I haven’t said anything counter to this. It’s a ‘will of the voter’ problem.
Agreed. As I’ve agreed a dozen times above. I think they’re selfish for not wanting NYC style industrialization, but I also don’t blame them for feeling that way.
It doesn’t seem ironic to me, I haven’t seen those specific rich people complaining about inequality. I don’t follow exactly who’s bitching and who didn’t want that shit from the start.
Is zoning run by the government or the market? If the zoning changed to allow a massive housing building projects do you think that it wouldn’t happen under such demand?
They want to keep the ilk out and artificially inflate property values. Zoning is the reason you see such income disparities. And zoning is the government.
The zoning already does allow those multifamily projects… Thats what I’m saying. Yet I don’t see supply outpacing demand.
Of course it’s not. You can’t outpace that level of demand without an insane level of production. Production that has never been seen in the history of America.
While it’s sexy to blame the Dems for everything, even in the state with the 3rd highest amount of trumpers (arguably first given how Republicans tend to stay home in blue dominated states and vice versa), I really miss the days when understanding economic principles was a pillar of the GOP.
Nowadays we just see the right screaming about anti free market tactics in California, while they’re busy putting the agricultural and steel industry on life support from an unwinnable trade war.
I don’t know what artificial in this context means. Artificial implies unnatural and property value is not a product of nature.
It’s the residents and voters who are influenced by (ex. they care about resale value) and influence the market (ex. based on how much they are willing to pay to live in a particular neighborhood).
I don’t see why a rich person who cares about poorer people but doesn’t want low income housing in his neighborhood, for a variety of valid reasons, is somehow ironic. Affordable housing doesn’t address all of the issues that come with affordable housing. And it’s those issues that people don’t want in their neighborhoods and children’s schools.
Hey now entrepreneurs are just dying to build a bunch of new housing and sell it on the cheap to poor people. What could possibly go wrong?
if the margin and conditions are right, sure. Entrepreneurs aren’t monolithic and have other motivators other than that profit margin. But yes, profits are a motivator…
Sure they have other motives but do we have any evidence to suggest they would solve the issue? If so what are they waiting for?
Seems like quite a risk to build new housing with the hopes that very poor people will be profitable. Not saying it is impossible merely do we have evidence of this happening on a large scale in modern times?
But isn’t affordable housing pretty much government subsidized housing? There’s a reason why these people can’t afford housing in the first place. Maybe you can’t buy that expensive mansion with guest house and tennis courts, but you can still buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood with good schools without being a millionaire. You might be priced out of certain towns or neighborhoods but no one has the right to live next to Will Smith.
For you maybe. To some others who see value in it, maybe not. You’re missing the point I’m making - YOU are not the one, if you were an entrepreneur, who is willing to assume the risk. There are other entrepreneurs who MAY assume the risk.
That’s all I’m saying - entrepreneurs ARE NOT a monolith and do not all share the exact same motivators to take on projects, whatever that may be
I understand what you’re saying but I believe the majority of them feel like me. I’m not saying no one would take the risk but is this happening on a wide scale? Maybe it is and I don’t know.
I get that they aren’t all the same however I believe it is unlikely to happen on a large scale for the reasons I mentioned. Not that it’s impossible.
IME, yes, it is govt subsidized housing.
The people we are talking about, homeless, are typically not homeless because they are simply “down on their luck”. They are typically homeless because of drugs/alcohol, psych issues, not wanting to live in society, etc. These people, even if given houses and a job, will likely not be able to keep them because of the issues they have, and the life skills they lack. Hence all the social programs to help them learn job skills, and to help them cleanup. Problem is, you have to REALLY BADLY want to get clean and learn job skills, and one small slipup sets them back years. It’s a vicious cycle.
Housing them is 100% charity. Maintaining those buildings will be 100% charity. What makes more financial sense: build a new building with 25 units on a single lot for $5 million, and operate/maintain for $50k/year (likely much more due to addicts and folks with severe mental health issues living there), or spending $200k per year on rehab, job training and food programs to help hundreds? Now, how many local chairity organizations have that kind of money to dish out?
Why do you believe, specifically, the majority of them? By them, are you referencing all entrepreneurs? Entrepreneurs who operate in the construction market? or some other entrepreneur group operating in an even more niche market?
This is a fantastic question I wish I had the answer to. I agree the phenomenon happens. I do not know the impact nor the occurrence rate of the inverse (i.e. low income housing going up) … Nor do I know, for those marginal builders (this is who we’re talking about I presume) who find the barriers to entry on these specific type of projects to be too high or some other type of bureaucratic road blocks preventing them from breaking ground.
It seems we agree there are people who, theoretically, be willing to start on these kind of projects, I wonder what marginal conditions would need to be deregulated that would remove barriers to entry in the various areas in most need of these types of projects and entrepreneurs…
I missed where you mentioned these reasons … care to link or provide a cliff’s notes?
I believe the majority would look at the investment required plus the odds of running into payment problems when you’re dealing with homeless or people in extreme poverty.
Maybe it’s that simple. But not all regulations are bad. A lot of them protect people. I would think we would want a new housing area to give people those protections. My guess is this isn’t the only reason why it’s not more common. I wonder if subsidies are available for this type of thing.
I don’t think a lot of people say this: I have an idea to make money. It’s going to require a significant amount of money to start. Then I will need to rely on people in extreme poverty to pay me back over time.
Again not saying no one would do this but I have my doubts about a lot of people doing it.
This shows the scope, it doesn’t propose solutions. WOW
Cliff notes? I know most people don’t know the scale of the Skid Row situation there, but what else does it talk about? (At work, not gonna watch it).
That’s is cliff notes. It’s a 6 minute video.
The question I lay before you, if it’s not the fault of the local government’s, who’s fault is it? This is not happening everywhere.
Damn guvment forcing these people onto the streets. I herd even forcing em to shit in the streets
Assuming it is the fault of the local govt, what specifically did they do to cause the problem, and what can be done to solve it?