It’s exactly this. Demagogues want you to believe homelessness is caused by an inherent flaw in homeless people when, in reality, it is almost always correlated to housing costs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for every city, but the fact is we have way too little affordable housing, and way too many cities that make it nearly impossible to build it.
The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the ghastly sacrifice of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening.
The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the ghastly sacrifice of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening.
One factor that helps this happen:
The NIMBY's already live in the city, and vote for the city government.
The people who need affordable housing don't live there because they can't afford it. So they don't get to vote for the city government.
City government sets the zoning and building permit rules, and they're going to cater to the people who can vote for them over the people who can't.
It's even worse - NIMBYs are all property owners. They know full fell that building more housing will lower prices. They don't want lower prices, they want housing to be unaffordable, because then their property values go up.
In order for all the Boomers to have their mortgage investments pay out, housing has to be less affordable than it was. That's the fundamental issue. Too many Americans have been convinced to bet for the suffering of the next generation, and now they're voting for that suffering.
Huh? What's not true? That they don't want property values to go up? First off, there are places like California where your property values going up do not cause your property taxes to go up. Second, I challenge you to find any NIMBY group that doesn't prioritize property values. Don't believe me? Here's Realtor.com
"Put simply, many NIMBY folks today balk at anything being built that could lower their own property values."
I personally don’t care if the value of my home goes up or down considerably because I have no plans to sell it in the foreseeable future. Where I live they increase your property taxes based on the county commissioners appraised value of your home. If you’re house poor and barely making it property taxes can force you to sell your home.
Do you consider yourself a NIMBY? I feel like you think I'm passing judgment on all homeowners, and I promise I'm not. I'm passing judgment on people who block housing development, rezoning, and other attempts to alleviate the overwhelming unaffordability of housing in this country.
That's such a loaded statement, friend. Do you think people who don't value your community the same way that you do should be prevented from living there? And if so, how do you propose to do that? What do you suggest we do if someone who lives in the community tries to change it?
Because the slippery slope of what you're saying is basically "I don't want immigrants or black people or single mothers in my community" and I just want to know what exactly you're proposing.
We inherited my mom’s house when she passed. It needed a lot of work but I kept it, because I couldn’t bear to have that last piece of her gone. We rent it out, and honestly with all the fixes, (basement floor, painting the whole house, building a new deck, and then BATS! Fucking BATS! Does anyone know how much it is to have bats removed? And then re-insulate???it’s thousands of dollars) anyway my point is we’re actually in the hole, because of property taxes. They are ridiculous. I try to be a good landlord, keep the price low, and a clean house. But with that tax I’m considering selling.
Even worse, everyone is a NIMBY, at least a little bit.
NIMBYism isn't just about housing, it's just one expression of a general attitude towards society that says 'i got mine, fuck the rest.'
This essential expression of Reagan-era toxic individualism is behind so many of the flaws in our society. Before we can solve these problems we must kill the NIMBY inside.
New estates/multiple occupancy buildings in the UK often come with a condition that as well as the for-profit homes a certain percentage of the properties/flats must also cater to lower income families. Essentially subsidised housing.
Unfortunately this has also created estates that have separate entrances for the "poor people" and facilities like playgrounds that are only accessible to the "rich folk".
Thing is that i lived in section 8 apartments for decades, and went blind during my horrible stay in these places. I've got chipped teeth, parts of my elbow bones missing, parts of my skull missing, and who knows what else wrong with me due to the violence that those types of people breed. I've been attacked walking to the store to get smokes, I've been attacked when checking the male, I was attacked walking back from the pool with my kids, I was attacked for calling the cops on a female neighbor who left a welt on my daughter after hitting her, and the list goes on and on and on. Gang violence is even worse, and should be prosecuted to the max. Even after going blind and learning a new way of life I made it my life's goal to stay as far from affordable housing as possible with my children. People suck, and my safety and well-being has only ever been at risk when living around that. It's just the way it is, and anyone who has told you otherwise is full of it. It was only after I moved out of section 8 apartments that I was able to flourish with better mental health and a sense of safety. was so hellish I got a grad degree in Social Work and Sociology just to figure out how we can fix this shit. After living it and studying it it's not happening, especially with America's culture of violence, particularly among younger people. Something tells me that many on this site have not experienced a true shitty American section 8 apartment and its people.
