Why doesn't the state build housing?

Submitted by AbigailFlippinfloppn t3_ybg3ci in RhodeIsland

Obviously I know they are ideologically liberal so maybe they don't believe it's their place to do so, but is there something stopping them? With all the money they blow on bullshit you'd think they could afford to buy a piece of land, put a ten or 20 until building with a nice courtyard/outdoor space, and rent it out just above break even with the modest profit going back into city budget.

I don't understand why nothing can be done that doesn't funnel money out of our communities and into already-wealthy developers pockets. The state should drive down housing costs by undercutting landlords and developers.

46

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PipeLayer2016 t1_itg6r3k wrote

They do. There are also a bunch of very nice rehabilitated multi family houses in the neighborhood, turned into affordable housing. They were pretty much wrecks before. Definitely spruces up the place.

49

[deleted] t1_itge7wk wrote

[deleted]

19

dc_dobbz t1_itgf5qf wrote

I don’t know the specifics of this development, but “Affordable” in gov parlance typically is “income restricted” not below market rate. You have to make below a certain amount of money to get one of the affordable units, unusually through a lottery, and then you’re guaranteed the rate you pay will no more than 30% of your income

15

HistoricalDocument11 t1_itggw9j wrote

There was one of these buildings in my neighborhood with open units when I had to move last year. I made far below the maximum income for 1 person (but couldn’t afford the rent for the 1 bedroom). My roommate and I could afford the cost of splitting the 2 bedroom rent, but we make more than the maximum income for 2 people. The 30% of your income thing would make sense, but I don’t recall that being true of this income-restricted building.

5

dc_dobbz t1_itgkxof wrote

I’ve worked on income-restricted developments in MA and DC, but never in RI, so maybe the system is different. But in those jurisdictions they use the HUD rules, which is what I described above.

4

PipeLayer2016 t1_itgmzkh wrote

That's market rate. The affordable units are less. Look at the income guidelines on the website. They don't advertise the rental costs on the affordable units, but 1,465 would be too much for most of the incomes shown. I really want a top floor unit 2 bed 2 bath overlooking the river, but I don't think they have secured parking.

5

evillordsoth t1_ith5ywb wrote

For a 875sq ft 2 bed in providence? Yeah, thats pretty affordable.

Same sq ft on mineral spring ave is 1875. Im sure it would be more on wickenden or east side

Is it adorable? Uh, maybe?

3

Nethervex t1_ith5kkk wrote

>affordable housing.

1 bed 1 bath $1450 a month 650sqft

LMAO and that's the cheapest.

"affordable"

9

PipeLayer2016 t1_itiuq57 wrote

Read the rest of the comments ding dong

0

Nethervex t1_itj11uh wrote

The rest of the comments are whining about the use of the word "liberal" lmfao

0

PipeLayer2016 t1_itj6zya wrote

The substantive comments about how the affordable housing units are funded, built, and priced. $1450 is not the rent for those tenants that qualify. Ding-a-ling.

0

sugar_tom t1_itkr409 wrote

Last session there was legislation that would create a public developer — as in, the state would have a new body with the power to build a lot of new housing. It was introduced late and didn’t pass, but there’s a pilot program underway right now, and it’s going to be reintroduced this coming session. So, if you want more housing, keep an eye out and let your reps know you support this. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/16/ri-housing-crisis-state-could-start-building-its-own-affordable-units-workforce-housing/9779515002/

2

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itg6ux9 wrote

Dead link but a relief to hear if true

−2

Unique-Public-8594 t1_itg81mm wrote

Not a dead link.

Mill development Olneyville, 101 units under

Mayor Jorge Elorza DEMOCRAT

Governor McKee DEMOCRAT

Sabina Matos DEMOCRAT

11

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itg8zdb wrote

I'm not being partisan; I'm aware that democrats are nominally less trash than republicans. By liberal I simply mean non-socialist

−8

moreobviousthings t1_itgdygr wrote

republicans tend to be conservative, which is the opposite of liberal. Democrats are liberal and tend to be progressive, which is also opposite to conservative. Socialism and communism are more about government organization than concepts like liberal, conservative, and progressive.

7

do_not_engage t1_itgu3hk wrote

This is how average people use these words, but this is not correct. Those words have definitions that are much more complex.

Conservative is not the opposite of Liberal, for example. American politics will tell you they are - they are not. Conservatives and Liberals agree on many many political things, and are only divisive on a few specific political actions.

