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.
Because the public sector restricts, limits and makes it impossible for the private sector to 'provide' an adequate supply of affordable housing, when you factor in building codes, zoning laws, land use, etc, etc, etc.
Keep in mind - the private sector could provide an adequate supply of 'affordable housing' but it would not be as safe, spacious or comfortable as what is mandated and considered housing today.
You sound like someone that likes his cake but wants to eat it too.
Allowing the private sector to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, in the absence of any local, state or federal regulations would drive the cost of the housing down, make it more 'affordable' but it would in no way be the type of housing that exists today.
Sometimes the government is a necessary component of what would be a true free mto thaarket in order to prevent the private sector from providing things that might be too affordable.
YES! I believe this country needs to address this issue head on and get sooner rather than later to the sort of housing you project.
Come to nyc . We have affordable housing programs which you need at least a 35-49k income for,we have nyc housing projects,section 8 housing,rent control and rent stabilization.
But what we don't do is take tax payer subsidies and buy people homes.
There are loads of middle class working families who do earn decent livings and can't buy homes so to buy low income people homes or lower the bridge for them would be a real slap in the face to those middle class families.
In high-cost areas (like here) no one is going to build homes (or apartments) that are affordable for those with 2-3 kids making minimum wage. The private sector is in business to make money, not to be a social agency. If they manage to find a great deal on buildable land, they will not pass that on in lower prices, they will enjoy bigger profit. As long as buyers are available to pay $800,000 for a new house or renters are lining up to pay $3,000/month for a nice apartment, why would they reduce their prices? Even without the government regulation for building codes, licenses and permits, labor laws and the rest, I don't think you would see a big drop in prices, just more profit. The only thing that will decrease profits is a glut, way more homes than people needing them. Compare San Francisco to Detroit.
Families with kids don't need builders to create affordable housing, that's what rental subsidies (Section 8) are for. What's stopping builders from creating affordable housing for childless singles? THAT is who needs it now.
Come to nyc . We have affordable housing programs which you need at least a 35-49k income for,we have nyc housing projects,section 8 housing,rent control and rent stabilization.
But what we don't do is take tax payer subsidies and buy people homes.
Got anything in Eltingville, Coney Island, Flushing, or Baychester? (Would I even recognize those neighborhoods today?) Oh wait...you have nothing for burger flippers making minimum wage.
No such thing . Unions and building codes don't allow for it. But what is done here is if a builder wants to put up a development, towns say he has to throw up a few homes which go in to a lottary and sell for about 1/2 but you do need to meet certain minimum requirements to enter the lottery.
Those prices on those homes are worked in to the rest of the development.
But these homes still require you to be quite financially sound to get one in the lottary.
You may get 2 or 3 in a development of 60 or 70 like that.
These homes are still 200-250k and you need a decent income to get one.
Regular price is 400-500k
PLEASE SEND ALL YOUR DISGRUNTLED BUILDERS TO OREGON!!!
The practice you describe - often called inclusionary zoning - is prohibited under Oregon law.
No rent control and no inclusionary zoning mandates.
As i said earlier why should builders waste time building a low end inexpensive home when they can make more money building a regular priced home.
It really does not pay and just the fact there are none doing it tells you there would be code issues as well as financial ones.
Banks wouldn't want the risk either.
As i said they do offer low end choices. They are mobile homes in trailer parks..
Millions of folks have done that.
Pay more to get less. The private sector has chosen to redistribute wealth upward. Now do you see why some people want to stick government's nose into the tent?
Your option is a mobile home in a trailer park which is what poor folks usually do when there are no options.
But you want to be rewarded for your failure by living more upscale then that.
The reality is you are chasing a ghost.
I have a dream, that one day, the ability of our children to live in safe, decent neighborhoods, will be based not on the content of their pocketbook but on the content of their character.
You may as well have started that post with once upon a time.
Because that is all it is going to be ,a dream. America does not reward financial failure in individuals.
Either do something about it or suffer the consequences.
Anyway i wasted enough time with this stuff.
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.
