• Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    And since taxing at higher rates would deter people from building more rental properties, the housing shortage would get worse.

    Housing is a public good and should be funded as such.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      That would be great! Except that cities refuse to do that, and no one wants to put high density housing anywhere near their cute, historic neighborhood.

      If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.

        Any solution to the housing crisis necessarily would require the political will to do that. There’s no getting around it.

        But yeah, I think we more or less reached a point of agreement. We need to change the culture, it must become more collectivist. We gotta finally start caring for one another.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The problem isn’t political will per se, but specifically steamrolling local NIMBYs. The people with the most political power and will tend to push high density housing out of more desirable areas and into less desirable areas. If you wanted to, for instance, but a 100 unit building in Ukrainian Village or Wicker Park in Chicago, you’d have a really stiff fight on your hands from local property owners who want to keep their neighborhood all brownstones. OTOH, if you want to demo a square block near Garfield Park and build there–and I wouldn’t recommend doing that–you’ll have the local alderman holding a golden shovel for the groundbreaking.