anchor
Bernie Sanders lays out an ambitious plan on affordable housing
Sanders railed against Trump’s housing policies and explained his own, which calls for federal investment of $2.5 trillion over the next decade and a national rent control standard. He said he will pay for the policy by establishing a wealth tax on the top tenth of one percent — or, according to his estimate, the wealthiest 175,000 families.
— The Washington Post
Major points of the $2.5 trillion plan include:
- Establishing a national rent control standard that would cap rent increases at no more than 1½ times the rate of inflation or 3 percent, whichever is higher.
- Promoting legal protections for fair housing and taking steps to eliminate racial discrimination and gentrification.
- Expanding the National Housing Trust Fund, which allocates money to states to build and maintain affordable housing for low-income Americans.
- Fully fund Section 8 rental assistance program and eliminate lengthy wait times that plague those seeking those vouchers.
- $70 billion of investment to build and rehabilitate 7.4 million of affordable housing units.
- Build 2 million mixed-income units.
- $50 billion in grants for states, cities and towns to establish community land trusts.
- $32 billion over five years “to end homelessness in America and provide critical outreach services to those who are experiencing chronic homelessness.”
Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...
All 9 Comments
Wait ... you mean the market can't fix this?!
The market can fix it if properly incentivized.
With public subsidies and tax abatements, aka "the free market", which is why there is a plethora of lux res and a vast shortage of affordable housing. Hudson Yards got $6b (and counting) in direct subsidies. For comparison, NY State's total commitment to affordable housing in 2107 was $2.5b.
If the free market could solve this, it wouldn't be a problem today. There is no city around the world where the free market has resolved housing problems. The reality is that there is no money to be made in affordable housing so all new development is going towards luxury apartments mostly. Maybe if the government invests heavily in housing prices will actually start coming down. That's how Vienna and Singapore have solved their crisis and all cities need to follow.
There is no such thing as a free market, just a fair or less fair one. Minimize regulations to allow smaller players in while building a great public transport system that’s too wide to be monopolized by the wealthy, but don’t kill individual iniciative. Today’s over supply is tomorrow’s affordable housing.
Hilariously the problem is mostly in places that have been run by Dems for the last 50 years...high tax high regulated cities like LA make it impossible for middle income homeowners to exist and then complain that no one is housing them.
It’s not regulations that keep small players out, it’s money. And public transit doesn’t happen for the very same reason, market forces.
Regulations cost money because of the lawyers they require. I’m all for regulations to protect the environment and the weak, but simplify them so more people can play.
So we should get rid of zoning, fire codes, structural requirements ...
Of course not. Matter of fact, we need stricter life safety protections from unsustainable development which is degrading our environment and our well being, both mental and physical. But you shouldn't need to hire lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to navigate the beaurocracy. Look at what our system produced in the current holder of the White House. It's not one or the other, it's whatever works best to promote the common good in the long term, which is the government's job after all.
So exactly what economically burdensome regulations would you eliminate? Lobbyists are largely unregulated. Accounts are necessary to document finances for taxes. Lawyers draw contracts and (in theory) litigate disputes, often over zoning restrictions and codes mandating affordable housing.
Maybe you haven't tried to develop a single lot or a chunk of land, but the amount of reviews, approvals, and financing is not for the feint of heart. Again, I'm all for strict regulations, but when it takes a couple of years to work through an approvals process, you need deep pockets. It's like the tax systems, imagine a dope like me paying the same percentage as those who know how to manipulate the system.
Reviews (and approvals) are for compliance with code. Financing is a necessity for every project. If you don't have any specific regulations to eliminate then you're just blowing libertarian smoke. "Minimize regulations to allow smaller players in": it's not regulations that keep them out, it's money, and that's what you are really complaining about: cost. As leentantu wrote: If the free market could solve this, it wouldn't be a problem today. The problem is not with building regulations, it's with tax regulations written to reward a small segment of the population at the expense of everyone else. You're not going to level the playing field by eliminating building regulations, you're just going to open the floodgates even wider for the money players.
For the last time, I'm not against regulations, just one's that require 2-year approval's process and involve lawyers. Dealing with onerous regulations cost money, whether you like it or not, and if you're not aware of this, you aren't familiar with development, which right now favors the big wigs. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a liberal, in the old sense of the word, that a good idea is good regardless of where on the spectrum it comes from.