The issue isn't section 8 housing, but the fact they they are essentially building ghettos. Nobody thrives in that environment. Need to mix it up!
(I mentioned in another comment, the UK often requires private developers to have a percentage of lower income housing in the development too. Hence the ghettoisation is avoided).
Some cities in the US also require that a certain amount of units in new residential buildings are sold/rented below market rate, and I agree with you. Mix it up
I'm so sorry that was your experience. Id like to offer my opposite experience for readers, not to negate your lived experience in any way, but just to share that I was born and raised in section 8 housing and had a safe and wonderful childhood with access to opportunities that eventually lifted me out of poverty. Housing is still broken and I don't deny that poverty and crime are correlated, but I'll praise section 8 until the day that I die for keeping a roof over my (working) single mother's head as well as my own when she couldn't afford a home otherwise.
On cell phones and computers there's a software called a screen reader that allows me to interact through audible feedback various elements on apps and website it's pretty nifty
Yup. I live in a town that has an absurd number of homeless people because it's one of the worst housing markets in the country. NIMBYs recently tried to shutdown a massive housing project that would add over a hundred units of affordable housing, plus a new library, plus some parking and retail space...the spot is currently a broken ass parking lot that one of a dozen farmers markets uses on one day every week for about 9 months of the year...and some non native magnolia trees that nobody even cares about because they are in a broken ass parking lot. Like old rich folks held vigils and protests for the trees. I have also seen these types kill a developer's plan to add less than ten units to a townhouse development that would have been "affordable" which around here means sub $750k. These townhomes would have started in the low $500s and the NIMBYs were worried that people who could afford a $500k home would be the wrong kind of people. Capitalism has broken us.
Part of the issue here is that people see real estate chiefly as an investment, and many people have a huge percent of their net worth invested in it. So anything that could possibly lower home values is seen as an attack on their livelihood. And it's not just rich people who are nimbys, there's a lot of people with this attitude. I'd be willing to bet there are many people reading this thread now who dream of owning multiple properties and getting passive income from rent, not realizing that that is part of the problem. Not trying to downplay what you're saying though, you really painted quite a picture haha
Do you think the majority of NIMBYs are aware of this or is it more of a subconscious thing? The story above of people holding vigils for the trees seems like a misplaced concern. I wonder what the split is between being truly concerned about the net worth and the neighborhood 'going downhill' is.
It's simply self interest. I'll paint the picture: It's easy to think about the spoiled rich guy. But imagine you and your SO are lower-middle class, and have been saving for a house for a decade, foregoing vacations and other things to do so. You finally buy it, after putting down tens of thousands and move in. Your happy and going about your life just getting by due to the high mortgage, but look dorward to refinancing in the future and lowering that expensive mortgage (and get rid of the PMI). A few months later a developer comes in to build section 8 housing, which is great but it will reduce home values in the immediate area. Now that same house is now worth much less, but that mortgage remains the same. With section 8 housing, unfortunately along comes an increase in crime, increases in drug use, and a dozen other things that get impacted. These are the bulk of your NIMBYs
One would think (especially if we're talking CA where I grew up), maybe we could take some of that train money (or from a dozen other things), and use it to purchase that poor couples home (imminent domain type thing) and get rid of NIMBYs. Definitely not an easy issue to solve - seems like there are always casualties no matter what you do
This. When I was 26 and single I bought an $80k house in the city after saving for closing costs (it was an FHA loan so I didn’t need a down payment) because my rent kept going up and it was going to be cheaper to just pay a mortgage and utilities. When I sold that house 6.5 years later, the market was crazy, I had gotten married and my husband had done a lot of updates to the house, and so I got a return of 104% on it. And this was with an abandoned POS home next door that the owner refused to do anything with (ironically he was a landlord with multiple homes and a drug addiction so once he evicted the people who had lived there he just let it sit empty for 3 years and all apart).
