Affordable Housing

[DGS49]

It is axiomatic that the three main value factors in real estate are, in order of importance, location, location, and location.

That is to say, people are willing to pay a premium to live in the areas that they consider most desirable. For example, a 1,500 ft2 apartment in Manhattan will bring many times the monthly rental of a 1,500 ft2 apartment in Keokuk, Iowa. In my own life, I own a 3,500, 4 bedroom house on a half acre lot in suburban Pittsburgh. If I wanted to move to a desirable urban neighborhood with spending additional money, I could take the proceeds of selling my house and MAYBE get a 1,000ft2 condo in Shadyside or Squirrel Hill.

Working class families, if they do reasonably well, start their lives in apartments in working class neighborhoods, graduate up to modest homes in similar areas, and ASPIRE to improve their lot by eventually moving to a posh suburban neighborhood or a more desirable city neighborhood, where the schools are good, the streets are safe and picturesque, the police are friendly, and the mayor is not corrupt.

This is the real estate scenario that working class and middle class people live their lives with.

And yet there are forces within the political spectrum who DEMAND that this real estate paradigm be violated in order to accommodate - truth be told - inner city Black people. In all of our big cities, any time a major real estate project is planned, they demand that if any residential units are planned, they must include a significant number of "affordable housing" units. And the developers - who must kiss the asses of the various political commissions and "authorities" - do the absurd calculation of, "how many market-based units must I have and how badly can I screw those tenants, in order to subsidize the demanded number of 'affordable housing' units?"

This is nonsense, on steroids. If you want to live in those neighborhoods, then YOU HAVE TO WORK AND BE SUCCESSFUL IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE! Nobody should get a government-subsidized ticket into a neighborhood where THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE. Low-cost rental units should be built in the parts of the area where real estate is cheapest. It should go without saying.

Nobody is going to subsidize me to live in a neighborhood where I cannot afford the rent or mortgage payments. And why should they?

News stories of these real estate developments go on constantly around the country, and nobody even mentions the fact that demanding "affordable housing" in high-rent districts is perverse and counter-productive. It abuses the developers, other renters, and who knows who else, in order to accommodate a number of people who, in fact, cannot afford to live there.

Fuck 'em. Like every other working and middle class person in the country, they should live where they can afford to live. And if they don't like that neighborhood, maybe they will work harder so they can move somewhere nicer. Like everyone else has done for decades.

 

[irosie91]

It is axiomatic that the three main value factors in real estate are, in order of importance, location, location, and location.

That is to say, people are willing to pay a premium to live in the areas that they consider most desirable. For example, a 1,500 ft2 apartment in Manhattan will bring many times the monthly rental of a 1,500 ft2 apartment in Keokuk, Iowa. In my own life, I own a 3,500, 4 bedroom house on a half acre lot in suburban Pittsburgh. If I wanted to move to a desirable urban neighborhood with spending additional money, I could take the proceeds of selling my house and MAYBE get a 1,000ft2 condo in Shadyside or Squirrel Hill.

Working class families, if they do reasonably well, start their lives in apartments in working class neighborhoods, graduate up to modest homes in similar areas, and ASPIRE to improve their lot by eventually moving to a posh suburban neighborhood or a more desirable city neighborhood, where the schools are good, the streets are safe and picturesque, the police are friendly, and the mayor is not corrupt.

This is the real estate scenario that working class and middle class people live their lives with.

And yet there are forces within the political spectrum who DEMAND that this real estate paradigm be violated in order to accommodate - truth be told - inner city Black people. In all of our big cities, any time a major real estate project is planned, they demand that if any residential units are planned, they must include a significant number of "affordable housing" units. And the developers - who must kiss the asses of the various political commissions and "authorities" - do the absurd calculation of, "how many market-based units must I have and how badly can I screw those tenants, in order to subsidize the demanded number of 'affordable housing' units?"

This is nonsense, on steroids. If you want to live in those neighborhoods, then YOU HAVE TO WORK AND BE SUCCESSFUL IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE! Nobody should get a government-subsidized ticket into a neighborhood where THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE. Low-cost rental units should be built in the parts of the area where real estate is cheapest. It should go without saying.

Nobody is going to subsidize me to live in a neighborhood where I cannot afford the rent or mortgage payments. And why should they?

News stories of these real estate developments go on constantly around the country, and nobody even mentions the fact that demanding "affordable housing" in high-rent districts is perverse and counter-productive. It abuses the developers, other renters, and who knows who else, in order to accommodate a number of people who, in fact, cannot afford to live there.

Fuck 'em. Like every other working and middle class person in the country, they should live where they can afford to live. And if they don't like that neighborhood, maybe they will work harder so they can move somewhere nicer. Like everyone else has done for decades.

I agree with you in principle BUT----support the concept of SIMPLE, NICE housing units for --------any and all people in areas--->>>> (MOST IMPORTANT) in which
crime is very very carefully controlled. The BIG issue facing poor families-----
especially the ill, the elderly and THE SINGLE MOTHER ----is having to live
in the midst of CRIME. I do not support FORCING land owners to become
WELFARE ADMINISTRATORS. People who own land-----should own it----
those who rent should be responsible------and that's it

 

[DGS49]

Actions have consequences. Choices have consequences.

