Are these really a good idea? I see them as leading to the same problem as federal student aid. Prices spiral out of control because someone else pays. In my town, many residents who make too much money to get vouchers are struggling to keep up with rising rents. Otoh, homeless people are flocking here from all over New England because it is easy for them to get subsidized housing. I think government should help poorer people by building housing for them, not by giving vouchers and letting the market deal with it. Right now, there is a major housing shortage, and few proposals for new construction are being accepted.
I see this as a positive, not a negative. “Housing first” programs often, but not always, alleviate the problems of the homeless. Many homeless people have been frankly unlucky and need a hand up. Having that that, a substantial population of the homeless will be homeless for life and such a program won’t help them. I think it would be easier for homeless people in the former group to use these programs (they usually have the ID and mentality necessary to seek out this kind of help).
I would be happy if the government built “housing” (meaning apartment buildings) for the poor, but that’s expensive, and governments often plead they don’t have enough money… or (more realistically) that they would have to raise taxes to pay to build these apartment buildings.
I agree with this. However, more people are coming in then the city has the ability to help, and charities are being pushed to their limits as well. I would love to see all of these people get housing, but I don’t think the current system is working.
Which city? Got any news reports to confirm this?
Portland, Maine. There were recent reports of a tent city being dismantled by police. Some of the inhabitants had housing vouchers, but there was still nowhere for them to go because there are so few vacancies.
I think the OP misunderstands the reason why rents are rising … simple supply and demand … if there’s a housing shortage, then rents are going up … the voucher program may be adding to the problem, but the cause is a lack of available housing.
It takes many years from the idea “let’s build an apartment complex” to full occupancy. We go back seven years and we’re in the depths of the Great Recession, the original idea here would be very very difficult to fund. Things have eased in the past few years but these types of projects have always been hard to get loans for. The risk is tremendous compared to a single family residence, and that much harder to get a mortgage. The projects that are going forward are still in the design, approval, financing stages. We still haven’t gotten to the point of shoveling dirt quite yet.
I’m sympathetic to the problems of homelessness. There’s many reasons why in general and many reasons for each homeless person. There’s no one fix that covers everyone. My guts tell me the problem in the OP’s location is much the same as in mine, an exceptionally high quality of life. Many people want to come here to live and that drives demand up. For many reasons the supply can’t keep up, we just can’t build housing fast enough and what housing is built tends to be high end. Just 50 or 100 miles away there’s plenty of low income housing, but these are really crappy places to live, even when the rental unit meets HUD standards.
If these people can’t afford to live in Portland, then they’ll have to live in Ickydick … simple market forces.
Housing vouchers, like many other government programs, are good ideas poorly implemented. We should be willing to consider a much higher income level before a cut off so people can work their way up the economic ladder without hitting a section with no rungs. They should not be provided for housing just anywhere, they should be intended to locate people where there are economic opportunities, and to reduce poverty density where there are no opportunities. They definitely shouldn’t be used to support housing owners, public or private, let supply and demand control those prices, if there are empty units then rents will come down and housing will be more affordable. They also shouldn’t be used to support cheap labor where local standards of living are too high. If you have a major metropolitan area where the people who pick up the trash can’t afford to live, they have to be paid more, not given lower rents. As usual, public support programs like this have to coordinate with other programs or they will fail in their own right.
Housing vouchers are generally a good idea but the problem is not on the demand side but the supply side. If it is illegal or almost illegal to build new homes then housing vouchers are pushing on a rope. What needs to be done is to allow new homes to be built. This would bring the price of housing down and allow the working poor to be able to afford housing. However, this would upset the upper middle classes who have lots of equity in their homes. The upper middle class has more political power then the lower classes because they vote more often. Because of this high housing prices are a deliberate policy of most local governments. Without building reform housing vouchers becomes just a way for politicians who are causing the problem to assuage their consciences.
I looked up “gentrification” & found that Portland Maine is one of the trouble spots. Housing vouchers are just a bandaid for a complex situation.
So, blame the “rich” folks who want to live in Portland, making things rougher for working class & downright poor. Building lots of affordable new housing costs money–although most of it will be eventually paid back in rent. But that new housing might not be cute & quaint enough to fit the image that’s made Portland so attractive.
Affordable housing can absolutely be attractive, and aesthetically coherent with its surroundings, as well as functional. It just needs good design. This is in short supply, to be sure, but only because we don’t make it a priority.