I believe in good and progressive government, but restrict the market too much and everyone suffers. The question is about fairness, which I think we both can agree on, and after Trump, god knows we'll need some.
god help us if this Oscar the grouch looking mfer gets in office.
If the hassle of having a rental property isn’t worth the rent being collected people will simply dump them...I would
i have a rental property and am nowhere near being "the 1%" or even "the 10%" just a middle class dude who bought a rental to live in one unit. If this happened I would probably convert it from a three-unit into a luxurious, large single-family and then sell it. Which would be two less units of affordable (without being subsidized) housing gone from the neighborhood.
Me too. I have a sf rental that I rent below market value because I’m a nice guy. I will sell it out of spite if some politician asshole with 3 mansions and millions in book sales try’s to tell me what to do.
People will simply find ways to either dump the burden, or make the money through “service fees” etc. the problem is clear- government. My relatives living on LI paying 1200$ a month in property taxes are moving to a state with 80$ a month taxes for a bigger house, less congestion, and cleaner better maintained city. The Left ruins cities and blames it on markets. We cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. I think we need politicians like Yang who propose actual solutions that put power into the hands of people rather than govt. A UBI could dramatically solve
the problem.
Alexandria, Virginia, has some attractive subsidized housing, but not nearly enough of it to meet the demand.
Attractive? That looks like it could be a movie set with facades held up by angled 2x4s.
So, why is there a waiting list waiting to get in? Maybe the city of Alexandria can build a Pruitt-Igoe II to meet your sensibilities.
Objection, you honor. Assumes facts not in evidence, specifically my sensibilities regarding Pruitt-Igoe. Also assumes direct causality between the waiting list and the aesthetics of the building.
Rather than attractive facades, you'd rather live in the reality of underlying structure that can't be exposed for life safety reasons?
New construction, buit to code, but thanks for asking.
They look good to me!
Yup.
Oh, the horror of a facade plastered onto a building! Or if you prefer...
You have helpfully provided two examples of facades that have more articulation and thought put into them than the original example which is the equivalent of the wild west fakes: merely lip service to the better buildings they will never be.
Just because you put a lot of thought into it doesn't make it good. Sometimes a building is just a pleasant background building, but if you like the metal grid facade hung on its structure over some brick skin, fair enough. Intellectually, they're all the same.
If I paint a false front onto a building that tricks your eye into thinking it's something other than a blank wall, that doesn't make it design. That's what the first example does, that's what the wild west facade does, but not the examples you provided.
But by all means, keep telling us all how much like classical architecture vinyl facades are.
Another street in Alexandria with public housing.
why is it that states that have high regs and taxes are the ones with the most housing issues? Solution: raise taxes and regulations! Brilliant insanity.
"why is it that states that have high regs and taxes are the ones with the most housing issues?"
Because they tend to be better educated and have god jobs, which raises demand for housing and strains the supply. Plus, they are more realistic about what's required to run large and heterogeneous populations in relative harmony.
Texas, Arizona, etc....all very livable and diverse...and the dmv takes 30 mins not 5 hours like in NY or CA. Big fat states run by big fat democrats are all over priced and over regulated and virtually unlivable for non-millionares, yet we are supposed to believe that more taxes and regulation and govt will solve the problem? And we are supposed to believe this from a life long millionare politician with 3 mansions...lol Sounds completely insane to me.
There's gotta be a reason the cost of living in NY or CA or Boston, or DC, or Chicago is so much. I just can't put my finger on it. Now imagine if they had huge arid areas with natural gas.
Cost of living is high because these places that were once industrial centers have become completely amenity based. 20th century urbanism has become a commodity...like a beach front...Why force natural economics and urban evolution? Let the city become what is is becoming and let those who can’t afford it move. Perhaps the 20th century type of urbanism is no longer conducive to 21st century economics. I’m a fan of natural selection and self organization. When the resources run dry the herds migrate and adapt. New urbanisms in new places organized around new economic tends will emerge. We need to let that happen rather than repeat the failed social engineering efforts of the 20th century...
