- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mixed Income Housing
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:00 pm to TooMuchArkyInMe
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:00 pm to TooMuchArkyInMe
quote:This problem is in its entirely caused by excessive government regulation. It is basic econ 101 that rent control lowers the supply offered by owners of property. But keep on blaming "evil capitalists" for problems caused by gubmint.
damn capitalists
0
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
tired of the ridiculous capitalist conception that one's socioeconomic status is a direct result of individual labor/effort when in reality it's mostly not
it wouldn't. at least for those who can work and don't
quote:
in your ideal state, how would it handle lazy people who either don't work or work in a shoddy manner?
it wouldn't. at least for those who can work and don't
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:08 pm to Zach
quote:
You're not forcing them. You're forcing the builder. The rich still have the option to not buy in the mixed income development.
Point taken. Of course this will lead to a flight of money from the city and effectively turn mixed housing into low income housing. But I tend to believe that the actual result would be to no new housing developments being performed. No builder will take the risk.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:09 pm to TooMuchArkyInMe
quote:
tired of the ridiculous capitalist conception that one's socioeconomic status is a direct result of individual labor/effort when in reality it's mostly not
it's not just labor/effort. it's about value of labor
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:12 pm to TooMuchArkyInMe
quote:You po'???
tired of the ridiculous capitalist conception that one's socioeconomic status is a direct result of individual labor/effort when in reality it's mostly not
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:24 pm to Zach
More war on freedom of association.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 1:27 pm to Zach
Diversity through rent control. This is such passive totalitarian bullshite.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:02 pm to Zach
One of the problems is in the past, it was actually quite hard to build there, which drives up all rents. I think DeB is trying to ease that.
But lets be clear he is a populist appealing to the poor.
But lets be clear he is a populist appealing to the poor.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:08 pm to TooMuchArkyInMe
quote:
not a bad idea. not sure if it would actually work, but socioeconomic segregation is a problem
I've heard this argument many times. Just curious about your take on this matter.
If socioeconomic diversity is mutually beneficial to all parties, how will the rich benefit from living in the same area as the poor?
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:44 pm to upgrayedd
typical lib philosophy of making everything "equal" by making it crappy for everybody, except themselves of course, kind of like public schools and obamacare
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:53 pm to Zach
In our ultra-liberal county in Maryland, a builder HAS TO build a certain number of MPDUs (moderately priced housing units - some PC acronym they came up with) for all new developments. The percentage varies from 12.5% to 15% of the total units built in that development. Everyone I know tries to stay as far away from MPDUs as possible, and builders put up smaller developments so they can bypass the regulations.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 2:56 pm to Zach
I think NYC and maybe SF are the only areas these sort of things should exist.
It makes me cringe when they talk about building "mixed income" or "affordable housing" projects in mid size cities near the downtown because they will become crime havens after 10 to 20 years.
It would make more sense to build government subsidized housing out in the burbs and just run a bus route out there if there isn't one already.
It makes me cringe when they talk about building "mixed income" or "affordable housing" projects in mid size cities near the downtown because they will become crime havens after 10 to 20 years.
It would make more sense to build government subsidized housing out in the burbs and just run a bus route out there if there isn't one already.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 5:09 pm to Asgard Device
quote:Like what's already happening in St George??
It would make more sense to build government subsidized housing out in the burbs and just run a bus route out there if there isn't one already.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 5:15 pm to LSURussian
More and more every day on here I realize that I want to be like Zach when I grow up.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 8:53 pm to Zach
quote:Nothing new. New Orleans has a bunch of place s like this.
Read it just now in last week's WSJ and recall something on it last week in NYT but cannot link. It's a new policy by DeBlassio in NYC.
The short version: Let's say you are a developer and want to build an apartment complex in NYC. To get a license you must build a mix:
Really nice places for the rich.
Middle priced places for the working man.
Shacks for those on welfare.
