dionidium t1_isbd1m7 wrote
Reply to comment by close102 in Providence announces new program to acquire vacant land to build affordable housing by rhodyjourno
You live your whole life surrounded by the existence of low-end goods marketed to poor people -- McDonald's, Wal-mart, Champion, Dollar Tree, Hyundai -- and then you conclude that we shouldn't let developers build housing because no company would ever make something marketed to the low-end of the market -- there's just no money in it!
How can you square this? You already know that when companies are allowed to produce to abundance that they do indeed try to sell to every market segment. You just have to let them do it!
Of course companies only sell to the high end when there are limits on how much they can produce. You have to let them produce to abundance before they'll start targeting the low end.
If we put caps on how many new cars could be produced next year, the very first thing that would happen is Kia and Hyundai would stop existing, because when you are only allowed to make x number of cars, you're damn sure going to make sure you're getting the most profit out of them. But if you're allowed to make as many cars as you want, then once you've sold a car to all the rich people you still want to sell more cars! That's why every single automaker has both luxury and affordable brands. It's the same company selling to both market segments.
Banana Republic, The Gap, and Old Navy are all the same company! Why do they even have Old Navy when they can sell much more expensive clothes with higher margins to rich people at Banana Republic? Because they want to profit off everybody!
close102 t1_isjaxoy wrote
You’re equating consumable and commodity goods with housing. A low end car could be $20k to buy. A low end condo would still be $150-200k to buy.
As much zoning regulations exist that prevent like a 3 family going into where a 1 family is today, there have been massive amounts of apartment complex development over the past decade throughout Providence, Rhode Island, and Southern MA. Developers are already building to excess and none of it is affordable.
Even so, not sure why there would be opposition from the city/state to take over land not being used to build more housing. Seems like you’re just really pro private development.
dionidium t1_iskgtag wrote
I believe it should be legal for private parties to purchase private property and build apartments on the land they own, but assuming that were legal I have no problem with the government acquiring land on which to build housing themselves.
The only downside is that it can become a bit of a political football deciding where to put that housing. If the government is going to do it, it would be best if they did it by seamlessly integrating into existing neighborhoods, which sort of seems like what’s in play here, anyway, so I don’t have any big problem with that.
In general, though, I would rather the government simply give money to those who need it. That’s a simpler, more straightforward way to approach the problem.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments