Some public sectors have success with this (e.g. Singapore, Vienna)
I think the main issue I have with it as a proposal is that the fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level, and it's not ethical to embark on such an endeavor if there is no solid 60-vote bloc in the Senate and poor people are at risk of getting the rug from pulled out from under them. (See how our current housing authorities are doing to know how that plays out.)
> fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level
Some USA resort towns and counties do it. They are flush with vacationer tax dollars and short labor, so local gov't builds housing mainly for workers.
The feds don't have the funds to do this, though the feds can borrow from the future apparently indefinitely.
So pass laws to provide incentives for bare bones low income construction, and disincentivize excessive luxury construction. In a lot of places you can't build unless you also build a certain amount of parking, the same approach could be applied to affordable apartments.
We also need laws against large scale speculative home purchases. An individual having a vacation home/rental unit or two is one thing, but home flippers and large scale property rental corps are a big problem.
Maybe "desirable" isn't the right word, but I walked through several public projects recently in my area and they are much safer and better maintained than the historic image. Talking to people there, it was evident that they were not the "freeloaders" so often portrayed by a certain group of politicians either - many were there because of health care costs and other calamities that were beyond the person's control. I was there in the middle of the day and it was obvious that a whole lot of people were out at work - again, not the image so often unfairly portrayed of the unemployed freeloader. The houses and grounds were clean and well-maintained, more so than the poorer neighborhoods surrounding them.
GI Bill suburbia was built by private home builders and contractors, not the government. They were not public works. The government subsidized the loans.
We can look to the communities the Soviets built mid-century. They were organized around the concept of community, something sorely lacking in big metro urban neighborhoods.
bobthepanda|3 years ago
I think the main issue I have with it as a proposal is that the fiscal resources required to sustain such a program only exist at the federal level, and it's not ethical to embark on such an endeavor if there is no solid 60-vote bloc in the Senate and poor people are at risk of getting the rug from pulled out from under them. (See how our current housing authorities are doing to know how that plays out.)
landemva|3 years ago
Some USA resort towns and counties do it. They are flush with vacationer tax dollars and short labor, so local gov't builds housing mainly for workers.
The feds don't have the funds to do this, though the feds can borrow from the future apparently indefinitely.
CuriouslyC|3 years ago
We also need laws against large scale speculative home purchases. An individual having a vacation home/rental unit or two is one thing, but home flippers and large scale property rental corps are a big problem.
poulsbohemian|3 years ago
mellavora|3 years ago
There is more than one architype of public works projects
throwawayallday|3 years ago
droptablemain|3 years ago
https://www.rbth.com/history/333420-socialist-communal-citie...