Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rindan t1_j6mwj3r wrote

Reply to comment by 0tanod in Maura Healey wants to solve the state’s housing crisis. Here’s step one. by _Hack_The_Planet_

Well, mostly because I was being super sarcastic when I called the Massachusetts state government efficient in a corruption free.

1

0tanod t1_j6my8co wrote

We shouldn't try one solution because you feel / are aware of past attempts where it was doomed to line the pockets of individuals and not create the needed housing? That's how I feel about the free market bullshit but you don't see me saying not to try it.

1

Rindan t1_j6n22px wrote

I'm less worried about people lining their pockets, and more worried about it being shitty housing that is literally an order of magnitude over budget, years late, and poorly managed. When a land owner is late and goes over budget on a building project, they lose their own money, and it's a few percentage points over budget, and it's a few months late. When the state does the same thing, they could 10x the cost, it can be years late, and it's the state's (mine and yours) money that they are lighting on fire to give to their friends.

The solution is crystal clear; let people legally build higher. Whenever you walk into a high density neighborhood and see that all of the buildings are three stories tall and set back from the sidewalk, it isn't greedy developers refusing to build more housing because they hate money. It's the city making it literally illegible for them to build higher or closer to the property edge. Seriously, every single time you see this, it's 100% zoning rules preventing more housing from being built.

We have a lack of more housing in dense areas because it's literally illegal to build it. That's it. That's the entire problem. Fix that and the problem goes away. I'd rather the state focus on fixing the problems it already has before trying their hand at property development because they created a housing crisis by making development illegal for the residents of this state. The state doesn't need to fix the problem that they created. They can just stop making the problem.

1

0tanod t1_j6n5ua4 wrote

We have to agree to disagree. When we have a problem as big as our housing issue, no solution should be off the table because of "feels". Your solution still requires the state to get involved so we might as well try an all of the above approach and reevaluate whats working, and whats not, over a few year period or something like that. Also you choose to ignore all the possible issues with your private land owner solution. For instance I support higher, denser, and more affordable housing. However, if its not near public transit and its all high end luxury condos being brought up as foreign investments, its basically useless.

1

Rindan t1_j6n9nno wrote

>We have to agree to disagree. When we have a problem as big as our housing issue, no solution should be off the table because of "feels".

It's not feels. It's literally just looking at the past track record of the state executing literally any building project. Close your eyes and pick one, it's years late and wildly over budget.

>Your solution still requires the state to get involved

No, it actually doesn't. It requires cities and states that created the problem with their zoning laws to stop creating the problem. They only need to stop doing the bad thing that they are still doing RIGHT NOW, despite the housing crisis, to fix the housing crisis.

>However, if its not near public transit and its all high end luxury condos

Housing costs in Massachusetts have nothing to do with how "luxurious" our housing is. Leave Boston and travel around a little bit. Boston housing is not "luxurious" and too much luxury has nothing to do with our housing costs. We actually have literally some of the oldest, most poorly maintained, and least "luxurious" housing in this nation. The reason why literally all new housing is called "luxury" housing is because any house in the greater boston area with flat floors that won't give you splinters and a modern heating/cooling system can claim with a straight face to be "luxury". You literally can't make a new apartment that isn't "luxury", because literally anything new, no matter how spare, is "luxury" over the housing stock that it is replacing. The cost of housing in Boston has nothing to do with how nice it is. The only two things that matter to how much a new condo costs is where it is, and how big it is. Everything else is a rounding error.

>...being brought up as foreign investments, its basically useless.

This is a bogyman that only really exists in extremely high end housing sitting on top of sky scrappers. Housing in Boston is not expensive because of them damn foreigners buying housing and than insanely keeping it empty instead of renting it out.

There is one and only one reason why housing is expensive in the greater Boston area. That one and only reason is because it is literally illegal to build more dense housing. Every time you are in an dense and expensive area and see only three story building, they are that way because it is literally illegal to build them any taller and more dense. The states and towns that created this problem don't need to go build dense housing. They just need to let people that already own housing legally build dense housing. We don't need the state, which has proven it's absolute incompetence at large building projects, to jump in. They just need to get out of the way.

If the state has money burning holes in their pockets wants to do something productive to help the housing crisis, they should fix and expand public transit. I'm sure they will do it extremely late and over budget as they always do, but at least they would be do something that only the state can fix.

1

0tanod t1_j6ncmmf wrote

I see now. You have no appreciation of what a government is or does. Just so you know denser housing comes with a cost and its needs to be planned. Water, sewage, trash, schools, emergency response... etc. all need to handled in a some kind of planned manner that you do not have a understanding of and I apologize for not realizing how little you understand and wasting both mine and your time.

1

Rindan t1_j6nkok7 wrote

No, I do in fact appreciate what the government does. I also just appreciate what the government doesn't do well. I wish that sort of nuance was something that was acceptable these days, but unfortunately we seem to live in a polarized era where things are only good or bad, black or white, and all nuances are lost. Government now is only a thing that is either pure incompetent evil, or faultless and the answer to every solution for most politically active people. Both views are obviously wrong, but we can't seem to admit that anymore because that sounds too much like giving the other side a win. This is why you can't admit that maybe some fixes to enable the private sector might be a part of the solution, and why a conservative is unable to admit that maybe the government also has an important role in enabling solutions.

I do in fact want the government to build on and expand on public services. If an area is growing or wants to grow but can't because of zoning, I want them to expand the public infrastructure to support it. Extremely restrictive zoning that basically forbids densifying an area is not a rational response to a housing crisis, nor is getting the state involved in building more housing when that is something that is easily and vastly more cheaply and efficiently fixed by less restrictive zoning. The government should focus on doing the things that only the government can do effectively, like infrastructure maintenance and improvement to accommodate growth. The much more efficient private sector should be enabled to do the things that only it can do efficiently and effective, like adding to the housing stock. Unfortunately, this is a position of too much nuance in our emotionally charged and polarized political system.

1