we should get rid of the rich developers and let the public decide what to build. It couldn't be worse and it'd be 20-60% cheaper too. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > actual public housing programs look like with Singapore and Vienna where rents can typically cost less than 20% of median salaries It could work, but both Singapore and Austria have less than 10 million people amd have a residency system where you just can't come in from the outside and get your subsidized housing in Vienna or Singapore. Singapore doesn't extend subsidized housing to its foreign residents, even permanent residents, and they make up 40% of the population! Vienna is a bit better, as it applies it to all EU citizens who are resident in Austria, but you have to have lived at the same address there for 2 years, you just can't come in and claim one. |
| |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did Austin really have any constraints holding it back? It’s still Texas. People still look at Houston as the canonical example of a city with no artificial constraints. |
|
|
| ▲ | 0_____0 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Public housing projects were and sort of still are a thing. Glass Amendment limits the number of units that can be produced but most areas are well below those limits and the larger issue is that there's no budget or political willpower for social housing projects right now. |
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There wasn't, but given the housing market right now, I don't know that there isn't. | | |
| ▲ | 0_____0 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most blue metros in the US have a bad combination of high labor costs/low labor availability, high regulatory burden, wealthy conservative inhabitants who oppose construction, and working class people who are convinced that construction is gentrification. I've been racking my brain trying ti figure out what it looks like for US cities to pull out of the housing crisis, and I think it's either going to take about a generation, or there will be some catastrophic event (Great Depression II, WWIII) that changes the political landscape so drastically that nobody can really oppose housing anymore. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe? Obviously boom bust cycles that come from a free market are not very efficient. |
|
| ▲ | trollbridge 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We already have that. They're called "housing projects". |
