Mayor's $16-billion housing plan

datadyne007 said:
Which is exactly my point. The problem is that it is not being built there and there is no excess of housing in Rozzie/JP (where prices are climbing out of control anyway). We're putting up these shiny apartment towers downtown/Fenway and the neighborhood committees are requiring the "affordable" housing be on-site, when really most of the towers should be all market-rate and the developer should just build a parcel of affordable housing somewhere the city will really benefit or something. Maybe they could take some large lots near T stations or something, subdivide them into small parcels, and allot them for development. Maybe the city could actually get serious about the 3rd option (which is paying into a fund to develop affordable housing) and all these developers could pay into the fund and the city could build a decent size TOD or something instead of wasting time and money trying to force affordable housing into downtown towers.
Click to expand...

I see your angle, as long as it never turns into building entire neighborhoods of low income buildings again. That is the old project model, and it sucks. In places like JP and Fenway, all affordable housing really should be co-site with market rate. Mixed developments keep the poverty density from rising in any one building or neighborhood which in turn prevents project-syndrome.

It makes some sense that in downtown mega luxury towers it is better to collect more rents (because they are astronomical) and disperse the cash to other neighborhoods. But it is a slippery slope back to just collecting taxes from everyone and building slum projects. I would really prefer to see affordable housing linkage funds (I think that is what they are called) go into mixed affordable-market developments rather than all-affordable developments.
 
Seriously guys, can we have a discussion about affordable housing?
 
datadyne007 said:
Seriously guys, can we have a discussion about affordable housing?
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's start with this question, what value lies in expanding the perpetually subsididized non-contributory underclass?
 
kmp1284 said:
Sure. Let's start with this question, what value lies in expanding the perpetually subsididized non-contributory underclass?
Click to expand...

So you don't believe affordable housing should be provided at all? I suppose you'd rather a comparable investment in homeless shelters...
 
Affordable Housing? Its all about this basic principle: (Supply & Demand)

Housing values are based on Location. (Menino controls Zoning laws in the city)

**Harbor Garage & Fenway Area offered to build more housing (No Tax incentives) Menino says no (Its not my fault you paid too much for the land) This would add more supply to the city of Boston:

Mayor's $16-billion housing plan: Is that he promotes using more taxpayer incentives to help himself and his developer friends more tax incentives to build more housing for the sheep of Mass?
BRA is promoting tax breaks for certain developer or corporate interests that support his agenda:
Filenes Project: 16 Million
Liberty Mutual 46.5 Million
Fan Pier Project 60 Million
State Street Building 16 Million

Of course housing is expensive Mayor Menino is controlling where the taxpayer's money is being spent. And your not on his XMAS list.
Bottom Line: You have to be a sucker to pay more real estate taxes to enrich these political Frauds.

It's way beyond Liberal facism now.

Massive solution: to affordable housing would have been a massive Upgrade to the Transit which people could get to the city in a more efficient manner from Braintree to Gloucester.
Do you ever get mad sitting in traffic knowing that our politicans have spent your tax money on themselves and their friends rather than creating a better system for all of us?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BussesAin'tTrains said:
So you don't believe affordable housing should be provided at all? I suppose you'd rather a comparable investment in homeless shelters...
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I believe that people should pay their own way and understand that they are not entitled to live somewhere unless they can afford it at market rate.

Now, back to my question.
 
kmp1284 said:
No, I don't. I believe that people should pay their own way and understand that they are not entitled to live somewhere unless they can afford it at market rate.

Now, back to my question.
Click to expand...

So massive, near-forced migrations of the poor to cheaper areas that they maybe could afford would be your desired solution? Talk about a social realignment.

But maybe that's a strawman fallacy by me.

Rather than a political argument over the poors who don't pay their own way, I'm very curious about what you're proposing.

What are you policy ideas for implementing the phasing out of subsidized housing? You can't just pull the rug of the social safety net immediately (or if you do, there needs to be plan in place to manage the fallout). How do we get to your desired goal?
 
