10 ms·
Austin takes a bet on tiny homes to ease homelessness
- TexanFeller 3y agoLooks like this housing is built outside of town, so it might actually work! One things cities do wrong is trying to house homeless people near downtown. It's dramatically more expensive to do it there, so there will never be enough housing or will to pay for it. The housing that was built for "low income artists to be able to live here" was even more of a joke. A bunch of condos downtown that were priced uncomfortably high for entry level tech workers. Nothing say artists have to live downtown! City planners just can't think outside the downtown box.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago> One things cities do wrong is trying to house homeless people near downtown. It's pretty critical to build housing where there's actually need, or it won't do much.
- cyberax 3y agoBS. New housing in dense centers only increase the overall amount of human misery. It sucks jobs away, and it drives up the housing cost.
- JeffSnazz 3y agoWell if you build them elsewhere you're not going to do much about the unhoused population downtown. That just leads to using police violence to forcibly segregate by class.... Anyway, housing is kind of fucked so long as americans consider it a private investment rather than a common good. How do you think we got in this mess to begin with?
- mulmen 3y ago> Anyway, housing is kind of fucked so long as americans consider it a private investment rather than a common good. JeffSnazz for president 2024.
- cyberax 3y ago> Well if you build them elsewhere you're not going to do much about the unhoused population downtown. Newsflash: neither would tiny houses. On the West Coast, the downtown homeless population is almost 100% drug addicts these days. No amount of housing can fix that. And for the sane population (i.e. not fentanyl addicts), being AWAY from downtowns is a blessing. > Anyway, housing is kind of fucked so long as americans consider it a private investment rather than a common good. How do you think we got in this mess to begin with? We stopped building highways, and switched from Moses' model of building enough roads to the "urbanist" model. Where we put in transit that makes it easy to go to the downtown ONLY.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JeffSnazz 3y ago> We stopped building highways, and switched from Moses' model of building enough roads to the "urbanist" model. Where we put in transit that makes it easy to go to the downtown ONLY. I don't think we've switched out of the Moses model yet, or we only did in the last twenty years or so—the urbanist model is still idealistic in most cities. And frankly the urbanist model probably still won't be sufficient without public housing—I'm guessing a popular push for that is still about 10-20 years out. Obviously, prioritizing driving around a city isn't going to do jack-shit for anyone who isn't trying to prioritize driving around a city. Public transit works well enough for most folks!
- cyberax 3y ago> I don't think we've switched out of the Moses model yet, or we only did in the last twenty years or so We did. Most large cities stopped building new roads, and are instead sabotaging existing ones ("road diets"). The inflection point was some time in 1990-s. October 1992 is the date of the completion of the last Interstate freeway. > And frankly the urbanist model probably still won't be sufficient without public housing—I'm guessing a popular push for that is still about 10-20 years out. The thing is, we don't have a housing crisis. We have around 20% more units per capita than in 1980-s, and way more square footage per capita. What we have is an over-centralization crisis. No amount of band-aid fixes will make it better. By forcing (via economic forces) more people into misery centrals (now with housing projects to generate generational poverty!), you'll only make centralization even worse. > Public transit works well enough for most folks! It really doesn't. Transit is a result of city growth, you simply _have_ to build transit once the city becomes dense enough. And I get it, in the 1970-s and 1980-s people were still worried about overpopulation. So, urbanism was born as a way to make it more bearable to live in dense cities. Now we have an opposite problem, the native US population is peaking right now and whatever growth we're going to have will be only from immigration. We don't _need_ dense cities.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoThis is a funny thing. I recently looked into living in a central location downtown, and all the rents are far beyond my means as a Section 8 participant. But if you put "affordable housing" way out in the boonies, then how do residents access any services at a reasonable price? If we need to run all over town for stuff, why live in a God-forsaken location like that? Downtown in my metro area is not only a transit hub, but a central location for goods and services. I could easily walk around, catch a bus or an eScooter, and have everything I want within mere blocks. Instead, these "affordable housing" developments are in suburbs where you've got one bus line and a Starbucks 3 blocks away, and your grocery stores are nowhere to be found, and your place of employment is way across town. Just not making sense.