The goal: If all of the different classes are living in the same complex we will enjoy the fruits of diversity. Currently, pricing causes 'class segregation' and we must wipe that out.
Thoughts?
Edited to add the Northshore has mixed income apartments. This shite has been going on for quite awhile. It's all the rage in urban planning.
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:15 am to Zach
quote:
Read it just now in last week's WSJ and recall something on it last week in NYT but cannot link. It's a new policy by DeBlassio in NYC.
The short version: Let's say you are a developer and want to build an apartment complex in NYC. To get a license you must build a mix:
Really nice places for the rich.
Middle priced places for the working man.
Shacks for those on welfare.
The goal: If all of the different classes are living in the same complex we will enjoy the fruits of diversity. Currently, pricing causes 'class segregation' and we must wipe that out.
Thoughts?
That's exactly what they did with many of the projects in NOLA.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:55 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Really nice places for the rich.
quote:
That's exactly what they did with many of the projects in NOLA.
BS - You know any smart, rich people living in the rebuilt projects in NOLA? Nope, they are still in the better parts of uptown, garden district, Lakeview and the bayou/city-park.
The rebuilt projects will be crap again in a decade.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:53 am to Zach
They've been doing this it's call affordable housing, it's not welfare type housing it's just some how rent controlled , the puppet floors have seperate entrances and the affordable housing doesn't get to use the amenities of the building . It sucks but if you want to develop new land it's how it is.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:43 am to dat yat
quote:
BS - You know any smart, rich people living in the rebuilt projects in NOLA? Nope, they are still in the better parts of uptown, garden district, Lakeview and the bayou/city-park.
Had a black woman who did some babysitting work for us in the year after Hurricane Katrina. Her husband was a laborer and by all accounts they would be considered lower middle class and would easily qualify to live in any of these fancy new "mixed income" developments they were creating out of former projects in New Orleans.
Well, this was after Katrina, when rent prices in NO were in a flux, and she and her husband were having a hard time findng a place to live. One of those shiny new project to "mixed income" conversions was finishing about a mile from my house and my mother in law asked our sitter if she and her husband had looked at those. She took great offense at my mother in law and said, "we ain't living in the projects!"
I don't believe her mindset was atypical at all among a large segment of even lower income working black people in New Orleans.
At least the "mixed income" development still looks better than the project it replaced. The "mixed income" deal is pure pipe dream, though.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:56 am to Zach
quote:First of all, mixed income housing is not new in New York, and it's not originally a De Blasio policy. If anything, he's just continuing and modifying an existing program.
Read it just now in last week's WSJ and recall something on it last week in NYT but cannot link. It's a new policy by DeBlassio in NYC.
The short version: Let's say you are a developer and want to build an apartment complex in NYC. To get a license you must build a mix:
Really nice places for the rich.
Middle priced places for the working man.
Shacks for those on welfare.
The goal: If all of the different classes are living in the same complex we will enjoy the fruits of diversity. Currently, pricing causes 'class segregation' and we must wipe that out.
Thoughts?
The reason it's become a popular idea is because the old style of building housing projects all lumped up in one spot just concentrates poverty into one area, dumping a bunch of poor, desperate, unemployed people on top of each other. Since no one has money, businesses avoid the area, so those people have to travel longer distances to get jobs. It also promotes formation of gangs and black-market economies (primarily drug-related).
By using mixed income housing developments, poorer people can be integrated into the actual community instead of being crammed into a few areas in the city. There's no 'ghetto' and the demographics are more uniform, and poor people have the same geographic access to transportation and businesses that wealthier people do.
I think it's a massive improvement over the old method of building housing projects. The NYC projects are pretty soundly reviled as being failures. I mean, they do their job of housing poor people, but they do so in a way that just exacerbates poverty and crime. Mixed housing is way better.
edit: I'm not sure if a policy like this is appropriate outside of a few select cities. In NYC, I think it's a good idea.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 8:01 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News