Humans suck at central planning...but are pretty good at self organization...This is probably the most fundamental architectural issue of the day...and at its root is a political ideological battle between socialism and fascism that favors centralized order and libertarianism that favors spontaneous order. My interest in politics is not voluntary. I hate politics. It’s just a necessity to understand urbanism because it’s so closely related in philosophy and policy.
The market can't solve the housing problem, but neither will socialism. The later is probably worse--throwing unaccountable billions at the problem only incentivizes waste. Only architecture can solve the problem -- or a cultural paradigm shift toward transparency and design that includes both government and market controls but led by designers.
Agree, but in reality building a small house on LI or in LA is going to cost more upfront and take way longer...and then add on 1000+ a month in property taxes...right off the bat, the govt is making living 2x more expensive than elsewhere. In a nice area of TX or AZ taxes a mortgage for a nice 1800 sf home including taxes is less than the tax burden of somewhere like LI. Why are we ignoring the obvious elephant in the room...oh yeah, its a religion
What aspect of the plan do you disagree with?
Democratic socialism has resulted in the happiest countries on Earth, Denmark being a good example. The philosophical difference couldn’t be more clear: capitalism values money; socialism values people.
That's exactly right, Miles.
Denmark is a market economy though. They are not a socialist country, they are a market economy with an efficient entitlement state. They will tell you that they are not a socialist country. Their doctrines are not socialist. They have said that they are not socialist to combat claims by Bernie actually. Socialism values centralized control as does conservatism. Classical Liberalism values self organization. Big big difference. Your understanding of socialism and capitalism is juvenile.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist/amp
LOLOLOL
Now, if we could maybe stop wasting tax money on corruption, drug wars, actual wars, etc...we could have nice things too without increasing taxes too much or maybe lowering them.
Reprioritization of existing tax revenue should be the first discussion.
When a Conservative Republican wins the presidency, it isn't as though all public schools close and the IRS shuts down. Likewise, when a Liberal Democrat wins, it isn't as though all wars end and NPR funding goes through the roof. Why do people assume that a Bernie Sanders presidency would suddenly transform an entire economic system? It doesn't work that way. What would happen, probably, is that a Democratic Socialist president would begin to reverse the trends of privatization, perpetual war, climate change inaction, police oppression, union-busting, bad trade deals, and corporate control of government. It would be a step in the right direction. People who set their hair on fire and scream about Venezuela or communism are trying to distract everyone from the major failures of both political parties to address the biggest challenges of our time.
davvid, I enjoy reading your posts, but this is a waste of your time.
davvid, you assume police oppression isn’t a fundamental feature of socialism despite a century of evidence to the contrary. We are seeing that play out in China as we speak. Any time the power of the govt is expanded the police powers are expanded by proxy. You can’t add a regulation or a tax or limit a liberty without expanding the police powers of the state. You’re contradicting yourself.
Liberals understand this, leftists don’t.
I don’t think Bernie is a communist...he’s kind of socially libertarian actually...he just doesn’t understand the connection between economic liberty and social liberty. And he seems to think that “good guys” with govt power will remain good guys. I don’t trust humans enough to concentrate power anywhere. I want it as decentralized as possible.
Which part of the plan do you all disagree with? It seem like you would rather talk about foreign/historic authoritarian regimes instead of the housing affordability crisis in your own country and how to solve it.
My theory is that centrist and righties welcome a distraction so that they don't actually have to actually solve a problem, which is why they bring up Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
Personally, I don't see how you can "capitalize" your way out of the climate crisis, or out of the threat of automation, or out of the housing crisis. I have not heard anyone propose a viable capitalist solution.
Same way we capitalized our way from the model t to the Tesla.
I don’t see how we can socialism our way out of those impending issues either. I trust millions of people with millions of personal interests and motivates more than a centralized govt leading the way.
The same way? What does that mean? First of all, it can't take that long. You've got less than 12 years to transform the energy system to move away from fossil fuels.
Most of the environmental problems are because of the govt propping up big oil. Without the artificial propping up of foreign oil via military force we may have engineered our way out of this mess decades ago in an alternative universe.
Socialism means that we, as people, do whatever it takes to solve the crisis. That means investing enormous amounts of public money into renewable energy systems, sustainable food systems, public transportation, environmental conservation, energy efficient buildings, etc. The private sector has not and won't do what is needed in the short period of time that we have to address climate change.