- PBnFlash 3y agoOne upside of minimum wage is lots of places have competitive salaries
- thriftwy 3y agoI'm just not sure how you get these problems unironically. What's so hard about having a grocery store and reliable transit to downtown? The notorious St. Petersburg's Murino district is located outside city's boundary but it has a metro station, several grocery stores, bakeries, bars and other shops. It's not like US poor have no disposable income at all. Kudrovo has worse transit options but features an absolutely huge mall you can walk to. Of course, if having choice everybody would prefer living in walkable distance to downtown, this is why normally it is so expensive, and you can only make it affordable by making it a miserable experience.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoI don't know, but many cities do not have reliable transit. Hourly busses that stop after 9pm doesn't help at all. And thars the case for a lot of the western part of the US. Also, thst grocery store may not exactly be profitable and be worth keeping up. Especially if Walmart or something use to station there and then left.
- mulmen 3y agoHmm, when I hear “artist housing” I always assumed they meant “interesting people who make music and maybe paint”. But “interesting” is too subjective to be real. Freestyle watercolor is no foundation of an economy. We should not judge other humans by their ability to make rent. Some of my best friends struggle to do that. But for a city making rent is all that really matters. They don’t care if you literally create art. They care if you buy coffee and pay sales tax. So, do city planners look at “artists” as a revenue stream? This is the same demographic that stereotypically spends the better part of a million bucks on an undergraduate education with no expectation of return. Does “artist” mean “liberal artist”? As in “willing and able to buy in to and comply with a middle class lifestyle?”
- roughly 3y agoThere's always a funny tension on the city trying to draw in artists to make a downtown area more palatable, too, in that good artists and good art is often intended as a challenge to the status quo - the goal is to make people uncomfortable. I say this as a Berkeley-living lefty: the left often seems to espouse policies whose practical outcomes far exceed their actual appetite for discomfort or willingness to engage with real diversity. (Standard HN disclaimer: if the above doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you - but look me in the eye and tell me you don't know what I'm talking about.)
- noirbot 3y agoThis does strike me as an innate tension to all of this. I grew up in a really diverse neighborhood, and at this point, as a decently successful person, if I moved back into that neighborhood, folks at the orgs I used to volunteer with would probably decry me as gentrifying the area. I've seen this with my own family, who have lived in the neighborhood for decades, but because it's now a majority minority neighborhood, they're seen with skepticism, even by people who moved there recently and are often more well-off than them. I'm unsure at this point if I'm supposed to want to live in a diverse area, or if doing so would mean I'm ruining the area and driving out the diversity. What is the amount I'm supposed to want to engage in another culture without imposing on an "authentic" space for that community or appropriating it. It's a really tight line to walk. Is it reasonable to try to have a community of people who make 100k+, and people who think it's generally unhealthy for anyone to make that much money?
- charlie0 3y agoWhat, building outside the expensive areas of a city? That would just make too much sense. The politicians give tax breaks and in many times, outright pays $$$$$ for these private services to those in need. The owners of those services in turn donate part of the profits back to the politicians. It's just a hidden way for the politicians to transfer wealth from the tax-payer base back to themselves in a clever cloak of woke-ness. I mean, who hasn't heard of the 700K+ single bedroom houses for the needy in Los Angeles. I'm sure this happens everywhere. It's really unfortunate, and brazen tbh, that such fleecing occurs in plain site. Meanwhile, those who really need the help don't get it because it was never really about them. It was just about the optics. https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/ https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-t...
- wolverine876 3y agoPeople, including unhoused ones and artistic ones, need to live near downtown because that's where jobs and services are, including needed social services, and transportation to the rest of the city, as well as community. In typical cities, the art galleries, museums, schools, etc. are downtown. If you have a family and spend your time with them and at work, a home away from the city center makes sense. If you need to do a lot with people outside your home, then you want to be where the people are.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- IAmNotACellist 3y agoHomeless people often aren't homeless because they lack homes. It's a very loaded and misleading term. There are usually many other problems that they need help with, and homelessness is often just a symptom.
- jakderrida 3y agoYeah, maybe. But a tiny home isn't gonna hurt.
