200
Harris puts housing at center of economic pitch to US voters
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
200 points (100.0% liked)
News
23305 readers
3319 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
directly build housing and sell it for cost so the system renews itself and brings down housing costs.
That would require a lot of red tape for the government. Doing a spacex model could work though. Pick a industry leader and partner with the us government to aid in the whole process.
Two things,
You will have to partner with, at minimal, a decent owner. Require that only union approved works build the product. Require union works to make up a percentage of the board. Require a minimum percentage of revenue to be invested in innovation and research.
Require social, economic, and environmental research to be the driving force and implement their recommendations. Lay out their goals (i.e. decrease the gap between white and minority ownership, CO2 reduction / neutral production, bloated budgets / unnecessary spending).
People need to look at houses as a universal necessity , not an investment.
I mean thats fine to me. I want them to make real estate one of the poorest payout investments. Lucky to make over cost.
Spacex model? Give billions of dollars to a ketamine addicted narcissist asshole? No thanks
Lower regulations for building houses and encourage the construction of houses. Also build a subway near the suburbs to reduce car use.
There is a lot of unused land because there are no basic services or they do not meet demand. This should also be encouraged.
I think it's important to be clear about what "lower regulations" should mean. Loosening safety or energy efficiency standards would be bad, but eliminating minimum parking requirements would be good.
(Parking really is the issue here, by the way. For example, an 800 ft^2^ 2-bedroom apartment is forced to become effectively 1200 ft^2^ if code requires 1 parking space per bedroom, singlehandedly driving up costs by more than 50% because concrete parking decks are more expensive per square foot than living space is.)
why low density? High density is rediculously overpriced.