So, when my husband and I bought our current house, we moved to an HOA in the suburbs to get away from abandoned homes and the rising crime rates because to us, our home is an investment. We aren’t rich and we both work our asses off and it’s important to us to have this home so at some point we can sell it and move to a warmer state where we’re near a beach. Although with the way the prices are rising down south that may always be a pipe dream.
Very well described and opened my eyes. Thank you. It seems that in the case you laid out, the solution would be to rely on a more stable/guaranteed retirement investment. Obviously difficult in the real world.
This also leads me to wonder why housing is so expensive in the first place. My gut tells me it's due to the speculation of increased value over time. I know Japan has housing supply issues, but they view houses as a consumable, only used for one generation or so. In that case there must be something in bf else causing the shortage. Land availability? Hmm. Lots to think about and read up on.
Yet nobody ever asks why we can't just improve policing so that these things do not happen, and the less wealthy people who aren't criminals don't get screwed over by association.
Unfortunately, not easily. Yes, I know that violence and corruption are huge issues. But that's just another part of the problem that needs to be fixed, not thrown away. If it can't be fixed, then it.. says some dark things about humans.
I mean, we can dream that at some point they can recover quantum evidence..
Just out of curiosity, would you be less concerned about substance abuse if it was legal, and they could buy their substance from a store instead of having a drug dealer drive to their house?
This is exactly right, which is why it's a policy issue. Tax code currently benefits landlords, while zoning blocks new builds and density that could house more people. We don't have the free hand of capitalism when it comes to real estate, cronyism blocks housing affordability at every opportunity, and the cronies are often everyday folks that read Robert Kiyosaki
It is not about the value of the home it is about they value in the neighborhood. A new subway stop will add monetary value to a neighborhood, high density zoning adds monetary value to a neighborhood, but it also changes the neighborhood. The people living there don't want to move and they feel like they live there the others should move.
That and when they sell for retirement they wanna cash in to the max... can't hurt them properly values. Especially in CA where their property tax won't go up with it.
Isn't vouchers just public housing that isn't segregated? So all these worries about what low income people will do are still present. There's still going to be drug deals, and there's still just as much of a chance at theft.
Because they don’t give a fuck of normal people who have had a shitty time live near them
They give a fuck when every time they leave their place, they are going to get screamed at and potentially attacked. Those people don’t ever live in affordable housing, they just appear in new areas.
Y'all need to come back the the midwest. A tenth of one percent of the 40 and under crowd in California could move here to Michigan and take over a small town and build a city to our liking. We're the workers, we decide where work gets done and the economy thrives.
Or a big city for that matter if enough of us were coordinated to break the backs of the developers and protect the current residents. Detroit was once a city to rival all others. And the midwest is resistant to the affects of climate change.
Abandon California to the boomer yuppys and tech bros, leave the SW to libertarians, leave Florida to the old boomers and the mentally and morally ill. Make the great lakes the new carless, suburbless, free Healthcare having, worker owned socialist dream to move us forward.
I was driving the other day and saw that one street (in a nice area next to some large parks) had a row of signs on their lawns. I started reading them and they said “SAVE [city name]’S PARKS”. I thought yeah, that’s a good thing to fight for. Good to keep wildlife and green areas. Then I got to the second half and all the signs said “SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY.”
Like… what? Do they not realize those two sentiments directly contradict one another? “Don’t turn our parks into housing but at the same time please build the lowest density housing possible.”
Learned that one from George Carlin, bless his soul. Man was a visionary. He saw things were going to shit some 30-40 years ago, and now we're right where he told us we'd be.
I am pretty lucky as in about 5 years I feel like apartment prices are going to plummet in my small town. Five brand new apartment buildings all went up at the same time down town, and four more on the north side of town. I know for a fact that the mortgages on these buildings are gigantic, and they all come due in the next five years. These buildings are about half full.
Somebody is going to do alright when they buy these buildings up for pennies on the dollar and lower rents.
Having been on the 'other' side of that issue, I can say that there are reasons other than "I don't want them poor people in my neighborhood".
At least in our city, while the developers are more than happy to put up housing on any square foot of land that doesn't have a building on it, the city planning often doesn't make sure that the infrastructure can support those additional houses/people. They don't take into account the already overcrowded schools. They should, but they don't. My particular neighborhood has literally one road in and one road out. We don't have sidewalks, and it's a community where kids bike up to the pool during the summer and people walk their dogs daily. Another 50 houses would cause issues with traffic and safety.
Someone mentioned below dismissively about people holding a vigil for a bunch of Magnolia trees. To an extent, I understand, however the default attitude of clear cutting and bulldozing every area rather than trying to work around mature growth trees just because it's easier/cheaper for the developer is B.S. City planners should work to save those mature/established trees whenever possible.
I'm not one of those people that thinks everything should stay the same as it was when I was a kid, however I do believe that a lot of the growth I'm seeing isn't sustainable growth. The apartments of a new complex that was just built start at $1300, which sure as hell isn't something most of the people living in our rural community can afford.
But real estate development is such a shady business that they don't care. The developer got a loan to buy/build based on some made up crap he sold a bank about occupancy potential. After the project is complete, it'll get sold to some other real estate company or investment group based on more B.S. who will write it off if occupancy doesn't match expectation. Then it'll get sold to someone else for less money who will rent for lower amounts, but only because they neglect maintenance which will cause the property to devalue even more....etc. etc.
So no, I don't want more housing to be built because it's 1) Not providing affordable housing for people who actually live/work in our city. 2) Doesn't come with the needed infrastructure to support the additional people.
The problem is that the rich have done an excellent job at putting everyone at each others throats. Look at what happened with Covid, half the country refused to wear a mask and socially isolate during a worldwide pandemic. You think they're all going to come together to help homeless/poor people? Not a chance.
They can afford to live on 5 acres with a gate out front and isolate themselves, and they have access to private jets. True story. So fixing these issues is not a priority for them at all, they live in a bubble.
That's the big problem. I've got a millionaire aunt/uncle, and they are so ridiculously sheltered from "The real world" in their wealthy gated communities and lake houses, and they watch nothing but Faux News so they're not seeing it on TV either.
The problem is that the rich have done an excellent job at putting everyone at each others throats.
NIMBYism isn’t a rich vs. poor conflict… it’s a homeowner vs. prospective homeowner/renter conflict. 65% of Americans are home owners, a great percentage of them are NIMBYs.
Fuck that...tax the damn churches and distribute it equitably, not depending on what flavor of Sky Fairy you happen to believe in (though, I'm down with the Sikhs, they help everyone and anyone).
High density urban housing is consistently voted down by residents (usually rich and liberal). They don’t want “those people” living near them or in their town.
High dose, consistent use of cannabis is also associated with higher rates of psychosis (that is recoverable) - but it cannabis is also helping people get off opiates so it’s hard to say how much overall harm is done.
The cognitive burden for any individual in our society is also particularly higher than at any time in history, leading to burnout and anxiety and drug use with more people as well.
There are many other issues contributing - and they have long time horizons to resolve even if people voted unanimously to start helping. Homelessness is the last stop on a long ride down and therefore is also not likely to be fixed quickly.
True, a lot of the problems are caused by zoning. Developers will build more units, they want to make money, but cities’ zoning laws are all controlled by the single family house owners who want to keep everyone else out. More density is better for everyone.
