Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe another way to think about it is: What is the result if there is insufficient low-income housing? What are the long-term costs of homelessness? In my experience, dealing with the social problems caused by a lack of housing exceed the costs of providing that housing.
Providing money to go toward housing (rather than providing the housing) is done via what is now called a "Housing Choice Voucher," a program formerly known as "Section 8." Ask folks about what they think of "Section 8" housing.
Depends what you mean by "high-quality neighborhoods" and "low-income housing."
Let's start with low-income housing. As that term is used here in America, we can just answer that question with an affirmitive no. Terms like "low-income housing" and "affordable-housing" are by their very definition unaffordable housing made affordable with large subsidies, subsidies for which are drying up and demand for which is growing. It's obvious on its face that this is not economically sustainable. Of course, this so-called affordable housing is usually just luxury condos (J Street Lofts). Insert your yuppie condo gentrifiers here, but since we ran out of yuppies, we're going to use tax dollars instead. Is there really any question that using tax payer dollars for low-income households to live yuppie lifestyles could possibly be economically sustainable? The middle-class and would-be middle-class pretending to be yuppies isn't sustainable (which is why we're a nation buried in personal debts).
So what's a high-quality neighborhood? Again, if we use the typical meaning of "a neighborhood of above average desirability," that's obviously not ecnomically sustainable to use tax payer dollars to house lower-income households in more expensive than average neighborhoods.
And despite all that, the answer is yes, you can have dense, high-quality neighborhoods that are economically sustainable. You just have to change your definitions of high-quality and low-income housing. High-quality doesn't mean better than average, it means better than what is average for people of a certain means. It means improving the neighborhoods where actual low-income housing is (as in, families that have low-incomes but aren't using tax-payer subsidies to pretend to be yuppies). That's probably not going to look like J Lofts, but you can probably do a lot more to make high-quality neighborhoods if you aren't paying subsidies to a few low-income people in 600 square foot studios with granite counter tops that rent for double the median rent of the area.
The same, I think, applies to housing; provide money to go toward housing, but do not provide housing directly. Housing would still be subsidized, but with fewer market-bending effects.
You run into the issue that people make suboptimal economic choices; that is, you can provide money towards housing, but it might well be used for something else.
You run into the issue that people make suboptimal economic choices; that is, you can provide money towards housing, but it might well be used for something else.
Like any personal subsidy. A very complicated problem.
You run into the issue that people make suboptimal economic choices; that is, you can provide money towards housing, but it might well be used for something else.
Skip the subsidy bit of it, and just look at the direct cost of building subsidized housing. Sacramento has a plan to build some housing on K Street, it's been awhile but I think the cost was around $120,000 per unit (mix of studio, 1bd (mostly) and 2bd condos/apartments) geared at low-income (<$42k a year for a one person household). Rents, using 2011 affordable-housing limits, would then be between $750 (maximum for very low-income) and $950 (maximum for low-income). Uh, that's market rate rent for a 1bd for an apartment in the central area. There's not much housing downtown, but the central area of Sacramento is small area (~3 sq miles).
To me, you use welfare first to help those most needy and then work your way up from there. And frankly, a single person making $30-42k a year in Sacramento just does not need housing assistance. The point wasn't really affordable housing, it was to build a mixed-use block on K Street, which has been Sacramento's let's throw money at it pit for decades. There was money for affordable housing, so they used it to build a mixed-use building that would charge market-rate rents for the area. To be sure, they will be nicer than most of the apartments in the area which are mostly old, funky, and not too well maintained... but why are we spending money on luxury condos for people that really don't need the help? For one, I'm selfish. I don't live in a luxury condo, so why should my tax dollars be used to give some a higher quality of living than I have? More importantly, Sacramento has a lot of people that really do need help and aren't getting it. Mental health was cut to the bone, Sacramento County stopped paying for indigent care years ago and got sued by the hospital they weren't paying and lost recently.
Maybe less need for government supported low income housing as there is so much existing. You already see that in Detroit. Even after the housing market recovers there was so much built that won't sell in future markets. Yes, poorly located McMansions could be part of it.
Although there are social rationales to mixed-income housing (by giving the poor neighbors of another economic class, it in theory stops the issues of having a localized "culture of poverty" forming), all studies I'm aware of suggest mixed-income developments are not worth the money, with huge public outflows, and far less improvement of peoples lives than the cheaper Section 8 vouchers. The cynic in me would suggest that the continued concentration of some former public housing residents is actually part of the reason why mixed-income communities remain popular - as it means at least a fraction of the populace won't be dispersed in the general community.
Really though, I agree the idea of "affordable" new construction is kind of false. The best way to make housing affordable is to let the value of existing housing depreciate over time. This happens even if the housing isn't neglected/falls into disrepair. Consider that in most of the U.S. building new construction in stone or brick has become totally unaffordable. Look at the replacement of plaster in construction with drywall. Look at how in U.S. architectural styles up to the Craftsmen period use of various ornate elements was common even in modest worker housing - and now everything except for the very wealthy starts out as a faceless box. And all of this with no government subsidies. Low-income housing will never look that good again, unfortunately.
Therefore, it seems to me the cheapest way to deal with low-income housing, above and beyond Section 8, is to ensure that as much of the historic housing stock as possible remains intact and rehabbed. Maybe not to gentrified standards, but high enough standards that brick houses which have seen 150 years of use will easily see another 150.
Therefore, it seems to me the cheapest way to deal with low-income housing, above and beyond Section 8, is to ensure that as much of the historic housing stock as possible remains intact and rehabbed. Maybe not to gentrified standards, but high enough standards that brick houses which have seen 150 years of use will easily see another 150.
But, the areas that do depreciate to levels which are "affordable," whatever that means for a given area, are not the areas with 300 year homes. If homes are worth maintaining, due to market values, it is because the area is valuable enough that the people who live in them generally have enough disposable income to do so and, one can assume, would expect a profit on the final sale.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