- mft_ 3y agoLet's not let perfect be the enemy of good, hey? And I'm no expert, but I imagine there's a circular relationship between the issues that homeless people have. Not having a home often means no address (unless they're able to access a PO box or similar?) so difficulty receiving mail or getting a bank account; it can mean less physical security so a higher risk of being a victim of crime (e.g. theft, assult); a higher risk of problems with the police; probably greater risk of ill health due to living conditions; and far less psychological security - to name but a few.
- theteapot 3y ago> Homeless people often aren't homeless because they lack homes. So your saying homeless people actually do have homes??
- davidw 3y agoResearch indicates that expensive housing makes homelessness much worse. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-about https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-... Indeed, it's the primary driver of homelessness. Things like drugs and mental health make things worse, but "at the margin" as economists say, if your housing is cheap, you might be able to hold on to it even if you have some problems with an addiction. There are plenty of wealthy people with drug habits who are not homeless.
- badgersnake 3y agoThat’s only relevant if you’re trying to prevent homelessness. The article is about people who are already homeless. They may not have had these problems when the became homeless, but being homeless ain’t easy. That’s not to say housing costs aren’t a problem, they are but they have to be prepared for other problems as well.
- cglan 3y agoDefinitely not against this, since any housing is good, and I hate letting perfect be the enemy of good, but not sure why we are so intent on scaling the concept of a single family home down to 200sqft. Townhouses in NYC have existed for over a hundred years, and generally across the world are an extremely viable concept for dense and cheap housing. It's perfectly possible to build cheap townhomes that can house 6 or 12 families each, without being oppressing mega apartment complexes. Townhomes in NYC were a working class concept originally. We could be erecting thousands of cookie cutter townhomes in somewhere like Austin for dirt cheap housing. The density would bring better benefits in terms of infra scalability, mixed use, and public transportation. All these solutions feel like they're silly middle school solutions for a problem that was solved hundreds of years ago
- TulliusCicero 3y agoSimilar opinion here. I'm for just about any kind of added housing, but it seems like it'd be a lot more land efficient to do something higher density.
- crooked-v 3y agoThe reason you don't see those is that middle-density housing is indirectly or directly illegal in almost every major US metro area. Developers would love to build that kind of thing because it gets snapped up immediately wherever it's available, but they're not allowed to do so.
- foobarian 3y agoDidn't communist high rises kinda have this format. Or various Tokyo apartments?
- ozten 3y agoI’ve volunteered to build a tiny home in Seattle and have seen this deployed in my neighborhood and a few other sites. It is a feel good thing, but the reality is… These are a fraction of what is actually needed. It is symbolic. The residents are removed from mental health and other services and plopped into a suburban neighborhood without community or resources. The host families are not trained social workers, but they are forced into a tenuous management role between the tiny homes project and the resident. The one I helped build is no longer enrolled in the program, due to these and more failures of not having a long term sustainable system.
- pyuser583 3y ago“Housing First” is such a bit like communism - perfect in theory. The problem is you need “second” and “third” things too, and the political will often just doesn’t exist. I lived near a “housing first” facility that was no better than a homeless encampment.
- akira2501 3y agoIt's just like communism in that it entirely ignores the needs and capacity of an individual and makes them slaves to the idealism of the state. They're no better than a homeless encampment because you can't give people a house and then expect them to act like a homeowner overnight. It was the wrong problem to solve, and I think people rush to solve it out of self conscious guilt and a desire to quickly make the _apparent_ parts of the problem disappear from common view. It's a cruel and ridiculous strategy.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoI have found that many people who receive housing benefits are very poor stewards of their personal resources. The first thing someone does when they get housed is to invite all their homeless friends over, to shower, to eat, to crash, to do drugs, to play games, whatever. So your typical Section 8 housing recipient is not just a single person/family benefiting from housing, they're dragging in their entire circle of loser friends who don't have those benefits, and so now you've got a cluster of mooches who aren't invested nor responsible for disruption or damage in that community. It's really an unfortunate thing, and I just saw it over and over again. So many people lose their benefits very quickly because they can't resist helping other folks out, but that's not what you do with welfare and entitlements.