A "single mother" is, in the vast majority of cases, someone who has voluntarily chosen to engage in unprotected reproductive activity with someone who was (a) not her husband, (b) unwilling to support her child, (c) unable to support her child, and also (probably) knowing that she herself did not have the resources to support herself and that child, other than sucking at the Government's teats. Thus, she may have other options other than to live in an area where no one would want to raise a child.

Is that the Developer's fault? The fault of the other would-be renters who will have to subsidize her rent? The fault of the taxpayers?

And as for the racial aspect, a "white" child being raised by a single parent is SEVEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to be living in poverty than a "black" child living in a two-parent household. How's that "white privilege" working out for him?

But I agree 100% that as far as possible, EVERY CHILD should be raised in a nice neighborhood, go to good schools, and have all of the joys and opportunities that a rich, middle-class neighborhood can provide. "It takes a village," as the expression goes.

So people who do not have the resources to raise a child in such an environment should not have children until they do. And if this attitude seems cold and harsh, consider that EVERY MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEHOLD IN THE COUNTRY goes through that very thought process ALL THE TIME. And thank God for artificial birth control (don't tell the Pope I said that), so that we have the ability to decide if and when to have children. Through the ill-fated "War on Poverty" we have created a Bizarro World where middle class people are expected to live according to these simple principles, but "The Poor" can't seem to control their reproductive lives, and taxpayers are expected to bail them out of their poor decisions - ignoring the important fact that having children IS A DECISION, and not a event of force majeure.

 

[irosie91]

Actions have consequences. Choices have consequences.

A "single mother" is, in the vast majority of cases, someone who has voluntarily chosen to engage in unprotected reproductive activity with someone who was (a) not her husband, (b) unwilling to support her child, (c) unable to support her child, and also (probably) knowing that she herself did not have the resources to support herself and that child, other than sucking at the Government's teats. Thus, she may have other options other than to live in an area where no one would want to raise a child.

Is that the Developer's fault? The fault of the other would-be renters who will have to subsidize her rent? The fault of the taxpayers?

And as for the racial aspect, a "white" child being raised by a single parent is SEVEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to be living in poverty than a "black" child living in a two-parent household. How's that "white privilege" working out for him?

But I agree 100% that as far as possible, EVERY CHILD should be raised in a nice neighborhood, go to good schools, and have all of the joys and opportunities that a rich, middle-class neighborhood can provide. "It takes a village," as the expression goes.

So people who do not have the resources to raise a child in such an environment should not have children until they do. And if this attitude seems cold and harsh, consider that EVERY MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEHOLD IN THE COUNTRY goes through that very thought process ALL THE TIME. And thank God for artificial birth control (don't tell the Pope I said that), so that we have the ability to decide if and when to have children. Through the ill-fated "War on Poverty" we have created a Bizarro World where middle class people are expected to live according to these simple principles, but "The Poor" can't seem to control their reproductive lives, and taxpayers are expected to bail them out of their poor decisions - ignoring the important fact that having children IS A DECISION, and not a event of force majeure.

you IGNORE the accidents of LIFE------that create "PEOPLE's PROBLEMS"

 

[Iceweasel]

Actions have consequences. Choices have consequences.

A "single mother" is, in the vast majority of cases, someone who has voluntarily chosen to engage in unprotected reproductive activity with someone who was (a) not her husband, (b) unwilling to support her child, (c) unable to support her child, and also (probably) knowing that she herself did not have the resources to support herself and that child, other than sucking at the Government's teats. Thus, she may have other options other than to live in an area where no one would want to raise a child.

Is that the Developer's fault? The fault of the other would-be renters who will have to subsidize her rent? The fault of the taxpayers?

And as for the racial aspect, a "white" child being raised by a single parent is SEVEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to be living in poverty than a "black" child living in a two-parent household. How's that "white privilege" working out for him?

But I agree 100% that as far as possible, EVERY CHILD should be raised in a nice neighborhood, go to good schools, and have all of the joys and opportunities that a rich, middle-class neighborhood can provide. "It takes a village," as the expression goes.

So people who do not have the resources to raise a child in such an environment should not have children until they do. And if this attitude seems cold and harsh, consider that EVERY MIDDLE CLASS HOUSEHOLD IN THE COUNTRY goes through that very thought process ALL THE TIME. And thank God for artificial birth control (don't tell the Pope I said that), so that we have the ability to decide if and when to have children. Through the ill-fated "War on Poverty" we have created a Bizarro World where middle class people are expected to live according to these simple principles, but "The Poor" can't seem to control their reproductive lives, and taxpayers are expected to bail them out of their poor decisions - ignoring the important fact that having children IS A DECISION, and not a event of force majeure.

you IGNORE the accidents of LIFE------that create "PEOPLE's PROBLEMS"

That's the victim's creed. People either create their own problems or fail to deal effectively with those that come their way. No landlord is going to be willing to lose money so a bunch of broke ass people can live bundled up in the big city. What will likely happen is the government steps in and takes over housing, and we know how that ends up.