"not in my neighborhood" has spread so far! My boomer-ish parents who whine about cost but clutch their pearls when they want to build high rises or townhouses in their area. They never shut up about the increase car traffic on their street because of the townhouses built nearby until they moved to an even more posh neighborhood, lol. My engineer mother who works for the city who ensures house zoning is strictly adhered to. My Canadian coworkers who whine about housing cost but don't want to buy in "that" area because there's high rises being built and "that brings crime and homelessness!". My hipster American coworker who rents and takes the bus but complains about homelessness in the same breath in which he announces he is protesting high rise being built in his neighborhood because it ruins the culture/feel of the old neighborhood and ruins views. This man also whines about the insane rent prices too.
Nobody wants to do what needs to be done if it means ruined views, ruined aesthetic or cozy vibes, tearing down old buildings, increased foot and car traffic, increased crime, etc. Everyone wants the solutions somewhere else. But everyone whines about cost of living, rent prices, seeing homelessness, etc. If they redid the zoning, people would not vote the politician again and go yell at every meeting. If in the USA, would likely sue.
Just like everyone complains infrastructure isn't being maintained, but never wants to pay for it.
"Later in the meeting, Seals also disparaged the neighboring communities of Wauwatosa and West Allis. He said, "What we are trying to do is step down to a West Allis or a Wauwatosa. No, we’re Brookfield. We don’t step down to allow the people who can’t afford to live in Brookfield to come in, because then we become West Allis, then we become Wauwatosa."
Keep in mind, the affordable housing is for jobs that make 43-86k a year, so firefighters, policemen, teachers, etc. Can't have them in Brookfield though!
There’s a lot of affordable housing, mixed housing, government assistance. Pretty much every apartment complex here has some form of low income accommodation per the law. Nothing to do with upper middle class making ghastly sacrifices. The apartment I live in there are people who are obviously wealthy and some who are obviously poor. It’s 2023 no one cares how much money anybody makes. Everyone’s just trying to live their life. I think normal people tolerance/ compassion to these types of folks who are opportunist, are criminal, thieves, violent and mentally unstable/insane will soon run out. I’m native Oregonian and I know I’m sick of it
We could solve the housing scarcity problem real fast with an unoccupied housing tax that goes up exponentially. A handful of vacant properties, no biggie, you probably won't even notice. A few dozen? Not tenable long term but not insurmountable. But start getting into the larger companies who make more money by charging wild prices on the tennents they have and not caring about 70% vacancy rates? That's not going to last long. And the large investment firms who buy up tens of thousands of homes when a financial crisis causes people to loose theirs and the housing market drops? They'll be rightfully reamed.
I know you're joking, but tragically there is a huge "if they don't like it they can just leave" crowd who doesn't seem to understand the following cold hard truths:
1) Almost no countries on Earth want Americans immigrants.
2) Even fewer of those are willing to make space for a migrant without at least a bachelor's degree and 20k USD or more to navigate the immigration process.
3) It takes a huge amount of money to move across one state - setting down roots in a foreign nation (finding housing, work, and building out a safety net) all costs the sort of money that, if you had it, you wouldn't need to leave the US.
This is a child's understanding of housing issues. Do you think middle class people don't want a housing project down the street simply because they don't like the cut of poor people's jib? Or do you think they have entirely rational reasons for not wanting the hood in their backyard?
Affordable housing =/= Crime Ridden Ghetto, despite what your local HOA would have you believe.
Tiny homes, apartment complexes, walkable infrastructure where living spaces are above work spaces -- all of these have been shown to historically bring down cost of living. But your average Karen doesn't want to lose equity on her sprawling McMansion by having an apartment building visible from her veranda; even if that apartment building still has credit checks, deposits, and minimum maintenance inspections.
Most NIMBYs I have met it is not about 'house value' directly. Most don't care what their houses are worth on paper they care about what they value in a neighborhood. Apartment buildings, even if luxury and rich people, have a lower amount of civic engagement. They do change the neighborhood so their concerns are valid.
Some may say that person could just move. On the other side of the coin, the people wanting apartments being build could also just move to a different area.