- jackblemming 3y agoIf the rich have their way we’re all going to be living like this within a few decades. Probably even worse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoCities can't politically organize to build housing because the payoff is after any of the politicians being in office. It's too long term. You'd think developers would be the most powerful lobby in terms of local politics. But the collective defense of housing value inflation is almost stronger than social security in terms of uniting boomers
- lukas099 3y agoI'm starting to think that sometimes the biggest, strongest developers actually support and benefit from the policies that make it harder for mom and pop developers to build.
- faeriechangling 3y agoTiny homes reduce housing density and effectively necessitate car usage to connect people to services which is already unaffordable and will only become more unaffordable. Electric golf carts and public transit do not solve this problem. Sounds like an awful plan to me. Increasing energy costs mean we need to densify instead of sprawl. I’d be thinking apartments, townhouses, vertical mixed use developments. Things which generally make commuting on foot or light transit more viable.
- chrisco255 3y agoNo they don't. Austin has plenty of density in its urban core and has been knocking down single family homes for high rises on a constant basis for the last 20 years. Either way, this is a homeless community that reduces tents from underpasses, it has nothing to do with density.
- faeriechangling 3y agoLooks sort of like a shantytown to me and it may be a great short term solution but it doesn’t fix the long term problem of affordability.
- alamortsubite 3y ago> Tiny homes reduce housing density and effectively necessitate car usage to connect people to services which is already unaffordable and will only become more unaffordable. Electric golf carts and public transit do not solve this problem. Why would tiny homes necessitate car usage? What's the issue with public transportation?
- faeriechangling 3y agoHaving been a long time user of public transit in medium to low density areas, the issues are: >there’s no fiscal case for stuff like heavy rail or light rail in the burbs, so you’re using buses until you travel somewhere more dense. >the buses have limited geographical availability and it may be a long trip to or from a bus stop >the buses have limited frequency and may run way every half hour or hour. >Buses are generally going to be fine at getting you from suburbia to whatever downtown core efficiently maybe adding 25%-100% extra travel times mostly because the buses need to frequently stop and let on new people. Moving from suburb to suburb on the other hand often doubles to quadruples trip times. There isn’t enough demand for such trips to make improving this fiscally viable, but this is something you will likely want to do a fair bit in practice. >It’s not rare for a 30 minute bus trip to take longer than if you used a bike while also being more expensive. So transit often isn’t doing anything besides long trips downtown faster and providing transport to those who can’t use a bike for whatever reason. So they’re a bit of a non-solution for many problems caused by low density. >you are generally constrained in how much cargo you can keep on your person, so these have limited utility in terms of allowing you to bring goods back to your home. If you drop the car and rely on transit, you need to work out some solution for moving cargo in an affordable manner. I have many strategies to compensate for this, but really, what you want to do is ensure as many services are possible are in walking, biking, or e-bike distance to reduce the need to lean on the public transit system and reduce how frequently one needs to use it. If things are in bike distance, people can load more cargo on a cargo bike and get it back to their homes than they can using a bus. At the same time, such densification will also mean more robust public transit systems as increased ridership means more money for improvements to the system. Increased densification also makes things like package delivery, ride sharing, car sharing, and so on cheaper/more available/faster which you will want to lean on if you don’t have a car. Low density and public transit really do not mix.
- closeparen 3y agoYou can certainly have a housing crisis of the form that incomes are too low relative to the construction materials and labor involved in normal amounts of built square footage using normal methods. Most urban housing crises, though, are about increasingly stiff competition for land. Only the vertical axis can save you there.
- lukas099 3y agoAustin is nowhere near its potential for infill development, though.
- lr4444lr 3y agoI never understood why even though homelessness is concentrated in the U.S. cities where car ownership is difficult (NYC, SF, some parts of Boston), when said areas only account even collectively for a fairly small portion of the country's overall population. Wouldn't it make more sense to help these people get a vehicle, and hwlp them resettle in areas that already have much cheaper housing and are desperate for workers? Such places might even have local government incentives if these new arrivals could commit to staying for a certain period. Surely a large number of them are working low barrier to entry jobs that exist widely across the U.S.
