Housing affordability _is_ a displacement-prevention measure.
> building houses
These are not houses, they lack basic plumbing, kitchen, food refrigeration, etc.
> as proven by the fact that they are choosing to live there.
Most literally were unable to afford other forms of housing, especially the elderly living on social security. Calling this a choice is intellectually dishonest.
> The phrase "affordable housing" has come to mean "cheap housing for poor people."
More specifically, it's come to mean "subsidized housing for poor people". It's often contrasted with "luxury housing", which is implicitly anything new-built and market-rate.
Right, you don't build affordable housing, and you don't even reserve housing as "affordable" (that's gratuitously inviting corruption via basically giving away underpriced housing as a 'gift' to cronies and associates). You build as much new housing as you can afford to, and let older housing filter down to "affordable" levels.
Housing affordability is an entirely new concept as a result of a better society. Go back a hundred or two hundred years and housing was not affordable because people didn’t have jobs. They were serfs and slaves.
"Affordable housing" always means "affordable high value housing for well adjusted middle class families" in politico.
Sure, the poor elderly, the homeless, and those with mental health and addiction challenges need a place to stay too, but it can't be here. We don't have people like that around these parts.
Rent controlled does not mean below market rate, and affordability isn’t poured in concrete so “building affordable and not affordable housing” is a nonsensical statement.
Single family housing in city centers with zoning that excludes other construction absolutely makes housing less affordable. It constrains supply considerably.
Furthermore the age of those houses is irrelevant to any other concern here. I’d argue that is an aesthetic anyway, and shouldn’t be a primary policy goal.
As for the condos, sure they don’t house the poor and no one makes that claim. They do pull middle income out of housing that can then be occupied by lower income residents. [1]
You still aren’t addressing property rights. Preventing owners from freely exercising their right to build is a taking.
Finally, I don’t think your ad hominem argument belongs here.
There are all sorts of living arrangements which don't include welfare, that are affordable and attainable for most everyone. That being said, if housing is not affordable for 99.999% of the population the most glaring culprit is not employers, but local government leaders who prevent the construction of affordable housing.
Affordable housing is a misnomer. Definitionally: afford: 'To have the financial means for'.
Affordable housing in London, UK.
Does it cost 3.5x the minimum/living wage, affordable to a single person? ;-)
Does it cost 6x the minimum/living wage, affordable to a couple? Not there yet.
Instead it costs some percentage of market rate.
Which generally ends up being 20x min wage or similar. Yes - as a person you'd need to become three, four, five times more useful before you can get this starter home.
As far as I can tell it's just trolling. It genuinely feels like those with wealth laughing at the lower classes, there's no other explanation for such a ridiculous use of language.
A Bentley does not become 'affordable' if I offer it to you for 50% off.
Even minimum wage would be a high bar to set because it doesn't feel affordable to everyone. But at the moment we're saying 'the top 10% can afford it so that's fine'.
1. A polite way to say "housing project" or "subsidized housing" to not scare people.
2. A buzzword to force more housing density and/or promote social engineering agendas. When used in this sense, it isn't actually linked to affordability.
> building houses
These are not houses, they lack basic plumbing, kitchen, food refrigeration, etc.
> as proven by the fact that they are choosing to live there.
Most literally were unable to afford other forms of housing, especially the elderly living on social security. Calling this a choice is intellectually dishonest.
reply