TheMobyDicks t1_itr4uzc wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:15 PM

Reply to comment by pahnzoh in Full video: Don Bolduc answers viewer questions on social media by movdqa

That's so not close to the reality of needed solutions. I'm extremely versed in this matter - asked to speak on it all the time, invited to groups trying to turn the tide, asked to meet with companies having workforce issues, etc. I'm not going to go into it here but there are many issues and few solutions. Yes, enabling legislation that encourages local zoning changes that incentivize such housing stock would be a good place to start but there are many, many more issues. If you want to see who's getting it right, check out Harmony Homes in Durham, who built housing for their workers and are continuing to do so.

Edit: This is good discourse and I appreciate it.

pahnzoh t1_itr6o6n wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:27 PM

Of course it's way more complex, but it's largely complex because of supply and demand of humans seeking housing, builders and developers, and supply of materials and equipment. The costs of materials and labor is another issue but that's not something the state can solve. All of that is not really related to the government so I didn't mention it.

The state is causing the problem for which you are seeking a solution. If you could homestead unimproved land like you could 200+ years ago, you would solve a major issue. The state through land claims, zoning laws, property laws, local code requirements, etc. is creating artificial barriers to entry. Right now you have to buy property from existing owners at very high prices and not many are selling. But if you look at the actual state of unimproved land there is a lot of it where people could live, in thoery. Satellite images show this vividly.

Yes that's only part of the issue of housing. But again, realistically neither party seeks to change that. Libertarians have a property ethic that fairly deals with property outside of the states current system, but of course that's not on the table.

TheMobyDicks t1_itr8vgy wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:41 PM

Interesting concept for sure but untenable as, you know, NH and local control and all. Any politician that would champion anything but, would get the brakes beat off 'em. One of the largest problems we have is communities that have no interest in being part of the solution and zone accordingly. One very interesting example of this is the yes vote Exeter took to supply water/sewer to Stratham and the overwhelming no vote Stratham took; Stratham naysayers lobbied the public stating that they don't want multifamily housing as...oh no...schools and "less than desirable people". All BS, of course, but that's the game. The InvestNH $100 million program is seeking to incentivize both developers and municipalities that prioritize affordable housing. This is a drop in the bucket, of course, but it will give the state and us (citizens) some insight into how effective such investment is, if at all.

pahnzoh t1_itra4ma wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:49 PM

I agree. Because the incentives are so perverse for both voters and politicans. When you setup a system of institutional coercion it's nearly impossible to scale back. People want to use the system for their own benefit to the detriment of others. That's why I have such disdain for the political parties and can't see how adults who have been around long enough still put effort into supporting shitty politicans.