6

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itgtees wrote

Liberal literally just means "believes in capitalism"

2

big_whistler t1_itgu4ix wrote

Youre using this term deliberately ignoring the context of American politics

6

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itgugfk wrote

Because in American politics terms seem to be deliberately misused to obfuscate the class based nature of our problems 🤔

Also this is how the terms are used among basically all American Marxists and socialists, American mainstream politics aren't politics they're a circus

5

moreobviousthings t1_itguu4o wrote

Can you cite a source for that? Capitalism is strictly an economic construct, while liberalism is more broad and not specific to economics.

1

lazydictionary t1_ithejtu wrote

If you didn't believe in capitalism you would probably be considered a socialist or maybe an anarchist.

Just read the intro on Wikipedia.

>However, they generally support private property, market economies...Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.

Classical liberalism

Social liberalism [mainstream Democrats], which are usually defined as center-left or center, which is definitely capitalist

4

hurricanetruther t1_itge1ke wrote

Boy this thread got unhinged right quick.

35

FourAM t1_itgid6j wrote

Mostly because OP is wildly uninformed or trolling

37

Energeticlemon t1_itgnsnu wrote

Or most people in this thread are uninformed. The American colloquial meanings are not what the terms actually mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

10

lazydictionary t1_itgxrn2 wrote

Exactly. And Democrats, especially in RI, are just socially liberal, and not economically left leaning as you would think. They only look progressive compared to Republicans.

This state is almost completely controlled by Democrats and yet this state does not resemble anything leftist.

Heck, look at the recent LA City Council news - turns out most of the Democrats were racist as fuck. They aren't even socially liberal. It's all a show.

22

Peach_enby t1_iti0cqd wrote

Yep. Unfortunately the two are tied hand in hand. You need money to support social projects. I would say leftist is more of a socialist term and they generally do not like liberals..

2

Unique-Public-8594 t1_itg6ev2 wrote

You’re blaming libs for lack of housing?

That’s a new twist.

24

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itg6iqt wrote

Liberalism, ie free market ideology. The idea that the government should stay out of the economy.

−19

Energeticlemon t1_itgni8y wrote

Sorry that you’re getting down voted even though you’re technically right. Colloquially people use the terms wrong.

13

FourAM t1_itgi93d wrote

That would be “Libertarianism”, not “Liberalism”.

Two WILDLY different things.

“Liberalism” believes that the government should serve and protect people, programs such as the housing suggestion you made should exist; anti-trust should be enforced, rights should be protected and enhanced when necessary.

“Libertarianism” is “privatize everything”, eliminate any taxes and regulations, and let the free market sort it out.

−3

Energeticlemon t1_itgo22e wrote

That’s not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

6

FourAM t1_itgoo4c wrote

Literally the first paragraph:

> Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3]

3

lazydictionary t1_ithexj9 wrote

OP stated that liberals are against government intervention in the economy.

What you highlighted is completed unrelated.

3

FourAM t1_ithg606 wrote

I think in a case like housing, economics are a secondary consideration to the social and humanitarian aspect of making sure people can get a roof over their head and participate in the rest of society. While that has effects on the economy, it isn’t the primary reasoning for doing it.

Liberals would generally frown upon direct government intervention except in emergency situations (like bailouts)

2

lazydictionary t1_ithhxuy wrote

OP literally stated their own definition and it's all about state intervention in the economy.

Seeing as housing is one of the largest sectors of the economy and personal wealth, I would say it's a huge economic intervention to provide cheaper housing.

Liberals not wanting to provide that much housing is for the reasons you stated - they don't want to interfere. They only give a shit about the appearance of social liberalism, they don't actually want to change people's material conditions.

3

talazia t1_itgf66z wrote

I'm not sure, but we'll have a place for the homeless to play soccer.

21

DecafEqualsDeath t1_itgqhov wrote

The states and cities have built housing but not enough to fill the actual need. Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to get anything built in RI and MA due to a variety of reasons including NIMBYism in the "nice" areas.

The state and most cities aren't really in a fiscal position to start building large amounts of public housing, especially if it proves politically unpopular.

18

Unique-Public-8594 t1_itg7ume wrote

Abigail - Democrats invest in housing.

Republicans don’t

so what’s with the “obviously I know…”.

That’s fucked up.

Source: https://nlihc.org/resource/democratic-party-and-republican-party-platforms-address-affordable-housing

11

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itg8j6m wrote

Both parties are liberal parties. I'm not singling out one over the other. When I say liberal all I mean is "non socialist"

−28

Unique-Public-8594 t1_itg980h wrote

“Both parties are liberal parties”.

