Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FunLife64 t1_is6mgg5 wrote

Reply to comment by relbatnrut in A five-story, 41-unit apartment building will be coming to Providence's West End by cowperthwaite

As someone who lived in a city with affordable units required in nearly all developments - it’s not really a solution. The waiting list is thousands of people who qualify. Having 10 units in a 100 unit building is lovely, but it doesn’t actually put a dent in the “demand”. Providence needs more and more developments to help stabilize the increases.

19

relbatnrut t1_is6o3ss wrote

It's definitely not a solution in and of itself. Though mandating more than 10 would be a good start. Ultimately the city/state/the US as a whole needs to start cutting out the middleman and just start building housing.

1

Soxfan1991 t1_is722qp wrote

The higher the number of affordability requirements the less developments get built. The best way to increase housing and bring rents down is to lower the regulations required to build new developments

4

relbatnrut t1_is7ctkm wrote

Actually it's directly building housing without involving profit seeking.

3

Soxfan1991 t1_is7cx7k wrote

So who does the building?

2

relbatnrut t1_is7d44x wrote

The gubbmint

It's called a public developer and it was a big plank in Bernie's platform, as well as Gonzalo Cuervo's (on a much smaller scale obviously)

Or do you mean who swings the actual hammers?

6

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isal6b0 wrote

I'd love the idea but there'$ a lot of $eriou$ logi$tical i$$ue$ why it i$ not really fea$ible to do that.

1

relbatnrut t1_isazwde wrote

There are places in the world where social housing is common, and affordable, and even desirable. There's no reason it cannot be done, and done right, in America.

It's an issue of political will, plain and simple. If the will can be found, the money can be found.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isb8ns5 wrote

>It's an issue of political will, plain and simple.

Agreed. We could probably stop pretending that Americans want to be Europe. It just seems like such a waste of time to get distracted with shit that simply will not happen anytime remotely soon in the United States.

I prefer looking at solutions and options that have at least a snowball's chance in hell at coming to fruition. Everything beyond that is unproductive white noise.

1

relbatnrut t1_isbjtdz wrote

The idea of preemptively rejecting the best solution is unappealing to me. Many of the most beneficial things our government has done were called crazy and unrealistic before they were implemented. Public libraries, the FLSA, Social Security, Medicare...

Expanding public housing wasn't even a subject of conversation 20 years ago. Now it's a common plank in progressive platforms. I wouldn't be so quick to give up.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_isbnsdc wrote

The problem with relying on something like gaining steam in progressive platforms is that it misses the part where progressives are a pretty goddamn small percentage of the electorate. I wouldn't call their share insignificant, but I'd definitely use the phrase "extremely outnumbered"

1

relbatnrut t1_isd8vzx wrote

The point is that the idea is slowly becoming more mainstream. Cancelling student debt was a pretty fringe position only 5 years ago. By this year it was mainstream enough that our centrist democrat president picked it up and enacted it.

1

Soxfan1991 t1_is7i23n wrote

Does the government have the capabilities of successfully building housing? Have you seen the roads in this state?

0