what would happen if we pegged rent? (1 Viewer)

not trying to dodge the questions - i have heard police describe one of the main reasons crime has morphed in NO is the pjs changing has caused gangs who had long settled turf battles to battle for new territory
it doesn't happen so much in the old St Bernard area b/c the neighborhood damage was extensive - but in 8th ward and central city areas that didn't get the damage, the housing squeeze is a significant contributor to the violence

BUT
at the end of the day - i think programs that strongly encourage diverse (in all its forms) neighborhoods is better in the long run than homogeneous neighborhoods

Encouraging diversity by subsidizing people to live like the Jones will continue to build class warfare and eventually lead to other problems. You can not tell me that you and your wife who went to college and work hard to afford your decent housing would not get red faced to come home and see my subsidized *** sitting on my porch drinking beer.

At some point people will tire of trying to get ahead in life only to find they are no better off than me and my can of beer. At some point, you and your wife will abandon the teacher rat race and go work at McDonald's for 15/hour and lived in your subsidized condo just like me.

At some point the money runs out to continue the subsidies and the nice condos turn into the old pjs.
 
Encouraging diversity by subsidizing people to live like the Jones will continue to build class warfare and eventually lead to other problems. You can not tell me that you and your wife who went to college and work hard to afford your decent housing would not get red faced to come home and see my subsidized *** sitting on my porch drinking beer.

At some point people will tire of trying to get ahead in life only to find they are no better off than me and my can of beer. At some point, you and your wife will abandon the teacher rat race and go work at McDonald's for 15/hour and lived in your subsidized condo just like me.

At some point the money runs out to continue the subsidies and the nice condos turn into the old pjs.

but you run to the "welfare queen" extreme to make a point that i'm not sure is valid

the OP was merely about reading/hearing plenty of reports saying where rents should be - then couple that with decades of wage stagnation - i was wondering if there was any fixable on the rent side
 
IMO, if you are looking at this as a means to end poverty, then your approach is all wrong. The only way to address this is with a guaranteed minimum income for every person. Let's say $1000 a month per person. Even a kid gets $1000 (handed to their parents). I can see all sorts of issues that could crop up from that, but I cannot deny that there may be a way to pull that off. In fact, with the ever increasing use of automation and the rise if artificial intelligence, I think we are going to be forced to do exactly that to maintain the social order in the long run.

the poverty is a red herring
rising rents are a problem that cut into savings and any number of other areas that stagnate the economy
wages aren't rising
is there a way to fix rents?
 
Rising rents are a huge problem, some of it could be addressed via supply and demand. On the supply side, regulate short term rentals. Renting of properties via AirBnB has taken thousands of homes off the market for residents of New Orleans. On the demand side, there is still a lot of blighted space available to build affordable housing, more housing will drive down the cost of rent.

That being said, maybe rent control wouldn't be a bad thing. Or if we can get closer to a livable wage for working people, that would go a long way to solving the problem too.
 
Rising rents are a huge problem, some of it could be addressed via supply and demand. On the supply side, regulate short term rentals. Renting of properties via AirBnB has taken thousands of homes off the market for residents of New Orleans. On the demand side, there is still a lot of blighted space available to build affordable housing, more housing will drive down the cost of rent.

That being said, maybe rent control wouldn't be a bad thing. Or if we can get closer to a livable wage for working people, that would go a long way to solving the problem too.

Every new development I see in South Florida is "Luxury" Homes, condos, townhomes. Always gotta throw that "luxury" term in there to get a $175k town home to sell for $335k.

It reflects the problem with blighted space. Who's going to invest there? The residents who lived there, can't afford to rebuild (or they weren't the owners). No on with money wants to do it (unless they want to be a slum lord or a section 8 housing lord) and deal with the headache. So, what happens? Some huge developer tries to swoop in and buy it all up and turn it into 'luxury' condos and a shopping center full of min wage jobs to help add to the $250k 2/2 condo's appeal (so freaking weird to me how that works for city councils), and then most people with the money don't really want to live there, because the school is still terrible so they don't sell, or the only sell to investors who turn around and rent it to young people with no kids, who are now paying waaaay too much for rent, so they can't do anything smart with their money, or they rent to vacationers (or retired people escaping winter/summer depending on location).

So, if you wait long enough, the blighted area, if ever fixed, becomes too expensive, so new people move in, those who were in the blighted areas find the next cheapest area, it tends to get run down, because the ones who kept up the area will run away to another area slightly out of their financial reach, until we're all straining to live next to our doctors and managers, because those are the only decent public schools.

Sorry, this is a bit raw and I haven't given this enough thought to narrow it down or review more data to see what's real and what's perception.
 
To add, to me, the only real solution is for these altruistic billionaire investors to invest in decent housing (heck, it doesn't even have to be built cheaply, because they can afford the loss, or use it as a tax write off as charity, I'm sure). Basically set it up similar to Habitat for Humanity, but perhaps with less volunteering required. Have an ownership time requirement before you can consider selling the house or whatever. Allow people who qualify (all via this investor person, or via the charity) to purchase homes for an amount based on income (and I'd honestly go under 25% of monthly, especially since many are paid bi weekly, and you have to wait 6 months to catch up, since you only get paid for 4 weeks a month for a while).