- faeriechangling 3y agoIt does not make sense, vehicle usage is expensive, becoming more expensive due to energy costs increasing over time, and car owners are not paying for the true cost of their cars because externalities like the environmental impact of cars isn’t priced in. A major policy objective is to get climate change under control, sprawl directly makes that problem worse. Also think about why it is that some cities are so big. Usually big cities have access to a port, a railway, things that make moving goods cheap. New York has ports, Boston has ports, SF has ports, and part of the reason housing is so expensive is that being next to water constrains the space available for development. Building towns in bumfuck nowhere may be cheap in terms of land but that’s because actually living there results in high prices for daily living. A MASSIVE part of what is driving housing prices is energy prices, because it can make sense to spend more on housing and less on energy. What makes more sense is a hub and spoke model. You don’t nessecarily want people living in a big city, but you can still efficiently move goods from the big city to “spoke” cities, and then you have these “spoke” cities adopt things like high/medium density housing like apartments, townhouses, and mixed vertical commercial/residental. Have some residents with cars, some without, so the latter can bum off the former. Take advantage of shared transportation options like package delivery (shared truck) or ride sharing (shared cars). Also by doing things in this way, you have to ensure people have services they need locally available and can easily afford to access them even if they have no car. If your solution requires everybody to have a car it’s no solution at all because we literally cannot afford to buy a car for everybody especially given 50 years from now we’re likely going to run dry on cheap oil and we have no replacement available that can scale to the entire US population aside from maybe light EVs like e-bikes. 50 years isn’t that long of a time when we’re talking infrastructure. We really need to prioritize our transportation energy usage and focus it to applications like shipping goods and construction, not use it to move residents around because we designed towns in a way that they’re unviable if everybody does not have a car. In fact, we should be planning for this future NOW by making livability without a car table stakes for development of middle/low income communities.
- jovial_cavalier 3y agoHousing first does not work.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoCompared to what though. Because the status quo also isn't working.
- chrisco255 3y agoIt's a community and it works pretty well. Go check it out if you find yourself in Austin.
- andrewstuart 3y agoGhettos.
- chrisco255 3y agoThis community isn't a ghetto. I've volunteered there. If you're ever in Austin you should go visit.
- JeffSnazz 3y agoWhat's wrong with building properly dense public housing?
- kqr2 3y agoAgree. These tiny homes are probably not a very efficient use of scarce land resources.
- jamestimmins 3y agoI remember seeing the Mobile Loaves and Fishes trucks constantly handing out food around Austin in the early 2000s and hearing about them trying to get this community off the group in 2008. Pretty incredible to see what has come of faithfulness and persistence over 26 years.
- apapapa 3y agoWhat's wrong with trailer parks
- 0xcde4c3db 3y agoHow much time do you have? The short version is that while there's not necessarily anything wrong with them in principle, in practice there's a pretty impressive amount of exploitation at nearly every level of the industry. It more closely resembles the dynamics of car sales and financing than it does a downmarket version of conventional real estate. https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/warren-buffetts-mobile-home-empire-preys-on-the-poor/ https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/w... https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033910731/why-are-investors-buying-up-mobile-home-parks-and-evicting-residents https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033910731/why-are-investors-... https://www.denverpost.com/2022/03/23/mobile-home-park-rent-house-bill-1287/ https://www.denverpost.com/2022/03/23/mobile-home-park-rent-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU&pp=ygUebGFzdCB3ZWVrIHRvbmlnaHQgbW9iaWxlIGhvbWVz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU&pp=ygUebGFzdCB3Z... (~16-minute Last Week Tonight segment)
- lukas099 3y agoThat is essentially what these are. Edit: and to answer your question, nothing. People should be allowed to build and live in those too.
- Ekaros 3y agoNot too much, but they aren't efficient enough either...
- Podgajski 3y agoI am homeless and I am permanently disabled with bipolar disorder schizoaffective type. I want to say first that housing first works. The stress of me being homeless is worse for my mental illness. And I applaud Austin for actually doing something. Secondly, the biggest mistake they make is that they want to segregate low income people out of society. this is part of the problem. I don’t know if the solution to this, but I know it’s the problem. It makes us feel alienated and lesser. This is the most likely reason why these communities always seem to fail. Also, putting these far outside of the city takes people away from resources like other people said. I’ll tell you when my depression is bad it’s much much harder for me to take a bus for 45 minutes than it is for me to walk for 10 minutes. There is no fix for housing because the problem is not housing. It’s financial capitalism and individual greed. I lost my housing because I was kicked out of the studio. I was renting after my lease came up and they listed it as an Airbnb making twice as much then when I was living there. They did not have to do this, they chose to do it.