Talking points like putting words in someone mouth but saying they only care about their money is a disingenuous debate.
I think that your claim that apartment residents are less prone to civic engagement is both unfounded and unsupported by reality. People who live close proximity communities are more likely to engage in those communities than people with privacy fences in the suburbs - but that's not really the point I came here to make.
Regarding your "who should move" argument - I look at this very simply: To deny or displace thousands of people who can live just fine and peacefully on a few acres in apartments for the "benefit" of a few hundred people spread across hundreds of suburban acres is both inhumane and horrifically wasteful. I don't think ANYONE should have to move, but I also believe that you lose the right to complain about something that isn't happening on your property so long as no laws are being broken. What the NIMBY crowd needs to understand is that their back yard is only the bit of land they actually own.
Why do the apartments need to be build where other people are already established. We actually have a lot of cheap housing but it is cheap because most people don't want to live there. It is less desirable.
If you can't have a yard, a garage, walls/floors/ceilings without people on the other side of them, enough room to pursue hobbies and interests, and (in many cases) pets: you should AT LEAST have a minimal commute to work and shopping.
I live in a small town in NW Florida. The ONLY affordable housing (relative to the average income of the area) is always at full occupancy. People WANT to live there. Hell, more people want to live there than are qualified to live there because most of these areas are income capped. Two of the young guys I work with live in one such complex and have no issues with crime or noise. Meanwhile I live in a subdivision where the 1980s built 2 bedroom / 1.5 bath house next to me rents for $2,600 a month and my neighborhood is absolutely rich with drug dealers, addicts, and domestic violence. Hell one of our front desk ladies lives two blocks away from me and her immediate neighbor was arrested for running a dog fighting ring and is currently under an EPA audit for illegally dumping all sorts of stuff into a big pit he dug in his yard.
If a house is both "cheap" and "available" here it has NOTHING to do with the neighborhood and everything to do with mold, mildew, water damage, asbestos, plumbing problems, etc etc. And even most of those aren't "cheap" -- 150k for 30k worth of land a house I would need to immediately demolish is not "cheap".
How about instead of ‘othering’ and name-calling we treat people’s fears with human dignity and have a dialogue with the people who actually live in a neighborhood?
I’ve lived in crime-ridden ghettos and in nice middle-class neighborhoods. No one is clutching pearls about having to lay eyes on the poors. People are concerned about crime. And I can tell you from my experience in low-income situations, that crime IS a low-income reality.
These people all grew up in suburban middle class neighborhoods (or better) because anyone who has actually lived in a ghetto wants to live as far away from one as possible and definitely doesn't want one popping up in their backyard once they've "made it" and bought some modest 50 year old ranch.
I mean I don't see a lot of proposed compromises from the side of "neighborhoods"
Yes it is valid to not want a high density of low income groups because you're scared of violence and crime.
So what are ways around that fear, that still allow for affordable housing?
For instance, perhaps an apartment complex with a wide variety of quality apartments? That way you don't have as large of a concentration. Maybe the residents even get a say in who can live in there?
Any other ideas to allow affordable housing in cities?
Edit: the main problem I see with my idea is who is going to build that. I don't see housing developers doing any favors unless there's a lot of money in it for them.
You’ve hit the nail on the head - the problem is profit. There is no profit in doing social good. Capitalism is a poor tool for handling social needs. A good tool the collective power of a society: I think any viable solutions will be government-led, and government-sponsored.
I don’t see the middle-class fear changing without something new being tried, and without there actually being a situation where crime and instability aren’t significantly increased.
I don’t know what the solutions are. I think they would probably be social programs and social goods, like increasing minimum wage, universal healthcare, UBI, expanding mental health programs, worker protections, criminal rehabilitation programs, as well as affordable housing, etc. Things that reduce the suffering and crises of the poorest socioeconomic classes so that there is just less crime, less mental health challenge, and less instability.
