this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
675 points (96.2% liked)

World News

31906 readers
558 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Because they don't actually support doing things to help people, they just want to give more money to the rich.

[–] Reverendender 5 points 10 months ago

Now I don’t know whether to feel owned!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Because there isn't enough housing that already exists.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Yes there is. The problem is housing is treated as a commodity instead of a basic human right

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Getting people to live in offices is good because it brings people back to walkable, urban cores.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

That would be good. Unfortunately this is more about bailing out rentseekers in urban cores, by enabling the building of unaffordable housing