- alamortsubite 3y ago> putting these far outside of the city takes people away from resources like other people said Thanks for sharing your experience. What are some examples of these resources?
- Podgajski 3y agoGrocery stores, doctors, coffee, shops to socialize. The truth is that socializing, with all the other people who are having financial trouble lessens the probability that I’ll connect with someone who can possibly help me.
- alamortsubite 3y agoIt's an interesting perspective. I've been lucky enough never to experience homelessness, but I'm very familiar with living in cities and using public transportation to access resources like supermarkets and doctors. I wonder if, in addition to providing housing to those who need it, the best solution is simply making sure such resources are readily accessible to the same people via public transportation.
- brudgers 3y agoAs intended, I read the headline and the beginning of article picturing tiny houses. Which sounds like treating the unhoused like I would want to be treated. Then: most of its homes lack bathrooms and kitchens And it all made sense, it’s a campground. But written so I imagined tiny houses.
- lukas099 3y agoThis is one of the main rhetorical techniques that 'progressive'-type nimbys use to suppress housing. "This new housing isn't good enough. We should treat our homeless better than this." Completely failing to see that the fact that people are choosing to live in these houses is proof that they were the best available option to at least some people, and that for many the alternative is homelessness.
- brudgers 3y agoAs intended, I read the headline and the beginning of article picturing tiny houses. Which sounds like treating the unhoused like I would want to be treated. Then: most of its homes lack bathrooms and kitchens And then: The tiny homes that make up two-thirds of the dwellings go for slightly lower rent but have no indoor plumbing. And it all made sense, it’s a campground. Though the village is open to people of any religious background, it is run by Christians, and public spaces are adorned with paintings of Jesus on the cross and other biblical scenes. The application to live in the community outlines a set of “core values” that refer to God and the Bible. A church campground. TANSTAAFL.
- rossdavidh 3y ago...which is way better than a trash-filled tent site in the woods, which is where the homeless in Austin who aren't at this site, often are.
- rossdavidh 3y agoMost of the comments on this article, remind me of why they had to go outside of Austin to do this.
- wolverine876 3y ago> most of its homes lack bathrooms and kitchens That seems unacceptable to me, especially the bathrooms. How much does it cost to install plumbing (a genuine question)? Do they have no refrigerator to store food or a way to warm it? It's not a house, it's a hard-sided tent. > Austin’s homelessness rate has been rapidly worsening Reading the news, I would have thought that only happened in California.
- GaryNumanVevo 3y agoWhile I appreciate the sentiment, can America move on from these "solutions" for unhoused people? This is more like a 21st century garden hermit situation [1]. They don't have plumbing or kitchens, they're effectively Home Depo garden sheds. It's vastly cheaper and more humane to prevent homelessness in the first place via rent control and allowing more housing to be built. It's not flashy or sexy, but it's actually a real solution. I'm glad to live in a country where there's very little homelessness, and if you'd hear about someone putting up garden sheds for people to live in, they would be laughed out of the town. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_hermit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_hermit
- lukas099 3y ago> rent control A displacement-prevention measure, not a housing affordability measure > allowing more housing to be built That's what they are doing, building houses, and you are pushing against it. You may not like the houses, but they are the best available option for many people, as proven by the fact that they are choosing to live there.
- GaryNumanVevo 3y agoHousing affordability _is_ a displacement-prevention measure. > building houses These are not houses, they lack basic plumbing, kitchen, food refrigeration, etc. > as proven by the fact that they are choosing to live there. Most literally were unable to afford other forms of housing, especially the elderly living on social security. Calling this a choice is intellectually dishonest.
- lukas099 3y agoThe solution to the housing affordability crisis is clear: allow the free market to build abundant housing where people want to live. Solutions like the one described in the article are great, but nowhere near as effective as simply allowing people to build.