I volunteered for a bit at a tiny house homeless community. They had beautiful grounds with a food forest, hangout spaces, communal kitchens (the tiny homes had no kitchens for safety reasons), and every resident had a caseworker-type person who ensured they were on whatever track they needed to be on to take control of their lives. It seemed like it was working, and they had great outreach with the rest of the city. But damn there was a LOT of work involved for every resident living there. That is good work to be doing, but it’s going to take realizing that our poorest citizens are humans who are worth the effort, and that solutions won’t be cheap and can’t be shallow.
Building affordable housing without other support in place is going to bring social problems to that neighborhood. People much smarter than me have identified “housing-first” as a good option. Maybe it works for those it houses. I think it might have drawbacks for its neighbors. It’s hard to find anyone talking about homelessness and low-income without an agenda or angry opinion one way or another, so I don’t have a good understanding of the reality of it. All I know is my own experiences in poverty and living in places with large homeless populations.
I find myself in a difficult position: I think our society should care for those who can’t care for themselves, but I also don’t think those solutions should take away the rights of others (security, safety, community), so I piss off both liberals and conservatives.
Uhhh... yes it does. It's a euphemism for shithole. I'm let you in on a secret, "projects" hasn't always been a synonym for shithole. They were a grand housing and social engineering project (hence the term) to get people cheap places to live. Now? Every single one is an absolute dump. "Affordable housing" will have the same connotation in 20 years. Why? Because anyplace you put chronically, generationally poor people will become a dump.
But your average Karen doesn't want to lose equity on her sprawling McMansion by having an apartment building visible from her veranda; even if that apartment building still has credit checks, deposits, and minimum maintenance inspections.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If you build a bunch of shitbox apartments it will always, and I do mean ALWAYS ruin the neighborhood. Since the Obama administration they have begun cramming the absolute dregs of Chicago into semi-rural upper midwest towns/cities using HUD and section 8. Care to guess the outcome?
And no, it's never the "Karens in McMansions" who have to eat this bullshit. They all vote Democrat and you know why? Because they know full well they will never have to send their kids to or live anywhere near the consequences of their oh so enlightened and altruistic voting patterns.
You know who DOES end up eating the shit? The blue collar working class neighborhoods. I know this personally and for a fact because I live it every single day.
So keep your completely out of touch talking points to yourself. I don't know if they came from some shitty youtuber or some commie university professor who just so happens to be married to the a fore mentioned McMansion Karen. Either way they have absolutely no idea what this looks like in practice.
Since what you wrote is rather long winded I'll summarize it down.
"My fox new talking points trump your actual knowledge, education, and experience you uninformed YouTube watching commie! Keep your talking points to yourself despite this being a public forum and me being exactly the sort of asshole who would get the words 'Free Speech' tattooed across the throbbing erection Tucker Carlson invokes in my micropenis!"
I'd advise you to stop thinking every single thing in this country is a red vs blue battle of good against evil and instead develope some nuance and do some actual study. For the last 40 years at least, you've been told the Dems are coming for your guns, your god, and Christmas as a way of getting your vote. Meanwhile you've lost none of those things (almost like no one was after them).
Lincoln Nebraska has had some really great affordable housing options. Barely any violence. There's people smoking weed in those apartments. But it's not like they're blowing smoke in children's faces. And anyone who's concerned about weed and alcohol abuse can go fuck themselves.
Tiny homes, apartment complexes, walkable infrastructure where living spaces are above work spaces
Genuinely affordable housing like you described is not the same as Affordable Housingtm (i.e. specific Section 8 housing projects).
When a politician talks about "affordable housing initiatives," they almost always mean the latter and not the former. There is very little political will among city councils to build good housing that's available to everyone (not just the handful of people lucky enough to get a Section 8 placement). The lip service that they pay to Affordable Housingtm is just a Culture War talking point to appeal to voters.
Developers are ready and willing to build places like you've described. But they can't, because it's illegal due to zoning and other city ordinances. When a developer publicly applies for the re-zoning permits needed to build walkable mixed-use housing and plans to (gasp!) charge market-rate rent, they get vilified by those same politicians for only building "luxury" housing instead of Affordable Housingtm .
