Submitted by [deleted] t3_yd5yjb in springfieldMO
deborah_jai t1_itqd9n9 wrote
Reply to comment by socialistpizzaparty in Vote NO on Question #1 by [deleted]
I and my fiancé will be voting yes much more proudly even than for the marijuana legalization (still pisses me off it won’t automatically expunge MJ convictions). People need housing and if more people want to live there then housing needs to be built, otherwise rents will keep skyrocketing.
antiquated_human t1_itqeg4z wrote
The secret to lower priced housing is less corporately owned housing, not more.
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqf6ji wrote
We need to rethink single family zoning in general. It’s wasteful and is one of the leading reasons we have no affordable housing. We need more ADUs as rentals for young people and also the elderly, as well as duplexes).
antiquated_human t1_itqhida wrote
in theory, yes. But in practice, having a small number of corporations owning a large percentage of the housing has done nothing but push rent higher, not lower.
Not to mention, single family home prices didn't start to skyrocket until corporations started buying those up as well.
Until there are measures taken to prevent monopolistic control of housing, things will get worse. Since this is a country that has put healthcare and food into the Profits over People category, I don't see housing fairing any better. But it is pure fantasy to think all the apartments being built will contribute affordable living. They are just the last step in the complete corporate takeover of the daily necessities of life.
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqi6qs wrote
I agree with all of that, but man it gets overwhelming thinking about everything needed to fix it. So let’s all do what we can and vote.
antiquated_human t1_itqiyv4 wrote
Definitely this. Everyone vote. I don't care if you vote the same as me, just vote. Be involved.
sgf-guy t1_itt403m wrote
I believe apartments are generally bad for human health mentally…
But this former 1950s era drive in overnight building structure in Joplin might be a better compromise for people like students, the retired, single people, etc.
You have your own place…your own grass…prob split out to be mowed…your own escape from people above/below/around you as in an apartment…enough room to have your stuff…own parking place…you can also easily sublet off utilities for construction…have a crew on sight for specific things at a time, use common materials…
Plus you have much lower costs to buy if that is the model. You could prob build those for $50k tops. It’s basically Eden Village here but with a more historical background.
Let’s just say it was $60k to build. Even in todays wild rate environment that’s a $450 a month payment. That’s pretty fair. You could fit 3-4 of these on the average city lot. This could a game changer from not just finding a good reason to get rid of way past their prime rentals but also putting healthy density back into urban centers and not encouraging sprawl.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqwenu wrote
LOL-- More housing does not decrease the prices, especially if the housing being built is specifically luxury apartments at 1600 a month for single bedrooms.
I'll share a little story of this In 2003 my former hometown had 3 major hurricanes go through it. So many homes destroyed. The fixing crews were booked so far out it was easier for families to build a new home. Boom huge increase of housing in the area and eventually the original homes were also completed. Double the housing, right? Then they added 6 apartment complexes. All were nice the 1st year then became section 8 by year 3. Today you can get on a list to maybe be approved for a 1 bed for 2200. Increased housing units does not decrease cost.
Also in that time the river has died. Waterways poluted. A City utilities oversight meant that city water wasn't being tested for 2 years because they were overrun with all the additional accounts.
I'll share a little story of this In 2003 my former hometown had 3 major hurricanes go through it. So many homes were destroyed. The fixing crews were booked so far out it was easier for families to build a new home. Boom a huge increase in housing in the area, and eventually, the original homes were also completed. Double the housing, right? Then they added 6 apartment complexes. All were nice the 1st year, then became section 8 by year 3. Today you can get on a list to maybe be approved for a 1 bed for 2200. Increased housing units does not decrease cost. se cost. se cost. cost. .
The increased number of people in Galloway means we need to support fire and police services. Don't they get their operating expenses money from taxes? Which with this developer, there would be none for almost 11 years. 11 years. 11 years. for an already hurting services.
OrdinaryTrout t1_itvryr4 wrote
what are you talking about? commericial housing developments like this INCREASE rent.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments