Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SuckMyAssmar t1_j8ota8z wrote

Reply to comment by Cattle_Aromatic in Gentrification by [deleted]

Agree! I will look into Shane Phillips.

Like why build more housing if more people are going to be displaced? We have to help everyone, not just those with money.

−2

dtmfadvice t1_j8pn92h wrote

Philips puts together a pretty good 3 legged stool analogy: supply, stability, subsidy.

Supply: Unless there are enough homes for everyone, people will get priced out. The region has added jobs faster than housing for decades, and we have a serious supply problem. Adding to the total quantity of homes is necessary but not sufficient.

Stability: tenants need protection. Even when there's enough supply, people can still get screwed by landlords, and we need to have good protections.

Subsidy: even when there's lots of homes and tenant protections, not everyone can pay market rent. So we need subsidies.

Now, the subsidies go further when there's more supply. The tenant protections are bolstered by the ability of tenants to go "f this I'm moving" and find another apartment.

All three reinforce each other.

9

SuckMyAssmar t1_j8q8mc3 wrote

Thank you

2

dtmfadvice t1_j8qau2j wrote

Amateur housing wonk, glad to talk about it, DM me if you want to know about local housing advocacy groups. :)

1