> step in and build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent
This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids on land in desirable areas.
> build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent.
The government participating in the market this way robs the middle class and gives it to the homeless.
In my city in Seattle, the government found its cheaper to buy existing apartments and hotels than to build a brand new building (reducing the housing supply for middle class. Socialized housing is horrible to live in. Rampant indoor drug use (cigs, marijuana, fent, meth), gang and drug violence, and noise. The government can't/wont kick them out, so everyone trying to get back on their feet can't due to the horrible living conditions.
Seattle also requires new private developments to allocate a % of units for low income people, in order to get a massive tax break. This sounds nice on paper, but it also hurt middle/upper class homeowners that have enough land to build 2-4 units on their property.
> This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids
This is why culturally and politically the west is on the path that it is. In a real democracy the counterbalance to $power is one person, one vote.
If you disable government from taking meaningful action, you remove the power of voting, and $accumulation dominates decision making reducing a citizen’s relative power over their future.
In my opinion this is the underlying force that is the cause of political angst in the US and UK, enabling demagoguery. People have less power now than when their governments put a man on the moon (NASA), or decided to build single-payer healthcare free for everyone (NHS/UK), and just did it through direct employment and ownership.
Those institutions rotted as soon as private provision and crony cost-plus contracts were not only agreed to, but the state itself wasn’t allowed to bake it’s own biscuits.
I’m not saying no private institutions, I’m just saying that by completely disabling government’s direct (ie ownership stakes) involvement in some areas, citizens and taxes subsidise private profits by underwriting the likes of Boeing, or in the UK’s housing situation — private landlords.
I think there’s a balance to be struck, but culturally government ownership or involvement is ideologically frowned upon to such an extent that those governments can’t directly improve the life of the average citizen leading to destabilisation.
At most, in my lifetime, UK and US governments just print money and put it on the table for private firms to grab. In my Great Grandparent’s generation the government built things
If the government starts buying land (creating more demand and reducing the supply), prices will get even worse for people that don't want to live in socialized housing.
The government can do many things, but one thing it should not do is take away homes from the middle class.
This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids on land in desirable areas.
> build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent.
The government participating in the market this way robs the middle class and gives it to the homeless.
In my city in Seattle, the government found its cheaper to buy existing apartments and hotels than to build a brand new building (reducing the housing supply for middle class. Socialized housing is horrible to live in. Rampant indoor drug use (cigs, marijuana, fent, meth), gang and drug violence, and noise. The government can't/wont kick them out, so everyone trying to get back on their feet can't due to the horrible living conditions.
Seattle also requires new private developments to allocate a % of units for low income people, in order to get a massive tax break. This sounds nice on paper, but it also hurt middle/upper class homeowners that have enough land to build 2-4 units on their property.