this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
659 points (96.1% liked)
World News
32518 readers
537 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about instead of giving money to private companies in the hopes that they build housing you give that money to people so they can afford to live in all the housing that already exists.
Why do libs always make this shit more complicated than it needs to be
Because they don't actually support doing things to help people, they just want to give more money to the rich.
Because both just give money to crappy landlords, but with exta steps. Why not just tax the hell out of anyone who owns a building that's empty for longer than reasonable, maybe with an extension if you can prove you're redeveloping an office into housing.
Because there isn't enough housing that already exists.
Sure there is. An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it's intended purpose of having a roof over people's heads.
Pass nationwide legislation that restricts owning housing for commercial purposes beyond a certain threshold, and put rent controls in place pegged to 20% of the median income per town/city. You'd eliminate 95% of homelessness before the ink was dry, massively increase homeownership rates, and be the most popular politician of an era.
It's not even an ebil communist plot, and it'd still be more effective than giving even more money to private developers on a pinky promise they'll build something people can afford, just trust them this time.
If they are renting it out at exorbitant prices, then it's not empty. If it's empty, then they get zero money. You're saying it's both, which makes no sense. Interest rates and property taxes are both high right now. It costs investors money to hold empty property without renting it out. They don't have to wait for people to pay inflated prices. The demand is already there.
I'm all for more regulation, especially for developers and investors. Stiupulate that at least 50% of all new housing built be affordable. Give incentives to rehab old condemned properties. And stop letting AI algorithms determine rental prices.
According the the last census there are 15.1 million houses and apartments sitting empty in the US, roughly 29 properties for every one unhoused person in America.
When I looked it said 13.9 million. But how many of those are habitable? Does that number include Airbnbs? Properties stuck in probate or the foreclosure process? How many of them are in senior communities that don't allow younger people or families? The census data doesn't specify any of that.
That's true, there might only be as few as 15 vacant properties for every person we are currently allowing to freeze to death.
Yes there is. The problem is housing is treated as a commodity instead of a basic human right
Now I don’t know whether to feel owned!
If the average Joe now has more money from the government, wouldn't that drive the property prices up? Polish govt has a program where a mortgage is guaranteed to have 2% interest rate, while in reality the govt pays the difference between the 2% and the actual bank's interest rate, and that just made the prices of housing increase.
The only way not to give money to already rich developers is to have the govt build houses on its own to compete with the developers themselves, which is I assume unthinkable in the US. That would literally be communism
Getting people to live in offices is good because it brings people back to walkable, urban cores.
That would be good. Unfortunately this is more about bailing out rentseekers in urban cores, by enabling the building of unaffordable housing