Corporatism vs capitalism. I hate corporatism. I like capitalism. Corporatism relies on a powerful state. Big difference. I like people like Andrew Yangs ideas. He seems to be wanting to save capitalism. UBI is a better way to solve the housing issue. It’s a better way than a big controlling state that dictates where money goes and what/who gets it. I’m all for a UBI. Have been for years. It’s actually a libertarian idea supported by people like Milton Friedman. My concern is always about a) liberty being eroded. b) expanding police state. Building subsidized housing doesn’t do either necessarily. It’s the way it’s funded and all that’s the problem. The proposed constraints on private property and rents absolutely limits my property rights. It expands the police state because at the end of the day, if I break that new restriction, I get fined or jailed. All regulations must be backed by police force or they are simply meaningless.
How does a UBI solve the climate crisis? It doesn't.
Such laws also set precedent for future laws that can further chip away at property rights. If we can figure a system that provides people a good life without eroding freedom and requiring a police state I’m all for it. We should be inventing this new system together though, not regurgitating ideologies from the past that have failed
If we don't solve the climate crisis, we don't have a future.
Unlikely that climate change will render us extinct...but yes we will likely be living on a messy planet. I’m not sure how socialism solves climate change? Capitalism is better at innovation than socialism. It’s why Chinese bootleg our shit. We have to invent and engineer our way “out” of the problem. Government can preserve more national forests...that will be good...they can’t re-design and engineer a green economy. That has to happen organically. UBI has nothing to do with climate really, i was talking about housing. I don’t pretend to know a solution to climate change...but I’m pretty sure we won’t reverse anything...may just be a matter of adapting to the consequences of what we created.
Capitalism isn't what innovates. People innovate. Researchers innovate because they want to make human progress. And they are often under the thumb of business models or limited academic funding models that prevent them from freely doing the necessary research to produce innovation.
A Green New Deal, like the original New Deal, would be an investment in workers and the working class with a focus on getting society to where it needs to be to fight the climate crisis and be sustainable.
Capitalism isn't what innovates. People innovate. Researchers innovate because they want to make human progress. And they are often under the thumb of business models or limited academic funding models that prevent them from freely doing the necessary research to produce innovation.
The GND was admittedly a foot in the door for a red new deal. Fake. Yes, people innovate, but to innovate freely access to investment capital / resources free from govt coercion is necessary. This is especially true for the arts for obvious reasons.
As for climate change...we either innovate or don’t. If the problem is as bad as scientists predict, and we don’t innovate/adapt we die. Not gonna happen, because we have an interest in survival. But if we don’t, we die off. We don’t make the cut. The universe goes on without us as if did for billions of years. The planet heals easily. What we’ve done is minuscule in comparison to other extinction level events that have happened in the past. Maybe we do survive and engineer and new future. Maybe we master gene editing and start growing genetically modified plants that can reverse the problem. Etc. Then we survive. Good. The difference between the socialist mindset and the libertarian mindset, as I’ve said, is that I believe in spontaneous order, you believe in centralized order. Humans are not meant for centralized order imo. We are biologically individualistic and tribal. We are not eusocial creatures like ants and bees who focus on the society over the self. Maybe alien species that are more similar to ants and bees get further. Maybe human nature isn’t sustainable. I don’t sweat it. Go with the flow. Let a ant be an ant. Let a human be a human.
One thing I do know...many many of these problems we face were caused by empires. The US empire, USSR empire, Chinese empire. Empires are always bad imo regardless of the economic structure. Too big to fail. Decentralization is the key to sustainability and resilience.
So what’s the answer....welp, the hundreds of Native American tribes seemed to do a good job for thousands of years without a centralized govt. just saying, maybe it’s the centralized govt that is always the problem, not the citizens.
"But if we don’t, we die off. We don’t make the cut. The universe goes on without us as if did for billions of years."
We need to "go on without" people who lack the courage and clarity to meet the challenge. Maybe you just don't get it. Sorry, but we need to ignore you. The crisis is bigger than concern trolls. We architects know how concern trolling can derail a good project. Sometimes you just need to take in productive ideas and people, and leave the others off of the meeting invitation.
Lol. The GND won’t work, and won’t ever pass in full. Even if it did by some miracle, it won’t make a big difference globally. In a “democracy” cough cough, I get as much say in the conversation so too bad. Remove head from asshole pal.
“We need to "go on without" I find it amusing though how fast the “democratic” part or democratic socialism gets dropped when the baby doesn’t get what he/she wants.
You can say whatever you want, and you can vote for whomever you want. It doesn't mean that we need to go along with you. What we need to do is educate and organize politically to do what in necessary to fight climate change. Concern trolls and climate skeptics are a waste of time. Part of why the Democrats have been so ineffective over the years is because they obsess over appealing to industry leaders and right wing skeptics instead of rallying and expanding their own base.
Did I say we shouldn’t fight climate change?
I understand the issue better than you I’d bet...but that doesn’t change that fact that it is highly unlikely that the entire world (cause that’s what it will take) will get together, sing “we are the world”, and stop climate change. I’m highly skeptical of that. I’m highly hopeful that humans will slowly solve the problems over time in a decentralized way. Reverse it, probably not. Mitigate and deal, probably so.
What do you disagree with specifically?
It is not the cost of the house as much as it is the cost of the land and the municipal red tape and permits to build the house and the taxes after the house is built. Some people in parts of the Northeast pay as much, if not more, in escrow taxes than they do for principal and interest on the loan each month.
The full plan was released today: Housing For All
How can a home be a right? Things can’t be rights. You have a right to own a home, not a right to a home.
“Implement a “just-cause” requirement for evictions, which would allow a landlord to evict a tenant only for specific violations and prevent landlords from evicting tenants for arbitrary or retaliatory reasons.”. My family has several properties in Spain. They were built to be sold, but the market crashed hard in 08. Since, the govt has raised taxes so much that selling wouldn’t render any profit at all. They have to pay a heavy tax on the sale. Renting is nearly impossible because you cannot evict tenants even if they damage the property or stop paying. They tenant rights are very strong. All properties are sitting vacant since 2008 collecting dust.
When Bernie is president, he will "combat gentrification". As I understand, gentrification is an economic issue where by a person moves to a neighborhood for a price more than the previous person who they are replacing paid, whether renting or owning, assuming it's not in a new building etc. How is that something worth 'combating'? He then writes..."developers and speculators must not reap profits from these neighborhoods without reinvesting in the existing community." Good luck Bernie!
Gentrification is the result of speculative redevelopment of low-priced real estate for profit. The net effect is the reduction of affordable housing stock solely to line some rich asshole's pockets. These developments are often publicly subsidized with tax abatements and even direct financial input from municipal sources.
That is worth combating, and the most effective way to do that is to tax the living shit out of real estate profits. Rentiers add nothing to society, they are parasites.
I hate to tell you, but development has always been about making money, just like any other living, unless you’re independently wealthy. Look at the history of most cities. But you referring to assholes and parasites is a bit much. If i renovate my place in a low income area and ur starts going up in value, and i sell it, am i a parasite, or is there some magic threshold below which I’m still cool in your eyes?
You shouldn’t make any money Thayer! You should work for the betterment of society like Miles!
Someone who buys a house to live in, renovates it over time, and then moves due to circumstances not connected to profit is not a developer. But you know that and the willful ignorance you are displaying is silly.
I’m shocked how fucking stupid smart people can be. De incentivize development by taxing the shit out of it to solve a housing shortage (see article below) that should drive supply up! It’s Opposite Day !
Disingenuousness is the calling card of libertarianism. Otherwise known as “freedom for me at your expense”.
Don’t want to be free?
Who finances your art work and furniture and architecture? Is it free? Does the government finance it in exchange for bread and potatoes?
If you think everyone isn’t aware of the economic aspect of renovating their home is dreaming. If you don’t take human nature for what it is, good and bad, all the best intentions will fail. Keep this up and we’ll end up with four more years. We simply can’t afford to.
well duh
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-dystopian-plan-for-national-rent-control
“Once again Sanders has correctly recognized a problem and then proposed exactly the wrong solution. High housing prices are the result of high demand and low supply. Sanders’ plan would further increase demand and decrease supply.
It’s hard to get it much more wrong. Far better would be to increase housing supplies by encouraging states and localities to remove barriers to new construction like zoning, land use restrictions, and other unnecessary regulations.”
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.