You are flippin nuts.

The republicans have called themselves conservative (the opposite of liberal) since the beginning, 1854.

How can you not know this?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

11

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itgdqd8 wrote

You're confusing the progressive/socially liberal<->socially conservative CULTURAL axis with the liberal<->socialist ECOMINIC axis

Republicans are socially conservative but economically liberal. The founding fathers were liberals. Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Obama and Trump are all liberals.

−10

dishwashersafe t1_itini14 wrote

Maybe you're technically correct, but "liberal" in reference to anything US politics related has a different connotation. Trying to use it to reference the original ideals of liberalism in casual conversation about US politics will just be confusing. It won't make you look smart, just out-of-touch.

4

DecafEqualsDeath t1_itgrsoy wrote

I don't really think that is a correct analysis of the political alignment. The GOP is becoming more nationalist and less "classically liberal" by the day.

The Democratic Party on the other hand, in the modern era, has always had some significant Keynesian/interventionist elements. What party do you think you have to thank for the Housing Act (aka OG Section 8) in the first place?

4

lazydictionary t1_ithf3dp wrote

The FDR and LBJ party is not the same as the modern party. Modern democrats are owned by big business.

3

russsaa t1_iti8gme wrote

Homie republicans are too. American politics is a battle of lobbyists

2

DecafEqualsDeath t1_ithz24l wrote

This is just lazy. The Democratic Party is a big tent for better or worse and therefore has a variety of ideologies and positions in it. A public option, renewing the Child Tax Credit, a corporate minimum tax and free community college are WELL within the middle of the current party.

1

Kelruss t1_ith2hwo wrote

Okay, lots of little things...

Folks are arguing the State (as in the state government) does build housing. This isn't really true. The State has a Housing Trust Fund that's funded by real estate transfer taxes, but that has had difficulties funding projects. The State provides limited funding for housing production. IIRC, almost all that money goes into RI Housing, a quasi-nongovernmental organization that funds affordable housing construction by Community Development Corporations and other groups. That's the affordable, state-subsidized housing production. Some cities and towns provide support to their Housing Authorities, or Providence has the Providence Redevelopment Agency.

There are also HUD funds that pass through the State to RI Housing to distribute as well. Federal funds make up the bulk of money used for housing production.

Unfortunately, the State spends nothing or next to nothing on maintenance, which is ensuring that affordable, subsidized units remain affordable and livable. The result is that aging stock either becomes market rate, or is in poor condition after 30 years or so.

At the other end of the market, the State and municipalities subsidize developments through tax breaks for developers and the such, usually require some proportion of the units be set aside as affordable.

As a definition, "affordable" means the rent is no more than 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), and is often targeted for folks who make between 80% and 130% of AMI.

Deeply-subsidized units are rare. Section 8 vouchers, which are supposed to supplement rent, are difficult to find units for, assuming you get past the years-long waiting lists. Section 8 was more accepted during the Great Recession, when it provided a dependable source of income for landlords. After the Recession, it was far easier to avoid the requirements for Section 8 and find market-rate renters, partly by discriminating against people with vouchers. This is now illegal, but enforcement is difficult (enforcement of most laws pertaining to landlords is difficult, and courts are generally structured in landlords' favor).

This year, the State did pass, thanks in part to the efforts of Reclaim RI and Sen. Megan Kallman (and with the full-throated endorsement from Speaker Shekarchi), a social housing pilot program. This will mark the first time in recent memory, possibly ever, that the State has funded and directed production of housing in such a manner. But it is just a pilot, not a commitment to ongoing production. We'll see how it goes or if Reclaim and other housing orgs can win some bigger concessions next session.

9

412gage t1_ithcs7w wrote

I work for another state's housing agency (identical to RI Housing) in the multifamily development division and was looking for this comment. Do you know how many multifamily affordable projects on average that RI Housing awards credits / funding to each year?

2

Kelruss t1_ithmbzz wrote

Unfortunately, I don't have that number at my fingertips, it might be in their annual report somewhere, but they only claim 733 "homes" "developed or preserved" in 2021. Some of those are certain to be multifamily units.

1

412gage t1_ithxaqu wrote

Yeah I imagine they combine the numbers. My state for example awarded between 30 and 40 last year so I'd imagine RI is lower based off of population alone.

0

March_Latter t1_itgaakj wrote

There are a few groups paying to build or redo houses in Providence for lower income residents. Some the state funds, others are non profits. How does it work out? Well, some groups are honest and do some great work. Others keep functioning due to a complete lack of media scrutiny.

