Density is unavoidable. But residential values can freeze or barely grow in nominal terms. That won’t cause a crisis.
Public housing built to be sold at an affordable price, not let to wards of the state, maybe with an aim at redeveloping blighted areas, is a model I’m fond of. (See Roosevelt Island.)
Every real dollar you add back to worker consumption via housing affordability measures is a real dollar you remove from non-worker consumption via a reduction in investment income via rents, mortgages, and housing sales. Housing is a market where there's extremely little productivity gains available for improving the size of the pie as a whole - at best you can improve energy efficiency, commuting waste, or other non-valuable housing related consumption. But if all you're doing is making housing more financially affordable, you're going to have to deal with the fact that Peter's financial savings is Paul's lost rent-seeking, and Paul is generally a pensioner that votes.
> Housing is a market where there's extremely little productivity gains available for improving the size of the pie as a whole
Sure, as long as you believe you must never change the laws around housing. In that case, you can stop the whole conversation there.
On the other hand if you wanted to actually do something you could pass a federal law or constitutional amendment giving individuals the right to posses no more than one home without undue restriction. For example, construction codes simply get more and more strict across the nation each year. For the simple reason that the industry lobbies for it, as it increases their opportunity for profit. There's no actual need for this as it isn't like humanity hasn't been building homes for thousands of years.
> Housing is a market where there's extremely little productivity gains available for improving the size of the pie as a whole - at best you can improve energy efficiency, commuting waste, or other non-valuable housing related consumption.
If housing prices are rising in the area then generally (not always) there's more demand for housing than supply. Increased density generally leads to increased economic activity (more housing = more residents = more commercial activity = higher tax revenue.) Viewing the housing market in isolation is a mistake.
> But if all you're doing is making housing more financially affordable, you're going to have to deal with the fact that Peter's financial savings is Paul's lost rent-seeking, and Paul is generally a pensioner that votes.
Yes and that's the problem. Veto powers in most residential politics tend to be strong and so Paul's veto generally overrides Paul's demand.
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.
Most states and localities cannot borrow anywhere near as much before testing the markets. (For a non-state example of how horribly that can turn out, look at Puerto Rico.)
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.
Government loan subsidies, government loan guarantees, additional subsidies in the mortgage interest rate deduction, local government paying for infrastructure (roads/utilities), ...
perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
Also, say a city or state government wants to build a low-cost/low-income housing (or take historical examples if you will), the type of undesirable stuff the parent was talking about. Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor? Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Of course the government subcontracts the work out to do the actual construction. By the government has no incentive to build livable housing. Government employees don’t live in the housing. The government doesn’t have a business reputation to uphold. As crazy as it might sound, those who live in a community just might have a better understanding of how it should be developed compare to those on the outside.
>...perhaps I take a broader definition of public works than you do.
You're taking an incorrect definition of "public works". Words have meaning: "Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community."
Suburbia was not constructed by the government, and is not for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. It is for the use of a private owner.
Suburbia is by definition not a public works. QED.
>Who do you think actually does the building work? Is it government employees, or is it sub'ed out to private builders and contractors?
Many times it's a mix of both. Cities and states employ thousands of plumbers, electricians, etc. Nonetheless, if you get a house constructed by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC, but they subcontract a large percent of the actual construction out to subcontractors, you'd still say your house was built by WestCoastHomeBuildersLLC. That's who you'd go to for warranty issues, for construction progress, etc. Same applies for the government and public works.
>And if it is government workers, can you please explain why say the Army Corps of Engineers would be better or worse at building a bridge than say a private contractor?
For the same reasons private industry is better at building practically... everything.
>Which of the two is more incentivized to cut corners and do things on the cheap wherever possible?
Government for sure because they can save money and face zero liability issues down the line. Insanely impossible to be fired so you can be lazy and cut corners all day and you'll still keep your job, and they projects are constantly cutting corners to save on materials. Then after you poison (Camp Lejeun) thousands of people you just shrug because no one goes to jail.
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.
Density is unavoidable. But residential values can freeze or barely grow in nominal terms. That won’t cause a crisis.
Public housing built to be sold at an affordable price, not let to wards of the state, maybe with an aim at redeveloping blighted areas, is a model I’m fond of. (See Roosevelt Island.)