Hacker News Reader

Comment by jadedhacker | Hacker News Reader

YIMBYism, that is, additions to housing stock made by private developers, is a false fix. The idea that additional housing stock is needed is correct, but the idea that more and more powerful landlords and developers will create space for vulnerable people is plainly wrong. More luxury condos, buildings rented by foreign investors that never occupy them as a place to park money, and all the problems of the powerful setting the agenda for everyone develops.

Instead, we need public housing, strict regulation, and yes more units built at the behest of the state.

View on HN

Plenty of YIMBYs are fine with "do both!": more market rate housing supply, and more subsidized housing for those who can't afford the former. The more of the former you produce, the more you can concentrate the latter on the truly needy, and not people like teachers, firefighters and so on who have good jobs that are important to society.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/01/gue...

That is explicitly what's being advocated by Scott Wiener.

While this idea seems appealing, I imagine the market rate housing will crowd out the public housing. I also think that it's fine to give public housing to those that can afford it if we take care of the needy people too. It would mean more money in the pockets of teachers, firefighters, etc.

I have nothing against public housing but I don't see how it would help solve this problem. Any land on which the city would build such housing would cost a fortune (whatever a private developer would pay) and the city would either have to charge the current market rate (minus some small subsidy) to make up for this, or rent the units at a huge loss. Given that there'd need to be a huge amount of such housing to have any noticeable effect on the market, you're proposing to completely bankrupt the city.

Public housing can provide a nice subsidy for a small group of people at the bottom, but it can't be used on a giant scale to fix a failed market in which even wealthy tech workers can hardly afford a house. What's needed is to simply build more housing, and to make it cheaper for developers to do so (fewer permits, simpler processes) so that's it's actually economical to build non-luxury apartments.

You're making a bad faith argument about what YIMBYism is about. Yes, it means more market rate housing, but also more affordable housing development, and more transit.

You say this, but as someone whose a part of many yimby groups that have been polled, the majority of people are in favor of focusing everything being economically created.

I can't speak for individual YIMBY groups in SF, where I don't live. If that's the case in SF, then the movement there is being a bit short sighted.

I do still think the parent is incorrect in what appears to be the claim that market rate development isn't part of the solution at all. Also the claim that foreign investors rent apartments to "park money" is on its face wrong. You can't stash money in a rental unit you don't own. This sort of claim absent evidence borders on xenophobia, IMO.

Economically created housing has the benefit that it pays for itself. If we can’t even get housing that pays for itself, then the system is completely stupid. (Dennis Richards, take note.)

Oh god I upvoted this for false fix and then saw public housing and strict regulation. Christ.

im not sure how its so easy to be off put by two extremely vague phrases.

just as an example (i'm not saying the implementation is perfect), Singapore's public housing program is/has been very successful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

Public housing has been a disaster in the US, so it switched to Section 8 vouchers a while ago.

You can simply unvote. Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com