5

dc_dobbz t1_itgg94k wrote

As others have said, states do build housing. The real question is “why don’t they build more of it (let alone enough)”. The short answer here is that any not-for-profit housing costs upwards of two or three times what it costs to build for-profit housing. That’s for a variety of factors but mostly because the developments are expected to lose money on the back end so all of the developers have to make their money up front.

And then you have to factor in the costs of on-going maintenance; which, as anyone who’s ever driven on RI roads can attest to, states are uniquely bad at doing.

5

Beezlegrunk t1_itjfb6k wrote

> any not-for-profit housing costs upwards of two or three times what it costs to build for-profit housing.

Source …?

1

dc_dobbz t1_itkt7ms wrote

The public housing finance class I took for my masters in urban planning. I’d have to google it to find something shareable

2

Juliovasq t1_ith0db8 wrote

Socialism? Communism?

3

russsaa t1_iti8028 wrote

Lol what

0

Juliovasq t1_itiaa0r wrote

This what China does. They buy up real estate and rent to their citizens. Not a good thing to set, then they’ll be taking over businesses, then the hospitals, do you trust the government to provide you money, healthcare, and housing? I don’t

1

russsaa t1_itjs55v wrote

No I don’t trust the government - but OPs post is definitely not communism and maybe can be considered socialism

1

degggendorf t1_itgi7p0 wrote

Ultimately, because it's not the will of the people.

I wouldn't want the government to start building whole company towns of people living in efficiency apartments, I'd rather work in solving the actual root causes than just treating symptoms.

Increase wages, increase benefits, and give the people the ability to own their own housing to invest in and build generational wealth. Those are the bigger-picture things I think the government should be working on, rather than getting into micromanaging individual housing units. People are smart and can take care of themselves if they're given the proper tools.

2

overthehillhat t1_ith8ztb wrote

There's the Truth - -

or what ever changing reality merits discussion - -

One story is that public housing has a checkered past - -

because those who live there - -

"got no skin in the game"

2

deadl0ckx2 t1_ithn713 wrote

You answered your own question.

“Why doesn’t the state build housing?”

“Profit going back into the city budget.”

There’s your answer. No incentive for the state to fund housing if all the revenue is going to go to the municipalities.

2

keevisgoat t1_iticbke wrote

I work for prov housing we're understaffed in maintenance as is underpaid because the union signed away their ability to strike in the 90s,and the buildings are about 20 years past maintenance they need to be overhauled. Our funding isn't from the state either it's Federal.

2

AbigailFlippinfloppn OP t1_itidrml wrote

Rents don't cover costs, then?

A union without the right to strike is like a military without guns. What's even the point?

1

keevisgoat t1_itie3us wrote

Yup I know I'm gonna get vested in the pension get a free degree and GTFO, the maximum rent is 30% of your income minimum is about 20 bucks I work with some guys paying over 1200 a month for a shit hole in the projects

2

WTFisThatSMell t1_itix023 wrote

Why would invest in projects that would lower the value of thier own assets? They are of the mind set. " I've got mine fuck everone else" If they cared this would have been addressed long before it got this bad. It's absolutel insanity out in the real-estate market.

2

Ryfhoff t1_itj210g wrote

State is over crowded. Try to go to chick fil a lol, you’d think god himself is there giving chicken out for free. Fkn ridiculous. Wanna build something? Build a damn grocery market where I can actually shop without 45.9 million people in the bread aisle or 72.1 million people getting cold cuts at the time. Build a fkn road that looks like a road.

2

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ith8hoe wrote

Honestly I would love to build multi-unit homes but finding the money to do it is difficult. If I was of means I would fund it myself. I have the people and know-how to do it effectively but it’s a slow crawl to be able to get a project like that rolling without a large and flexible funding situation. Most people with the means realize the risk is too high/reward too little so they don’t do it. If it was me it would be out of ideological beliefs than financial gain. Utilitarianism is the way but you can’t convince a financial institution or even government agency to believe in you without difficult hurdles that limit the amount of people feeling its worth the work.

1

techsavior t1_ithe322 wrote

First, there is less profit motive for contractors in building affordable state sponsored housing.

Second, nobody wants it in their backyard. NIMBY is very strong in this state.

1

christopherson51 t1_itifxzn wrote

>The state should drive down housing costs by undercutting landlords and developers.

The state developed in order to serve the interests of landlords and developers.

1

edthesmokebeard t1_ithxhsd wrote

21st century liberals 110% believe the State should build housing. Along with providing everything else.

−3