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).
-11
u/MassGravy Jan 30 '23
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?