That is a good idea that requires careful attention to make sure it has near-perfect execution. Because we do that, and they are called 'the projects'.

▲

adrianN 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm under the impression that more supply=lower rents, even if execution is not perfect, but I'm not an economist.

▲

sgc 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure if that's all you care about, it will do that. At the price of making people's lives miserable due to substandard housing if it's done wrong. I said it's a good idea, let's just make sure we do it right.

	▲	autoexec 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> At the price of making people's lives miserable due to substandard housing if it's done wrong. I'm curious to see how Austin will do in the near future by that same metric. More people can afford a place that will let them pay rent, although now at least some of those people will be living in someone else's basement or garage. These may not be very nice places to live, but they may be all some people can afford. They've also removed the regulation requiring a second way out of a burning 5 story building. Austin faces an increasing number of red flag warnings and has the 5th highest wildfire risk in the US. It remains to be seen what removing that second exit route will cost in the charred corpses of families. Austin is also cutting corners on permitting which is great news if that was all needless red tape that can be rushed or skipped without cost, but if new apartments built today are (or soon become) deathtraps due to lax code enforcement that could be a major problem down the road. Austin has already lowered rents which is great, but hopefully it was also done right and it doesn't result in more people being forced into substandard housing or increased deaths. As long as it doesn't, other cities should look into trying some of the same things Austin has done.
	▲	CalRobert 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Is substandard housing worse than no housing?

▲

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not really? "The projects" are a consequence of a very specific approach to government housing construction.

There's an alternative approach which mirrors the public healthcare concept of "public option". Instead of restricting government housing to means tested individuals or specific low income populations, you develop a public competitor to drive prices down and to eat costs in regions where housing is needed but the economics just don't make sense yet.

i.e. the US Postal Service model. It works extraordinarily well as long as you don't repeatedly capture and handicap the org/agency (like has been done to the USPS). And even with the USPS despite being severely handicapped it still provides immense value by driving prices down while maintaining the essential service of last mile delivery.

A similar approach could be envisioned for a public construction agency.

	▲	7speter 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Any program created by the US government can be captured and handicapped, like has been done to the USPS. Also, the Postmaster General was on Capitol Hill today saying how this time next year the service won’t be able to afford delivering to all addresses in the US.

▲

idiotsecant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are multiple city and state housing facilities in my area that are perfectly fine. They are not huge or luxurious but they're safe, clean, and well maintained.

When the options ar homelessness or subsidized housing, subsidized housing is absolutely the best option, which is backed up by decades of data.

	▲	hunterpayne 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"When the options ar homelessness or subsidized housing, subsidized housing is absolutely the best option, which is backed up by decades of data." Not quite. That's only true if you are housing people who ended up homeless due to bankruptcy or similar reasons (lost jobs, medical issues, etc). If you have people who are homeless due to sever addiction, you just end up with more OD deaths. You have similar issues with people with sever mental illness. The homeless are not a monolith and different parts of the population need different solution unless you really really don't give a f*ck about them.

▲

naravara 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve seen some housing projects around my city that are actually quite nice. They didn’t end up being shabby because they were built poorly. They were shabby because they were reserved for the very poor and, consequently, became extreme concentrations of poverty and crime. This makes people unwilling to invest in maintenance and continued improvement of their homes.

If the government just went on a building binge of housing to be sold at market rate, or even set an upper bound before qualifying to buy them at a middle class income, it’d work out fine. That’s basically how Singapore does it only they couple it with somewhat aggressive policies to encourage people to downsize their living situations once they’re empty nesting to free up family dwellings for people with families. We probably wouldn’t need to do that second part since we’re not a claustrophobic island, and could just count on natural turnover.