The problem in 2013, sadly, does not lie in finding a way to provide housing for people who don't want to work. If only it were that black and white.

The problem in 2013 is that people who want to work and become productive members of society often do not have a path to success, creating massive amount of people who can't afford a place to live because there are no jobs for them. The people that have jobs then subsidize the people who do not have them, causing them to take home far less of their hard earned money.

The unemployed aren't the cause, they are the symptom.
The taxes aren't the cause, they are the symptom.
The affordable units aren't the cause, they are the symptom.
The housing stock isn't the entire cause.
The lack of jobs and opportunities for people who aren't marketable right now is the problem.
Either find a way to create jobs, or give these people marketable skills, but hopefully both. That is the cheapest way to solve this problem, in my opinion.

If, once the system of employment is fixed, there are still people who want to live off the welfare system and not provide anything to society (which there inevitably will be), then we can talk about booting these people out of the city. But currently these layabouts and ne'er-do-wells, and whatnots constitute a minority of the poor. That is the problem.
 
kmp1284 said:
Sure. Let's start with this question, what value lies in expanding the perpetually subsididized non-contributory underclass?
Click to expand...

It wasn't that long ago that I shared your sentiments. I asked myself the same question many times and I arrived at an answer that I didn't like, but have had to accept.

You can't just change our welfare policy. This is a city, state, and country in which we have a government sponsored social safety net and that has been the case for nearly a century. Collectively, as a society, we have decided time and again that we want a safety net for good people that fall on hard times and the weak who can't take care of themselves. The fallout from that generosity is that some layabouts take advantage. It is an inescapable side effect of a noble goal.

American society is not exactly doing terrible, even with people who act as parasites. We aren't the richest country in the world (per capita), but we are near the top and all the countries above us have more extensive welfare programs. We are also near or at the top in productivity (per capita). To me that means we are rich and productive enough to carry a few stragglers along for the ride. We are doing just fine even with them "dragging us down".

No matter how much you *feel* it, we are not *in fact* going broke by providing affordable housing. Ultimately it is good for society on a macro level, even if it looks extremely unfair on a micro level. If you cut the safety net, you cut loose all the people who genuinely could use a helping hand, and you'll drive the parasites further into degeneracy and crime. They won't just evaporate and disappear.

Think long and hard about the implications of cutting the slackers loose. You may not want to live in the resulting world.
 
bigeman312 said:
Either find a way to create jobs, or give these people marketable skills, but hopefully both. That is the cheapest way to solve this problem, in my opinion.

.
Click to expand...

The only real job creators are small businesses which tend to grow within the communities. Printing money & creating more taxes and then helping private developers build housing with taxpayers incentives then paying half the rent through taxpayer subsidaries is not job creation (See Detroit model)

Until the actual working class dollar is stronger which happen to be the productive working class that actually make America run will not spend extra money on more social events or activities which helps create the real jobs.

Low Interest rates & printing money (bailouts & stimilus packages) only created a financial lawless system for the corrupt.

Higher interest rates will adjust the housing prices to more affordable prices for the working class people.
 
Last edited:
^ You do realize that inflation rates right now are incredibly low...
 
underground said:
It's the buddy part that makes this argument so sound.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "fantasy" falls into the same rhetorical category.

Interestingly, Goldberg writes at length about the tendency of authoritarian regimes toward categorizing dissenting viewpoints as fanaticism and insanity. But it seemed to me, anyway, that Goldberg presses these type of arguments too far. For example, in reviewing your argument he would conclude that since you are questioning the sanity of his work, you are using an authoritarian technique, ergo you are a fascist. (I am assuming that you are not a fascist!)

Both "Liberal Fascism" and "Lord of the Rings" are interesting, and since Tolkein denied his work was an allegory, you are right that it is a fantasy. "Liberal Fascism" is a polemic based on awkward historical facts that are used to reach a conclusion. Besides, "Liberal Fascism" is a catchier title than a more accurate title like "Authoritarian Tendencies in Liberal Policy", as evidenced by its time atop the New York Times Best Sellers List.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top