DGS49
Diamond Member
Ignoring any Constitutional issues for a moment, I've been thinking a lot about the subject of "subsidized housing" (for the Poor) lately.
In my little hamlet of Pittsburgh, there is a large tract of land currently available within easy walking distance of the CBD (for those of you not familiar with gov-speak, that is the "central business district," or as well call it in Pittsburgh "Dahn-Tahn"). The "Civic Arena," former home of the Pittsburgh Penguins was demolished to create this large highly-desirable space, and with the recent trend of Urban Professionals wanting to move into the central city, developers are salivating at the money to be made building condo's and high-rent apartments so close to the CBD. They are paying lip service to "green space" and similar nonsensical concepts, but the bottom line is that this space is a potential development goldmine, theoretically owned and controlled by the Pittsburgh Penguins.
When the Civic Arena was erected in the early 60's, the neighborhood that was razed to make way was called the "lower Hill District," which was a predominantly-"Negro" neighborhood. At that time, it was universally considered an "improvement" to destroy the old dilapidated housing to make way for a space-age sports arena that looked like a giant flying saucer. With a retractable roof, no less.
Now, predictably, the Movers & Shakers of the Pittsburgh African American community are "demanding" that a substantial percentage of the housing to be built in this desirable area be reserved for folks whose household income is, shall we say, modest. If their desires are to be met, then the "market rate" apartments in the newly-developed area will range from, say $1,200/mo for an efficiency apartment to $3-4 thousand a month for a spacious 2 or three bedroom apartment, while similar apartments will rent for, with various subsidies, say $4-700 per month.
Again, ignoring the United States Constitution (which prohibits the Federal Government from getting involved in HOUSING), I have no problem with incentivizing and subsidizing the construction of housing for people living in poverty. No one who plays by the rules should ever be homeless in the U.S.
But subsidized housing should be constructed in the places where it is easiest and cheapest to construct it, not in areas which are, shall we say, "aspirational."
This CBD housing in Pittsburgh will be prized in the marketplace. People will aspire to live so close to work, good restaurants, and cultural resources; they will pay a premium and possibly even sacrifice such luxuries as owning a car in order to live in such a desirable location. And their neighbors will be on public assistance?
I don't buy it.
In my little hamlet of Pittsburgh, there is a large tract of land currently available within easy walking distance of the CBD (for those of you not familiar with gov-speak, that is the "central business district," or as well call it in Pittsburgh "Dahn-Tahn"). The "Civic Arena," former home of the Pittsburgh Penguins was demolished to create this large highly-desirable space, and with the recent trend of Urban Professionals wanting to move into the central city, developers are salivating at the money to be made building condo's and high-rent apartments so close to the CBD. They are paying lip service to "green space" and similar nonsensical concepts, but the bottom line is that this space is a potential development goldmine, theoretically owned and controlled by the Pittsburgh Penguins.
When the Civic Arena was erected in the early 60's, the neighborhood that was razed to make way was called the "lower Hill District," which was a predominantly-"Negro" neighborhood. At that time, it was universally considered an "improvement" to destroy the old dilapidated housing to make way for a space-age sports arena that looked like a giant flying saucer. With a retractable roof, no less.
Now, predictably, the Movers & Shakers of the Pittsburgh African American community are "demanding" that a substantial percentage of the housing to be built in this desirable area be reserved for folks whose household income is, shall we say, modest. If their desires are to be met, then the "market rate" apartments in the newly-developed area will range from, say $1,200/mo for an efficiency apartment to $3-4 thousand a month for a spacious 2 or three bedroom apartment, while similar apartments will rent for, with various subsidies, say $4-700 per month.
Again, ignoring the United States Constitution (which prohibits the Federal Government from getting involved in HOUSING), I have no problem with incentivizing and subsidizing the construction of housing for people living in poverty. No one who plays by the rules should ever be homeless in the U.S.
But subsidized housing should be constructed in the places where it is easiest and cheapest to construct it, not in areas which are, shall we say, "aspirational."
This CBD housing in Pittsburgh will be prized in the marketplace. People will aspire to live so close to work, good restaurants, and cultural resources; they will pay a premium and possibly even sacrifice such luxuries as owning a car in order to live in such a desirable location. And their neighbors will be on public assistance?
I don't buy it.
