Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, the areas that do depreciate to levels which are "affordable," whatever that means for a given area, are not the areas with 300 year homes. If homes are worth maintaining, due to market values, it is because the area is valuable enough that the people who live in them generally have enough disposable income to do so and, one can assume, would expect a profit on the final sale.
There are plenty of areas with 100-150 year old homes, structurally sound but in disrepair, in large portions of the Eastern United States.
While I understand your point, it's often a helluva lot cheaper to offer grants to fix up dilapidated rowhouses than it is to knock them down and build something similar in the same place. As in, tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands per unit. Sure the neighborhood as a whole might not improve to the level of gentrifying within the lifetime of the occupier, but if the money is offered as a government grant, who cares? The same amount of money to build a housing project could probably rehab 5-10 times as many historic structures (hopefully not eliminating any original features in the process, in case the neighborhood ever did become desirable again).
Therefore, it seems to me the cheapest way to deal with low-income housing, above and beyond Section 8, is to ensure that as much of the historic housing stock as possible remains intact and rehabbed. Maybe not to gentrified standards, but high enough standards that brick houses which have seen 150 years of use will easily see another 150.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
But, the areas that do depreciate to levels which are "affordable," whatever that means for a given area, are not the areas with 300 year homes. If homes are worth maintaining, due to market values, it is because the area is valuable enough that the people who live in them generally have enough disposable income to do so and, one can assume, would expect a profit on the final sale.
I should have been more clear and said "If homes are worth maintaining by the owner...." This is different than the homes being worth maintaining at a minimum level to society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
There are plenty of areas with 100-150 year old homes, structurally sound but in disrepair, in large portions of the Eastern United States.
While I understand your point, it's often a helluva lot cheaper to offer grants to fix up dilapidated rowhouses than it is to knock them down and build something similar in the same place. As in, tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands per unit. Sure the neighborhood as a whole might not improve to the level of gentrifying within the lifetime of the occupier, but if the money is offered as a government grant, who cares? The same amount of money to build a housing project could probably rehab 5-10 times as many historic structures (hopefully not eliminating any original features in the process, in case the neighborhood ever did become desirable again).
First, I'd take issue with how you use "structurally sound." I doubt that many of the homes which S8 individuals live are as up to code as the phrase "structurally sound" would imply. In the SF Bay Area, even homes that are only 40 years old and are selling barely below market rates may have serious structural issues and code infractions.
Second, by providing grants, you have no guarantee about bang-for-your-buck, which arises from an old problem:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
You run into the issue that people make suboptimal economic choices.
There's little way of guaranteeing that construction would be up to code and that the money wouldn't be spent on other activities without strict government oversight.
Not to mention, by providing grants, you'd run against individuals who oppose "government handouts," no matter the spillover benefits to the neighborhood and society.
There are plenty of areas with 100-150 year old homes, structurally sound but in disrepair, in large portions of the Eastern United States.
While I understand your point, it's often a helluva lot cheaper to offer grants to fix up dilapidated rowhouses than it is to knock them down and build something similar in the same place. As in, tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands per unit. Sure the neighborhood as a whole might not improve to the level of gentrifying within the lifetime of the occupier, but if the money is offered as a government grant, who cares? The same amount of money to build a housing project could probably rehab 5-10 times as many historic structures (hopefully not eliminating any original features in the process, in case the neighborhood ever did become desirable again).
I heartily agree, in places where there is existing historic housing stock. The problem arises in many places where the existing historic housing stock has already been destroyed--there is not enough existing housing stock to house people simply by repairing what is there. In many ways, this is a legacy of mid-century redevelopment, which only happened because the requirements to replace existing housing were removed, or were ignored because of loopholes in redevelopment law that only required replacement housing for "families" (single individuals were not counted as families) or replacement of housing not considered permanent housing (like residential hotels and boarding houses.) In many cases, these "obsolete" housing types were demolished to make way for commercial projects, and the same fiscal conservatives who beat their breast about "government handouts" and "creeping socialism" were all in favor of redevelopment, as long as they were on the receiving end of the handout.
Redevelopment is currently a moot point in California--all of the state's redevelopment agencies have been abolished, so only the projects currently entitled will get built and then there won't be anymore. But it certainly won't mean the end of low-income housing: it will simply replace an overly powerful and heavily-overutilized tool with other tools, and new tools will be developed. The status quo is the free-market assumption that homeless people are all rational actors who willingly choose to be homeless, thus homelessness isn't a problem--and the unspoken assumption that the presence of homeless people serves as a reminder to the working poor and even the middle class as to what can happen to them if they step out of line. Of course, the social and economic costs of homelessness are actually greater than simply providing housing--but they would no longer serve the important economic purpose of scaring the heck out of the middle class, and helping keep central cities unattractive to people of means.
Maybe another way to think about it is: What is the result if there is insufficient low-income housing? What are the long-term costs of homelessness? In my experience, dealing with the social problems caused by a lack of housing exceed the costs of providing that housing.
Or (some of) the poor will leave to go elsewhere, which to some may be a feature not a bug.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