The problem here is where do you put all these new houses … in-fill the city parks and school playgrounds? Once the city builds out to it’s city limits, then there is no more room to build new houses. Maine’s entitled to value it’s scenic beauty, it may not be lawful for Righthand Portland to just start clear-cutting the forests just outside the city for housing. That’s certainly the case with Lefthand Portland, forest and farmlands are very difficult to change over to urbanization. Maybe not everyone thinks urban sprawl is a good idea.
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Sprawl is bad design, no question. I’m not familiar with Portland to say where the new building should be. Every city I have looked at has in-fill opportunities within city limits. Sometimes it’s as simple as changing zoning to allow residences above commercial space.
Every political decision is about trade offs and what people value. In this case the people of Portland Maine seem to value the ability of rich people to enjoy scenic beauty more than the ability of the poor to afford decent places to live. That is their choice to make but it does not reflect well on them.
This is awfully simplistic description of a complicated issue, and I would say entirely wrong. A rich person with a nice house on a tenth acre in town would want to build a château on 10 acres in the forest. A rich person living in a condo in NYC wants a summer bungalow on 20 acres down east. I also think you’re wrong to say only rich people can enjoy the scenic beauty of these lands, the poor do as well and that’s one of the reasons they want to live in Maine.
I understand that affordable housing is a part of the problem of homelessness, but there are other reasons that are perhaps more important. This starts with financial irresponsibility; using rent money to service an addiction, bail the deadbeat brother-in-law out of jail or buying Christmas presents. Then we can look at behaviors; violent tempers, mental illness, uncleanliness. Then there’s unreasonable expectations, someone working full time at minimum wage can’t afford a place in Bel Air, CA, Fire Island, NY or Miami Beach, FL; they’ll have to live in Long Beach, Queens or Miami proper. So you see, just building affordable housing doesn’t guaranty the rent will be paid on time or there won’t be stabbings every other weekend or the dog shit will be picked up off the sidewalks.
If the problems of homelessness were easy to solve, they would have been solved long ago.
And that’s bad why? No one has a right to live wherever they want to. Some desirable places to live will be out of reach and it’s not that place’s responsibility to cater to those folks.
What rights do people have? I believe people have the right to control their own property but not the right to control other people’s property. Thus no one has the right to build an apartment building on your land but you should not have the right to prevent someone else from building an apartment building on their land. If this was followed then land would be converted to its highest value use in accordance with the Coase theorem. The highest value use of some land would be scenic and other land would be residential. However it would force those who value scenery to pay for it just as those who value it for residency. I see no reason to favor one group of people over another.
Most of the homeless problem is a result of either mental illness or addiction, which is why I focus on the working poor and not the homeless as a reason for housing vouchers. It would help the homeless problem as it would make it easier for addicts to afford housing.
However, lack of housing is a bigger issue than just homelessness. It causes sprawl, it raises rentsand the cost of living. It means more pollutionand less economic growth.
Under no circumstances is this true, the government has the right to set land use laws. Do you want your neighbor to open a refuse landfill, a dog kennel or a dynamite factory? However, you are absolutely correct that those who live in exceptionally scenic places, like Seattle, WA, pay a premium in housing. Plenty of land available for housing in Wyoming, but who wants to live there.
Supply and demand, as long as demand for housing is very very high in San Francisco, and there is no more supply to be had … then prices go up out the roof. The poor will just have to live in some of the East Bay communities. There’s no right to live where ever you want; if you want to live in Lower Manhattan, you’re going to have to work you ass off in a high powered job.
Now you’re contradicting yourself … if you want to help the working poor pay their rent, you presume these folks already have a place to live … there’s no need to build more housing. Yet your arguments seem to focus on building more housing. Do you want all this new housing to sit empty or something?
I don’t know what to make of your links … if we don’t build more housing, then we do not cause more urban sprawl … I agree that a lack of housing raises rent and the cost of living … but it’s foolishness to believe not clear-cutting the forest increases pollution, cutting all the trees down and paving everyplace cause pollution, and economic growth most certainly increases pollution.
Someone flipping burgers at McDonald’s for minimum wage in San Diego, CA is going to have to share a two-bedroom apartment with three or four others in the bad part of town to get by. That’s the price they pay if they want to spend a warm sunny afternoon on the beach on Christmas Day. If they wanted a three-bedroom house all to their own, they’d live in Fargo, ND; just that on Christmas Day there’ll be eight foot of snow on the ground.