 

[DGS49]

Iceweasel, my point is that landlords are BEING COMPELLED to provide rental units at monthly rents that are far below market, inside the same developments (usually apartment buildings) where others are paying market rentals.

The specific case in point is a large tract of land in downtown Pittsburgh (where the Civic Arena and its parking lots used to be). The owners and developers are being told that their development plans MUST INCLUDE some number of "affordable" housing units. So there will be 2BR apartments going for $2,500/month, and in the same building, comparable rental units going for $6-800 per month. And I see similar situations all over the country, where large scale developments are being done in desirable urban areas, and the Democrat City Councils are making these demands as a precondition for getting permits.

 

[Iceweasel]

I hear you and agree. It's wrong and government trying to be a sugar daddy never works out well.

 

[blastoff]

I hear you and agree. It's wrong and government trying to be a sugar daddy never works out well.

Gosh, what a bunch of racists we are, huh?

 

[Iceweasel]

I hear you and agree. It's wrong and government trying to be a sugar daddy never works out well.

Gosh, what a bunch of racists we are, huh?

I try.

 

[waltky]

3 D printing offers affordable housing for the poor worldwide...

3-D-Printed House Offers Quick, Cheap Solution for Poor Worldwide
March 16, 2018 — Imagine building a stronger, cheaper home in as little as 12 hours. That goal now appears feasible with the help of a 3-D printer. A 3-D-printed home was unveiled in Austin, Texas, during the South by Southwest (SXSW) technology conference and music festival this week.

“So I’m standing in front of the first permanent 3-D-printed home in America,” said Jason Ballard, co-founder of Austin-based ICON, a construction company that uses robotics, software and advanced materials to build houses. The two-bedroom prototype contains space that can be used as a living/dining area, as well as three rooms that can be converted into bedrooms, a study or a bathroom, depending on where the home is located and the resources available. The homes will be anywhere from 56 square meters to 74 square meters in size. At 35 square meters, the prototype home was successfully printed in a neighborhood near downtown Austin during a rainstorm, as strong winds kicked up dust in the area, according to Ballard.

3-D-printed homes for the poor

The goal is to print homes in developing countries during extreme weather conditions and amid the unpredictability of having electricity and water. “We work with really the poorest families in the world that don’t have shelters,” said Brett Hagler, founder and chief executive officer with the nonprofit organization New Story. It aims to bring 3-D-printed homes first to Latin America and then expand to other developing countries. Hagler notes that using innovation and new technology will change how homes are manufactured to meet the need for housing around the world. “The magnitude of the problem that we face is so big, it’s about a billion people that don’t have one of life’s most basic human needs, and that’s safe shelter,” he said. “What we really need for the size of the issue is exponential growth,” he added, “and that has to come through significantly decreasing cost, increasing speed while doing that without sacrificing quality.”

This rendering shows how a 3-D printer can print homes and create communities. A construction company based in Austin, Texas, and New Story, a nonprofit that aims to end homelessness globally, have teamed up to provide safe, permanent shelters.​

ICON says the 3-D printer is 4.5-meters tall, 9 meters wide and made of lightweight aluminum. ICON created the device, software and unique mortar material it describes as “proprietary small-aggregate cementitious material” used to print the house. The 3-D printer is transportable because homes are printed on site. Ballard said he can imagine having many 3-D printers scattered around the world making homes. “It’s actually a lot more simple to build a printer than it is to build a house,” Ballard said.

Faster and cheaper

“We ran this printer at about a quarter speed to print this house, and we were able to complete the house in less than 48 hours of print time,” Ballard said. At full speed it could be as little as 12 hours to print a house. Building a traditional New Story home would take 15 days. “Instead of it taking about a year to build a community, we could do it in just a few months,” Hagler said. A 3-D-printed home is also less expensive. “Traditional style on a New Story home is about $6,500 per home. We believe over time, we can get the new home below $4,000,” Hagler said. Ballard said the material used to print the home is another highlight to this innovative way of building the property. “We believe the comfort and the energy dynamics of this building are actually going to be once again better than conventional buildings. These houses should be more comfortable and they should require less energy to stay comfortable.”

Ballard said that a 3-D-printed house, “is a complete paradigm shift that has unbelievable advantages in speed, affordability, resiliency, sustainability, waste reduction, you name it. This isn’t just a slight improvement. This is a revolutionary improvement that I think is going to be quite disruptive in the industry.” This new building technology will be brought to the world’s poorest and underserved first. New Story is working with local nonprofits, governments and families to help fund these homes. The nonprofit plans to start printing homes in El Salvador this year. The goal is to create permanent 3-D-printed homes and communities in developing countries and beyond that will last for generations.

3-D Printed House Offers Quick, Cheap Solution for Poor Worldwide