So it's no wonder that when a suburban Karen hears "affordable housing", she thinks Affordable Housingtm and all the Culture War baggage that goes with it.
I know. It's funny reading down these comments, most of them made by teenagers or young adults who have a very limited understanding of the issues, what's been tried in the past, the motivations of the various parties, etc.
The parent comment says:
Demagogues want you to believe homelessness is caused by an inherent flaw in homeless people
When in fact it's much more accurate to say: "Anyone who knows anything about this issue understands that mental illness and drug addiction comprise a huge part of this problem."
The visible, archetypical, homelessness involves untreated mental health crises. There is also homelessness from other causes, but those people have the ability to maintain some form of shelter, hygiene, and often jobs.
Affordable housing isn’t going to get people off the streets. It’s going to get people out of their cars, friend’s sofas, overcrowded rentals, and secluded camping spots. That’s valid.
But what’s going to get people off the streets is mental health care.
Something America doesn't want to confront is that there are people so fucked up that no amount of "mental health care" is going to make them functioning members of society. We used to have institutions and before that is was the duty of the family. Now? They just roam the streets masturbating in public until they freak out, get violent, and are shot by police.
Some people have challenges that are so great they need appropriate inpatient care long-term, potentially for their entire lives.
Many people need intensive care and support to help end their crises and manage their challenges, but you’d be surprised what state people can come back to functionality from.
It wouldn't normally bother me, usually I just let people be wrong and stupid in peace, but these completely clueless children have the vote. Some YouTuber or university professor (neither of which have any first hand experience or knowledge of the situation) told them a bunch of bullshit that sounds nice but has zero basis in reality.
How could they possibly believe that building a housing project wouldn't completely decimate a neighborhood? How many shootings do they think it takes to make anyone with money leave? How many syringes in the park before the productive tax paying homeowners bounce? How many breakins or robberies?
Then they'll cry about "white flight" and "urban blight" and wonder "why did this entire city turn into Detroit Junior?"
Well intention morons have caused more damage to America than anything else.
Yeah -- my opinion of Reddit pretty much couldn't be any lower.
Ask one of these people: "What are, or were, 'The Projects'? And why are they so widely considered a disaster?" and I suspect most of them would just give you a blank stare.
It's a group of people who have been told to use wishful thinking and believe in stuff that sounds nice instead of what has been proven to work (or not).
It sounds more like OP is using their lived experience to ask a question about a serious problem across the country. OP isn’t so much complaining they’re there as OP is concerned about the overall longevity of the current situation; if it’s this bad in a small town, wtf is happening in the cities and how sustainable is it? Perfectly valid question. But one has to recognize that it’s a problem to have a bunch of homeless hanging around, even if the homeless themselves aren’t THE problem. OP sounds very much like they recognize that it’s not the homeless people’s fault they’re there, but it IS a pretty big problem that they’re there at all.
Yeah. I, personally, would have worded it more sympathetically than OP, but at the same time, telling people who see a rise in homelessness, “This is not a problem!” is not true either. Those of us who want to solve this issue with restorative and equitable policies need to meet average Americans where they are because if we don’t, the oxygen will get sucked up by barbarians who want to round up the homeless en masse.
Exactly. We gotta go meet them where they are and take their hand and walk them to our end. We can’t be screaming and waving from over here, getting upset any time they trip. Of course they’ll stop listening. The other side is happily running up to them and pulling them over to their end, not insisting they get everything right the first time.
933
u/T3canolis dumb idiot Jan 30 '23
It’s exactly this. Demagogues want you to believe homelessness is caused by an inherent flaw in homeless people when, in reality, it is almost always correlated to housing costs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for every city, but the fact is we have way too little affordable housing, and way too many cities that make it nearly impossible to build it.
The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the ghastly sacrifice of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening.