MinnPost Housing Programs Concentrate Poverty
MinnPost What is Affordable Housing
The first one resonates with my belief that the way to close the achievement gap and to overcome generational poverty is to surround the poor with wealthier people. This ensures that the schools and community have a significant population of volunteers, donations, good peer pressure, good examples, a different belief system, etc... Now how to do that when the Burbs usually have limited public transportation, are spread out, relatively expensive to live in, etc, that is the question?
In the second, in my comments I questioned:
"No one said the housing was to be cold, wet, dirty, old or in anyway third worldish. Is renting a room, studio, having room mates, etc in anyway third worldish? If you think so I am guessing you haven't been to the third world. So I'll ask again.And got no answer. Thoughts?
What do you think is adequate housing low income housing?
The goal of low cost housing in my view is to keep people warm, safe, etc. How many square feet and amenities does that take?"
13 comments:
If I was in charge I would have a law that says cities must have a minimum percentage of affordable housing and landlords could not turn away renters with subsidized housing vouchers (unless there was a verified history of being bad tenants - vandalism, disturbing the peace etc.)
I have very little idea how subsidized housing works, but in my program subsidized renters would share an apt. bldg with lower income working people and live in communities / go to school with with people of a wide range of income levels.
In your program, how much space do we pay for the people in these examples?
- single person
- single parent w/ 1 kid
- single parent w/ 2 kids
- 2 parents w/ 2 kids
I would make the subsidy enough so a family could afford one of the lowest cost 2 bedroom apts in an inner ring suburb. If the landlord allowed it you could put up to 4 kids in one bedroom or the kids could take the bedrooms and mom could sleep on the couch.
And for single people? Or a couple with no children?
If I was in charge I would get rid of most of the union-imposed rules for housing, and perhaps have government offer incentives for the building of low-income housing (just like cars, there's more profit in the big ones). As I've said, 15 years or so ago I could have built a two-bedroom for about $8500, if law allowed.
Then I would get rid of all of these 100s of "means tested" "entitlements" and replace them with a single, simple progressive income tax (including negative). Let them acquire their own housing.
Just saw an item where "tiny houses" are being built for the homeless, for as little as $5000 each.
Now that's what I am talking about. The problem is that the population density would be pretty low for most cities. (ie compared to multilevel apartments)
Tiny Houses
Wiki Small House Movement
Yes, tiny houses are designed for smaller towns, but it adds the benefit of some communal green space-- good for the soul. Some of these homes are also clustered around common kitchen or bath facilities, for further savings-- "high density" housing but without the high-rise. I have to believe that medium rise apartments could be built for far less money, too, in the larger cities, but don't you then get places like Cabrini Green?
I am envisioning almost dormitory style housing... Maybe like Mary's Place or Higher Ground.
My point is affordable housing does not need to be a private 1 or 2 bedroom apartment like Cabrini Green had.
I'm looking at this as a means to restore human dignity by permitting people to have "their own place," paid for with their own effort/money. A dormitory doesn't do that, and neither does a subsidized apartment. Again, I think the government has created a situation worse than what would obtain without their interference. First, the many laws on housing make the price ten times what this basic shelter might sell for. More importantly, they have created this expectation that you must have "your own home." Back when welfare reform was first being debated, the TV news featured a story about some poor woman who would lose her welfare check-- she was "making too much"-- but would then not have enough for her own apartment and the child care for her daughter. Meanwhile, her mother lived alone in a big house, all paid for with plenty of room and would have been happy to look after the little girl while Mom worked. She said so. SO... welfare reform was going to prevent this highly desirable solution; where's the problem?
I am okay with the little houses... Though I think a lot of the adults with these poverty problems need more than somewhere to sleep. (ie training, mentorship, couselling, childcare, security, etc) Maybe they can then graduate to buying little houses.
Aren't condominiums also "ownership"? Maybe one could buy rooms in "Higher Grounds", and then trade up as they become more responsible and affluent.
Sure, "low-rise condos" at cheap prices would also be a solution, but those sorts of properties are even more tightly constrained by government regulation, driving up the price. And you are right, just giving them a "home" doesn't solve the problems inherent in multi-generational welfare dependence. The other things, in fact, have to be attacked at least simultaneously if not beforehand. That's why I so much like private charities, because they treat the whole individual as an individual, and generally provide only and exactly what is needed to create a productive citizen, able to buy and manage a place of their own.
Post a Comment