Correct urban leftism is letting private developers make as much market housing as they want, and the less you restrain private developers the more left you are
The propaganda against these DSA libs is so strong that even the libs on this site believe in it lol.
Seems kinda complex to me, I think I’d come down on the NO position though.
It boils down to
“Should we trust a private developer to provide timely results with no guarantees/mandates by the government”
And
“How can the state take back the land and let the community decide what to do with the land without interference?”
The liberals say that DSA wants perfection and as a result, is anti housing. But the DSA just wants the government to do the same thing as the liberals, except without a developer leading the project. Someone will make millions of dollars regardless, but liberals think the DSA is deluded enough to want housing built under capitalism with 0 profit motive involved lol.
Gonna have to ask the question, are there not already paved and prepared places where new housing could be constructed instead of green spaces?
Like, the first thing that happens with making a subdivision is the bulldozers come in and remove the first foot or so of soil and replace it with clay and gravel to get foundation pads laid. Then there are the, probably, miles of sewer lines, gas lines, electric/communication lines that need to be dug in. Then there’s the roadways and rain drains that have to be worked into the city’s rain water diversion plans.
Proponents of the project characterize Save Open Space and the opponents as anti-housing. But many opponents of the golf course redevelopment have pointed to the industrial part of Northeast Park Hill, less than a block from the golf course, and other nearby neighborhoods along the A Line.
That part of the neighborhood includes many empty parking lots and one-story industrial buildings ripe for dense, mixed-use development. Why take over 155-acres of potential park when there is so much underused land nearby they ask?
What’s an acceptable vacancy rate for you, considering people need to move occasionally? Anything under 5% is generally considered a “very hot” rental market and will likely see price increases.
No, but people move from out of town, and even for people moving within a city, they don’t move into currently-occupied apartments.
There need to be some number of apartments open at any given time so that people who need to move can do so. 100% occupancy would mean that every move would have to be a swap, or that no one new could move to town.
but the issue is not that there are not enough homes, the issue is that all the homes get bought up by the rich as investments to store their wealth.
This is only half-true. Official vacancy rates can don’t necessarily indicate that all those homes are being deliberately kept empty as investments- it’s also normal for homes to lie vacant for a while when people move out. It’s true that the root cause of the housing crisis is the commodification of housing into an investment vehicle, but that doesn’t mean that there are currently millions of empty homes lying around for everyone who wants one. We should absolutely decommodify housing and guarantee universal public housing, but making that a practical reality would still require building millions, if not tens of millions, of new homes, preferably through upzoning and infill development to reduce suburban sprawl.
I don’t agree with everything they say, but this video goes into why official vacancy rates are misleading, and why we still need to build lots of new homes to solve the housing crisis.
