Should governments build more public housing?

Should governments build more public housing?

  • Yes, they should.

    Votes: 21 44.7%
  • No, they should not.

    Votes: 17 36.2%
  • Undecided.

    Votes: 9 19.1%

  • Total voters
    47

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
Housing has to be affordable. Poor housing has consequences which affect everyone. Whether it is the direct effects of mold and insects to longer term consequences which affect productivity such as stress. The large projects of the past haven't always worked well. (But some were successful.) Requiring that developers put in a certain number of affordable homes in more expensive developments has not worked well.

But public housing was never originally intended to be permanent housing. That changed and when coupled with the neglect of the 1970's - poorly-run, poorly-financed developments marked by areas suffering from middle-class flight, they failed.
And people still argue that over population is not a problem.

I really like Turchin's book "War, Peace, and War". He explains why good times lead to bad times and bad times lead to good times. Perhaps we can resolve the housing problem by extreminating enough people to make housing affordable again, and force employers to pay better wages by creating a lack of available workers? May be a famine, or plague, or war would help. Humans should stop trying to prevent bad things from happening, because the bad leads to the good. :zany:
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
Drug dealers try to make their homes there. Since they don't have official incomes, they get in, and then they try to market their product to youth from broken homes. Such youth are more vulnerable, and a vicious cycle goes from there.
Wow, maybe we can convince these people to sell apples on street corners so they can pay their own rent?
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,363
here
Okay, have you attempted to image how things would be if there were no public housing?

Everywhere cities are announcing a housing crisis. If I had to move today I would be in crisis because there is no other housing I can afford. I would be homeless and because I use a machine that keeps breathing through the night, my ability to function would be seriously compromised.

My understanding of homelessness is that it makes people disfunctional, and puts them in a life threatening situation. I think it is unrealistic to expect homeless people to function, hold jobs and do all the things that are required. Homelessness is extremely harmful to children and a modern civilized country should not turn a blind eye to the problem. Not only is it harmful to the children, but humans keep breeding and such problems increase expotentially.

Say you have a disability income of $741 a month. How many rentals are there for you to choose from in your area?
I said I didn't think the construction of public housing was a good idea, I didn't say that those in need should necessarily go without some assistance.

HUD/U.S.
 

Lord Oda Nobunaga

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
5,635
Ontario, Canada
To clarify I am not saying that there should be no government housing, just that there should not be emphasis on government housing anymore. In places like the USA and Canada. It has been done and has not solved the major problems.
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
I said I didn't think the construction of public housing was a good idea, I didn't say that those in need should necessarily go without some assistance.

HUD/U.S.
This is what I have

Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) - find your own place and use the voucher to pay for all or part of the rent. To apply, contact a public housing agency.
It takes a few years to get this and the waiting list was so long in my area they stopped adding people to it except for a few days out of the year. Now the problem is finding out when it is possible to get on the list and competing with everyone else trying to on the list.

Today I don't know how much help Section 8 can be because once a person is okayed to get housing it must be found in a very short time or a person looses the opportunity. Second, rents are now higher than the amount allowed, so it is next to impossible to find a rental in the range allowed. Third, may the lord help those who have male and female children, because they will not get 3 bedrooms. That means either someone sleeps on the couch, or the girl and boy share the same bedroom. It doesn't matter what age they are. And this is for housing that will become more expensive every year.

The benefit of public housing owned by government is once it is paid for, the cost drops to the cost of maintaince and those living in it will not be priced out it, as is happening to those who have Section 8 as I have. However, in major cities it is now next to impossible to find the land for public housing. The problems that arouse with earlier housing can be reduced by developing small complexes dispersed throughout the city, but this can not happen because in better neighborhoods that land is too costly and as cities become crowded there is no affordable land. The lack of affordable housing will surely get worse as our cities grow expotentially.
 

athena

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
5,032
Eugene, Oregon
To clarify I am not saying that there should be no government housing, just that there should not be emphasis on government housing anymore. In places like the USA and Canada. It has been done and has not solved the major problems.
It solved the problem for me. I have experienced both government owned housing and Section 8 voucher housing and have been extremely thankful for both.

Where I live Saint Vincent de Paul holds the most low income housing. It has a deal with the government that allows them to own the property and get a subsidy from government. I know of no other organization building any kind of low income housing.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,363
here
This is what I have



It takes a few years to get this and the waiting list was so long in my area they stopped adding people to it except for a few days out of the year. Now the problem is finding out when it is possible to get on the list and competing with everyone else trying to on the list.

Today I don't know how much help Section 8 can be because once a person is okayed to get housing it must be found in a very short time or a person looses the opportunity. Second, rents are now higher than the amount allowed, so it is next to impossible to find a rental in the range allowed. Third, may the lord help those who have male and female children, because they will not get 3 bedrooms. That means either someone sleeps on the couch, or the girl and boy share the same bedroom. It doesn't matter what age they are. And this is for housing that will become more expensive every year.

The benefit of public housing owned by government is once it is paid for, the cost drops to the cost of maintaince and those living in it will not be priced out it, as is happening to those who have Section 8 as I have. However, in major cities it is now next to impossible to find the land for public housing. The problems that arouse with earlier housing can be reduced by developing small complexes dispersed throughout the city, but this can not happen because in better neighborhoods that land is too costly and as cities become crowded there is no affordable land. The lack of affordable housing will surely get worse as our cities grow expotentially.
And what about the negative aspects of public housing?

Just because the alternatives to public housing -Section 8/HUD/rent vouchers, etc- aren't without some issues and shortcomings of their own, doesn't mean that more public housing is a good idea.
 
Aug 2016
136
Virginia
After WW2, the US built homes with the assistance of the government. It did this in many ways: direct loans to veterans, tax breaks to homeowners, tax breaks to builders to reduce costs, government backed loans to lenders, helping to keep mortgage rates down by the Fed and so forth. Thus while folks talk about public housing, don't forget that the middle class got help too. The importance of housing was recognized as being in the national interest. If we can't do it like we have, we will have to come up with another way.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
I live in a co-housing co-operative ( 18 flats in two towers and a common building), which did receive some government money when it was built. We management and maintain our buildings, have shared common space and are a community rather than just a bunch of houses. It's suburban, really modern townhouses (smaller than average but large common spaces, common kitchen (people have their own rally kitchens ) lounge, guest rooms, workshop, veggie garden, chooks) rent is pegged to income a bit and it's generally below market rates but not hugely. You have to participate, it's maybe 2-3 hours a week. We raised the money of installed our own solar panels.

It's not for everyone, but it shows what can be done.
 
Jan 2011
1,306
Bangsar
I voted yes. Better have a home than homeless. Especially for families. Ive seen families slept under a bridge in cold nights, sad scene.

Now the problem is bureaucracy and corruption.