Public Housing

Jun 17, 17 11:00

Post #1 of 21 (1724 views)

Does "the state" at any level (local, state / county or national) have any responsibility to provide or ensure an available supply of affordable safe housining for low income families in high demand areas.

This question arises in part from londons fire and then a subsequent discussion that segue'd in to a discussion on airbnb and how they are the markets answer to lack of hotel capacity.

Every city i have lived in is dependent to a greater of lesser extent on low (er) wage earners to provide essential services; nurses, teachers, very junior doctors, cleaners, store assistants - the list is endless

A 3 bed house in "central london" (3 miles from the trafalgar square) starts about 0.75-1m for a doer upper, not a pit, but needs tidying up.

Apartments, one beds starts at 300k, 650k for a studio within 1 mile of trafalgar square.

London and Barcelona and other places are putting restrictions on properties listed on airbnb such as no more than 90 days per year without authority approval as it is killing what were previously properties rented to workers thereby shortening the supply of available long term lets and driving up costs.

Whats the right thing to do? Not regulate and allow unlimited airbnb's and fuck the workers and affordable housing?

What say you?

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 12:16

Post #2 of 21 (1683 views)

Government doesn't seem to do a very good job of being a landlord. The Grenfell building was owned by the local council. Many major cities operate subsidized housing buildings/areas that often are poorly maintained and bad tenants don't seem to be evicted. Most decent private landlords have been driven away from the market where I live by laws which make it very difficult to safeguard their property and evict residents that don't pay rent. I would think that high quality public transit systems should be able to solve most of the problems of people being able to get to work. Ie nurses, firefighters etc. In many big cities high taxes are levied on the hotel sector which makes airbnb, vrbo more attractive. Maybe gov't should stick to stuff they can do well like building public transit and locating services where people live (hospitals, schools etc) and the private sector can do the housing. Gov't can always give subsidies to poor people so they can rent from private providers. I am sure there are going to be some hard to serve populations that need exceptions to these ideas/

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 12:28

Post #3 of 21 (1674 views)

Andrewmc wrote:

What say you?

Interesting dilemma. I live in an area with very high property values and big problems with for low-income workers.

The city has also started to crack down on Airbnb, seemingly mostly because of pressure from snooty high-end property owners and hoteliers. A lot of proposed high-density (and therefore usually lower cost) developments are also shot down by complaints from NIMBY property owners.

The city has recently come to grips with reality, a bit, and loosened permitting restrictions on constructions of sublettable "granny flats," which I believe are easier to lease out as long-term rentals.

But, yes, I think any city "master plan" should seek to maintain available housing across a spectrum of economic classes.

Re: Public Housing [len] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 12:41

Post #4 of 21 (1660 views)

Whilst the council owned it they were not the landlord

They sub-contracted the landlords duties to a third party who collected rent and were responsible for all aspects and duties of a landlord.

I live in central london. My brother lives in kent. 52 minutes by train from central london.

House pricea there are still 50% that of london making them basically unaffordable and the annual season ticket is approxkmately 4k sterling. 20% of the average gross uk annual salary of 23k.

What ever they might save on rent is wiped out by travel

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 13:10

Post #5 of 21 (1644 views)

Does "the state" at any level (local, state / county or national) have any responsibility to provide or ensure an available supply of affordable safe housining for low income families in high demand areas.

I don't think anyone has an obligation to provide housing but if they do provide it, they have an obligation to make it safe.

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 13:17

Post #6 of 21 (1640 views)

London and Barcelona and other places are putting restrictions on properties listed on airbnb such as no more than 90 days per year without authority approval as it is killing what were previously properties rented to workers thereby shortening the supply of available long term lets and driving up costs.

Is this the primary reason for restrictions on airbnb and vrbos?

I get that providing available housing to lower income workers may fuel some of the rhetoric, but I suspect the primary reason is lobbying from competition as well as concerns by other homeowners who live in the neighborhood.

There are lots of things I dislike about living with a homeowner's association, but one of the positives is that short term rentals are prohibited. I've seen neighborhoods in the Palm Springs area torn apart by this, and I understand the permanent resident's concerns.

Re: Public Housing [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 13:23

Post #7 of 21 (1634 views)

The 90 day policy has been in place in parts of london as long as i've let property - circa 2006

Buildings can have seperate policies but councils have set the 90 day limit in a number of boroughs

I think the driver for the 90 day limit pre dates airbnb and the vertical construction boom in london and was about maintaining rental accomadation stock

Re: Public Housing [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 13:40

Post #8 of 21 (1623 views)

When the free markets are left to create housing on their own (with limited government interference).....
the end result is often pollution, suburban sprawl, a lack of parks, a lack of bike paths, no public transportation, crappy schools, and few cultural institutions.
This type of crap development is inherently unattractive. It springs up and instantly falls into decay.
The positive is that it IS affordable.

When the government gets involved .... there are parks, bike paths, public transportation etc.
Things that make the area an attractive place to live.....
But ultimately unaffordable.

The better job the urban planners do..... the more unaffordable the housing becomes.

So does affordable public housing make an area "more attractive"?
If it does, it will ironically make the area even more unaffordable.

Perhaps, a cheaper alternative would be for governments to do a worse job making areas attractive in the first place.

So do we want inept government then?

Re: Public Housing [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 14:16

Post #9 of 21 (1605 views)

AlanShearer wrote:

London and Barcelona and other places are putting restrictions on properties listed on airbnb such as no more than 90 days per year without authority approval as it is killing what were previously properties rented to workers thereby shortening the supply of available long term lets and driving up costs.

Is this the primary reason for restrictions on airbnb and vrbos?

I get that providing available housing to lower income workers may fuel some of the rhetoric, but I suspect the primary reason is lobbying from competition as well as concerns by other homeowners who live in the neighborhood.

There are lots of things I dislike about living with a homeowner's association, but one of the positives is that short term rentals are prohibited. I've seen neighborhoods in the Palm Springs area torn apart by this, and I understand the permanent resident's concerns.

It is the one of the most oft CITED reasons by politicians, while I think the true reasons are hotel taxes and in a distant second place, concerns of other owners.

Re: Public Housing [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 14:20

Post #10 of 21 (1598 views)

Velocibuddha wrote:

When the free markets are left to create housing on their own (with limited government interference).....
the end result is often pollution, suburban sprawl, a lack of parks, a lack of bike paths, no public transportation, crappy schools, and few cultural institutions.

Sigh, did you get that from Workers International or Pravda?

Post deleted by Duffy [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 14:48

Post #11 of 21 (1583 views)

Re: Public Housing [Duffy] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 15:03

Post #12 of 21 (1574 views)

Anti-airbnb legislation is a convenient marriage between hotel interests, advocates for poor renters, and NIMBY'S. When you combine those groups you have formidable political pressure.

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 15:25

Post #13 of 21 (1556 views)

Quote:

Does "the state" at any level (local, state / county or national) have any responsibility to provide or ensure an available supply of affordable safe housining for low income families in high demand areas.

Maybe not. Personally, I'd like to see places where the state made no effort whatsoever in order to see the difference between state efforts and nothing.

Quote:

Every city i have lived in is dependent to a greater of lesser extent on low (er) wage earners to provide essential services; nurses, teachers, very junior doctors, cleaners, store assistants - the list is endless

So what? If the city is dependent on workers then I'm sure it will figure out what to do in order to facilitate that. This is kind of like saying "Every restaurant I have eaten in is dependent on food to...", and therefore the state must step in so as to assure food for the future of restaurants. No, the food gets procured just fine, thank you.

Quote:

Whats the right thing to do? Not regulate and allow unlimited airbnb's and fuck the workers and affordable housing?

So, you've slipped airbnb into it. I guess I agree with Duffy and Windy. The anti-airbnb crowd is about protecting hotel revenues and asset values as well as hotel-based tax revenues. It would take more data to make me believe we're talking about something driving the affordable housing issue.