Side Note, Section 8 makes you pay 30-40% of your income, but without looking, I'd assume that's after taxes (and not counting EITC if you get it).

So, two things happen. You drastically increase or improve the number of low income homes that most builders or investors don't want to touch right now (unless they're going for section 8 vouchers). So, you are relaxing the strain on the "tier 2 market" for middle class buyers. Some middle to lower middle class could potentially qualify for some of these homes (there could be tiers). It's all my pipe dream anyway.

And secondly, you decrease the bottom end of pricing relaxing some of the false supply side price increase. I say false, because so many over priced units sit empty and either people over pay to squeeze in there or it inflates other properties near by that were a bit cheaper. e.g. if you like a neighborhood and see a series of houses all for $400k, and there is one gem for $300k, you might find yourself in a bidding war with a few others for that cheaper home, now it's $375k and you strain to buy it.

The more I think of all this stuff, the more I realize I need to move out of a metro area. An Engineer and a social worker can't hack it here, I guess.
 
but you run to the "welfare queen" extreme to make a point that i'm not sure is valid

the OP was merely about reading/hearing plenty of reports saying where rents should be - then couple that with decades of wage stagnation - i was wondering if there was any fixable on the rent side

You had the OP and you asked what would happen if we pegged rent. I gave you my opinion to your question. No where in my post did I say anything about welfare queens.

I only pointed out that the couple next door to you making 15 bucks an hour at Mcdonalds lives in the same condo you do. You are paying full price because you and your wife sacrificed and planned for it and they are paying very little for the same condo because they made bad choices.

Where you got welfare queen from that is beyond me.

You also mentioned that your and your wife lost your job and that would be a good reason to peg rent. What if a doctor and nurse couple get lose their jobs because a hospital closes, do we subsidize their $4,500 NY condo rent while they find new jobs? If you and your wife lost your jobs and can no afford your 1500 rent, why should anyone subsidize your rent?



BUT
at the end of the day - i think programs that strongly encourage diverse (in all its forms) neighborhoods is better in the long run than homogeneous neighborhoods




While this certainly sounds good what you are saying is why cant we get other people to pay our way.

Subsidizing is not the answer to our problems. We need low income rental properties but then nobody wants to live in the "projects". Where are all the rich liberals stepping up and building nice low income housing communicates?

It was said somewhere in this thread that there are not many investors that will build low income housing in blighted areas because there is simply no return on investment. So where are the ultra liberal millionaires that want so much wealth sharing? Why are they not steeping up and building nice replacement housing in NOLA in the old St. Bernard projects property with their own money? Why are they not going around investing their own money and solving the low income housing shortage.

I just love how people try to justify getting other people to pay for their way through life.
 
To add, to me, the only real solution is for these altruistic billionaire investors to invest in decent housing (heck, it doesn't even have to be built cheaply, because they can afford the loss, or use it as a tax write off as charity, I'm sure)..


Exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post. All these billionaire liberals have all kinds of nice ideas and programs to help the poor except they somebody else to fund it. They want government to collect the money form tax payers to build all these nice mix use complexes.

Where is Michael Moore Parc

Where is George Soras Ponds

Where is Bloomberg Centre?
 
Exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post. All these billionaire liberals have all kinds of nice ideas and programs to help the poor except they somebody else to fund it. They want government to collect the money form tax payers to build all these nice mix use complexes.

Where is Michael Moore Parc

Where is George Soras Ponds

Where is Bloomberg Centre?

Well, part of the problem is that, let's say they want to use $10M of their money. They could easily build, what, like 50 single homes for that? It's a good start, but adding 50 low cost homes may barely move a saturated market. I don't know. So, while I bring it up as my idea, I don't exactly blame them either.

I'd rather see the system corrected via higher wages. Maybe it's selfishness, but I want my degree to pay me more, more more.
 
Well, part of the problem is that, let's say they want to use $10M of their money. They could easily build, what, like 50 single homes for that? It's a good start, but adding 50 low cost homes may barely move a saturated market. I don't know. So, while I bring it up as my idea, I don't exactly blame them either.

I'd rather see the system corrected via higher wages. Maybe it's selfishness, but I want my degree to pay me more, more more.


Soros alone is worth around 23 Billion. How many billions does he need? What if we called for a dollar for dollar match. For every superpac dollar donated, one dollar goes to building low income housing.


It is selfish but who does not want more money. Nothing wrong with wanting more money but higher wages across the board will just continue raising housing costs more more more.
 
OK , just more more more money for me , which I promise to spend profligately , thereby stimulating virtually all economies in my immediate vicinity . You're welcome .
 
Soros alone is worth around 23 Billion. How many billions does he need? What if we called for a dollar for dollar match. For every superpac dollar donated, one dollar goes to building low income housing.


It is selfish but who does not want more money. Nothing wrong with wanting more money but higher wages across the board will just continue raising housing costs more more more.


George Soros is one of the most charitable human beings alive.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom