How about instead of giving money to private companies in the hopes that they build housing you give that money to people so they can afford to live in all the housing that already exists.
Why do libs always make this shit more complicated than it needs to be
Because they don't actually support doing things to help people, they just want to give more money to the rich.
Sure there is. An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it's intended purpose of having a roof over people's heads.
Pass nationwide legislation that restricts owning housing for commercial purposes beyond a certain threshold, and put rent controls in place pegged to 20% of the median income per town/city. You'd eliminate 95% of homelessness before the ink was dry, massively increase homeownership rates, and be the most popular politician of an era.
It's not even an ebil communist plot, and it'd still be more effective than giving even more money to private developers on a pinky promise they'll build something people can afford, just trust them this time.
An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it's intended purpose of having a roof over people's heads.
If they are renting it out at exorbitant prices, then it's not empty. If it's empty, then they get zero money. You're saying it's both, which makes no sense. Interest rates and property taxes are both high right now. It costs investors money to hold empty property without renting it out. They don't have to wait for people to pay inflated prices. The demand is already there.
I'm all for more regulation, especially for developers and investors. Stiupulate that at least 50% of all new housing built be affordable. Give incentives to rehab old condemned properties. And stop letting AI algorithms determine rental prices.
According the the last census there are 15.1 million houses and apartments sitting empty in the US, roughly 29 properties for every one unhoused person in America.
When I looked it said 13.9 million. But how many of those are habitable? Does that number include Airbnbs? Properties stuck in probate or the foreclosure process? How many of them are in senior communities that don't allow younger people or families? The census data doesn't specify any of that.
That's true, there might only be as few as 15 vacant properties for every person we are currently allowing to freeze to death.
Yes there is. The problem is housing is treated as a commodity instead of a basic human right
Getting people to live in offices is good because it brings people back to walkable, urban cores.
That would be good. Unfortunately this is more about bailing out rentseekers in urban cores, by enabling the building of unaffordable housing
mixed offices and apartments in the same building sounds good... would cut the commute
I lived in a building thay was mixed residential/office space in Buenos Aires. It was really good, during the week you saw movement in and out so it felt alive, ar night and weekends was pretty empty and calm, and you could throw parties without bothering the neighbors.
Just live at work! I can see the LateStageCapitalism posts writing themselves
in the same building as a floor used for an office wouldn't be living at work
I think if companies are interested in cutting commute times, they'd normalize work from home. Doesn't seem to be the case sadly
I think that at least one should be saved for just paintball.
It is just called humor, here. And would you have preferred laser tag ?
Watching the Biden admin is wild. At one minute he'll be escalating the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine, but the next he'll be funding the NLRB and addressing the housing crisis in a way that improves walk-ability.
It's like, he has two settings: "actually useful moderate" and "KILLKILLKILLKILL"
Unfortunately, this makes him the best US president since carter
US politicians only disagree (a little bit) on domestic policy, on foreign policy they're all in lock-step. that used to feel like a truism, but it's been proven very true.
love too fund the NLRB after publicly breaking the power of the rail unions and setting worker power back another decade
Biden wants to give money to wealthy landlords so they can build luxury apartments using our tax dollars, so they can rent them out and increase their wealth.
anyone interpreting it differently is fooling themselves
Offices are actually chill if you take out the cubicles and stuff. They are spacious, neutral, and have a bathroom and roof access.
Only because the US commercial real estate market is having a really bad time.
How about... let those corporations EAT those fucking buildings and let's put that money to use IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE. First time home buyers. Put some federal controls on real estate; mortgage rates; put the skids on the goddam prime rate - there is NO need for that shit... the economy is suffering from PROFITEERING - NOT inflation.
I realize half or more of our elected officials will have to give back bribe money in order to do something for the people that doesn't doubly do something for their wealthy sponsors.
I know, I know... "just get to earth?"
They belong to corporations. The corporations don't get tax breaks if the buildings aren't used - but they still need to be paid for... which is a huge monetary outlay. Honestly, I don't care what happens to them and neither should anyone else. Am I sorry that corporations, the SAME corporations fleecing the planet right now with profiteering, are losing money? Hardly. They made the rules - they bought the politicians to enforce the rules- they made their own mess.
Converting office space to living space strains infrastructure in ways not intended by the original intent of the buildings. They can't put thirty apartments on a single floor of a high rise and have those residents use the same four bathrooms per floor that the offices had. Same with sewage. Same with electrical.
And I reiterate - as soon as the money is distributed to the "developers" - that money - OUR money - is gone... whether it is used for the purpose intended or not.
Keep in mind that trump is a 'developer'. Do you really think if Biden gave trump "three billion dollars" that trump would use it for what it was intended? Or do you think he'd pocket most of it? And he is a typical 'developer' as far as 'honesty' is concerned.
Converting office space to living space strains infrastructure in ways not intended by the original intent of the buildings. They can’t put thirty apartments on a single floor of a high rise and have those residents use the same four bathrooms per floor that the offices had. Same with sewage. Same with electrical.
Water and sewage is a real question, that's true. From the projects like this that I'm aware of, fire safety is actually the bigger issue, though. Usually sleeping areas are required to have an easier escape route than would be typical in the middle of a big office building. I guess you can add pipes and pumps without too much modification, and offices use plenty of electricity, although probably not in the same pattern.
As for the systemic issues, governments do manage to get things done sometimes. The exact details of such a legislation are more granular than I really would want to hammer out on Lemmy.
I would think a commitment to intelligent solutions such as converting unused warehouse spaces rather than sticking billions of dollars down the "developer" black hole (trump is a "developer"... did you know that? Yeah, that criminal guy - he's kind of the cream of the crop).
So while government considers once again giving huge handouts to rich property owners does sound appealing, it's not really.
I would venture a guess that 10% of the "bailout" cash might get used towards... something related to conversion. And that would be that.
How about we NOT bail our some stranded ass rich assholes with our tax dollars and use those dollars wisely - towards fixing the problem rather than making another tax dollar hog trough.
Like a skyscraper of the same size but with apartments? The original idea seems pretty practical to me.
One popular option is floor level businesses with apartments above them. Doesn't necessarily have to be as tall, many of these skyscrapers take a lot of space for landscaping that could be used for square footage. On top of this, other areas could also be rezone and recreated into city parks to make up for the over indulgent landscaping.