Last edited by: SH: Jun 17, 17 15:30

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 16:18

Post #14 of 21 (1524 views)

I think, the problem with social housing in high cost areas is that everyone wants to live there. Here in Victoria we have the best weather in the country, it's small, safe, beautiful, etc and is consistently ranked one of the best places to live in the world. How the hell is any level of government supposed to provide social housing to everyone that wants to live here? Where does it stop?

One of my issues with new social housing is everything that's built is built like the Taj Mahal. Large, complex builds that cost big bucks and are relative luxury compared to most homes people actually buy. I'm fine with some kind of temporary social housing to help marginalized people... But teachers? Nurses? No fucking way. My wife is a nurse and makes 100k. Teachers make 50-80k. They are protected by powerful unions. No way am I subsidizing those people.

Long Chile was a silly place.

Post deleted by Duffy [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 16:46

Post #15 of 21 (1515 views)

Re: Public Housing [Duffy] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 16:51

Post #16 of 21 (1513 views)

I'm pretty sure your head would explode if you heard some of our councillors arguments against stvr's.

It's so frustrating listening to their nonsense.

Long Chile was a silly place.

Re: Public Housing [windywave] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 18:08

Post #17 of 21 (1478 views)

windywave wrote:

Velocibuddha wrote:

When the free markets are left to create housing on their own (with limited government interference).....
the end result is often pollution, suburban sprawl, a lack of parks, a lack of bike paths, no public transportation, crappy schools, and few cultural institutions.

Sigh, did you get that from Workers International or Pravda?

Seriously... that is all you understood from what I wrote.

Why bother posting anything if you can't read or understand anything?

Being stupid, angry and poor doesn't make your opinions valid ... quite the opposite actually.

Re: Public Housing [Velocibuddha] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 18:53

Post #18 of 21 (1459 views)

Velocibuddha wrote:

windywave wrote:

Velocibuddha wrote:

When the free markets are left to create housing on their own (with limited government interference).....
the end result is often pollution, suburban sprawl, a lack of parks, a lack of bike paths, no public transportation, crappy schools, and few cultural institutions.

Sigh, did you get that from Workers International or Pravda?

Seriously... that is all you understood from what I wrote.

Why bother posting anything if you can't read or understand anything?

Being stupid, angry and poor doesn't make your opinions valid ... quite the opposite actually.

Not dumb, definitely not angry, and first time I've ever been called poor.

Look up Chicago Housing Authority and then get back to me. Even better read about Cabrini-Green, then get on a fucking plane and see what happens when private developers are in charge.

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 17, 17 21:57

Post #19 of 21 (1427 views)

Quote:

Whats the right thing to do? Not regulate and allow unlimited airbnb's and fuck the workers and affordable housing?

You are silly. Of course you have to provide for the poor workers -- how else are the rich going to be serviced? Do you expect the rich to be forced to have live-in servants like the old days? (How tacky.) If there was no affordable housing, they'd have to pay their nannies outrageous sums to commute into the city.

The rich find ways. In NYC the more rich people stick the less rich people who own apartments by imposing the rent control program for the purpose of housing workers. The rich are not stupid. They'll find some way to make it work for their workers.

Unlimited airbnb's are driving up the cost of services for the rich in the cities and making them less rich. Cannot be allowed to happen.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Re: Public Housing [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]

Jun 18, 17 4:29

Post #20 of 21 (1383 views)

4K sterling is about $8000 Cdn. That doesn't fit my definition of affordable public transit. With the Grenfell property I would suspect the council wasn't capable of being an effective landlord and ifso they had a responsibility to employ one. Which they didn't. Doubt there is a perfect solution without substantial public $. If they made the transport cheaper the price of housing would likely go up in Kent. But at least there would be less cars on the road.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Last edited by: len: Jun 18, 17 5:06

Re: Public Housing [len] [ In reply to ]

Jun 18, 17 4:45

Post #21 of 21 (1380 views)

Subsidizing usually has the opposite effect to what is intended.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.