[Pants-of-dog]

Please post a link to the post where the evidence for Cabrini Green was quoted. Thanks.

[Unthinking Majority]

Again, the four examples have been given and even declared failures in this thread.

And yet, there they are, still going after all these years.

Even take one of the examples already given in this thread: Cuba.

It is a developing country dealing with hurricanes made more extreme due to climate change and still does not have homelessness.

It is bad enough that North American centrists have to reach to developing countries to find something they think they compare well with, and we find the developing country is still outperforming us.

The only example you listed to me was army barracks. I'm not searching through the thread to find these other examples you claimed to have made.

Please provide evidence that there's no homelessness in Cuba.

Per housing in Cuba, the situation is exactly as I said nationalizing housing would be, per Columbia University:

...At the end of 2018 the housing deficit almost reached 900,000 units. The rate of housing construction by the State has been much lower than the population growth rate; most homes are in regular or bad condition."

https://horizontecubano.law.columbia.ed ... al-reforms

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

Yes, military barracks and the associated housing for families of members of the military are an example of public housing that has already been provided. Since you have replied to my posts since then, it seems safe to assume that you accept this as an example of successful public housing.

This shows that it can be implemented on a federal level for decades.

Homelessness is almost non-existent in Cuba for various reasons. The main reason was a change in landownership policy during the revolution, where 85% of Cubans ended up owning their home. The other main reason was that until 1998, Cuba built and repaired homes extensively. Both of these policies are due to Cuba seeing and treating housing as a social service rather than an investment opportunity. After 1998, it became significantly harder to acquire certain building materials, obviously, so Cuban construction has been less successful since then.

[wat0n]

Please post a link to the post where the evidence for Cabrini Green was quoted. Thanks.

viewtopic.php?p=15284243#p15284243

Knock yourself out - the city, despite owning the property, decided to leave tenants to their own fate.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority

Yes, military barracks and the associated housing for families of members of the military are an example of public housing that has already been provided. Since you have replied to my posts since then, it seems safe to assume that you accept this as an example of successful public housing.

No I already replied to your take on barracks.

This shows that it can be implemented on a federal level for decades.

LOL.

Homelessness is almost non-existent in Cuba for various reasons. The main reason was a change in landownership policy during the revolution, where 85% of Cubans ended up owning their home. The other main reason was that until 1998, Cuba built and repaired homes extensively. Both of these policies are due to Cuba seeing and treating housing as a social service rather than an investment opportunity. After 1998, it became significantly harder to acquire certain building materials, obviously, so Cuban construction has been less successful since then.

I asked for evidence that homelessness does not exist in Cuba, which was your claim.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since we are at the point where everyone is claiming all the evidence and rebuttals have all been made and no one is attempting to supporting any claim, the debate seems to be over.

We see that zoning laws have an insignificant effect on housing prices.

We have seen many examples of municipalities drastically reducing zoning law stringency without any reduction in housing costs.

We have seen that inclusionary zoning works to create more affordable housing.

And we gave seen that public housing, by and large, works. Even for developing countries.

[wat0n]

"Dramatically reducing zoning law stringency"? Where exactly @Pants-of-dog?

Do recall the Sao Paulo study showed that the greater the reduction in zoning restrictions on density, the larger the price decrease.

We have also not seen any evidence of your claims about nationalizing housing. The idea that one can extrapolate military housing to civilian housing is preposterous and even then it's an imperfect system with wait-lists (so no, not all military personnel can bring their families - they can't even manage to house the families of everyone even though these are military facilities with military rules) and many preferring to live outside.

The only thing where you got it sort of right is about inclusive zoning, which not only doesn't help the guy in the OP but also shows developers do want to relax zoning laws and that the issue is indeed restrictive zoning so, if they're lobbying for something, it is for being allowed to build more.

[Unthinking Majority]

And we gave seen that public housing, by and large, works. Even for developing countries.

Except I posted evidence from Columbia University that housing in Cuba sucks. And I haven't seen any evidence from you that nation-wide public housing works. Except the assumption that barracks expanded to 300 million people would work, without supporting logic or evidence.

So the conclusion here is that you will continue to support nationalizing housing, despite there being no real evidence presented on whether it would work and nothing will convince you otherwise and you will continue to make up inaccurate claims to try to show your position is legitimate.

So basically there's no point to having this discussion. Good day.

[Pants-of-dog]

Except I posted evidence from Columbia University that housing in Cuba sucks.

Not quite.

You posted that there is a housing deficit and that this is due (partly) to a lack of materials. Your source also said this is the same reason why repairs and maintenance are also falling behind.

But this is due to Cuba being a developing country that is dealing with a blockade.

If we were to do the same thing in developed Canada, these problems would not exist. Because we are not a developing country. Or under a blockade.

And I haven't seen any evidence from you that nation-wide public housing works. Except the assumption that barracks expanded to 300 million people would work, without supporting logic or evidence.

Why would it not work?

So the conclusion here is that you will continue to support nationalizing housing, despite there being no real evidence presented on whether it would work and nothing will convince you otherwise and you will continue to make up inaccurate claims to try to show your position is legitimate.

So basically there's no point to having this discussion. Good day.

Not only has public housing shown to be viable, but every market based solution has already been examined empirically and shown to not work.

Or in case of the policy you mentioned, it has bot been applied to housing at all. Or in Canada’s case, is already part of the lender protection regulations.

The weird evidence standards are informative, thiugh.

I have to prove beyond any doubt that military housing can be upscaled to everyone’s use, it has to be prefect, Meanwhile, you guys did not even read your own links.

Go read the Cabrini Green link. You will see why @wat0n does not copy paste any text. It is great if you like lurid true crime, It makes no mention at all of any problem inherent to public housing.

[wat0n]

Cabrini-Green is just an example, and the link does mention some problems that most certainly had to do with management:

...

The Cabrini Green projects not only became ridden with crime and gang activity by the mid-1970s, there was also a large amount of tenants unable to pay rent now that tenant screening was more lax and allowed several unemployed into the projects. There were also issues of several transient residents that did not actually live in the buildings that were in an out of resident’s apartments and also sleeping in the hallways and stairwells, many of which were either violent gang members or drug addicts. The transient residents spray painted graffiti in the hallways and often destroyed the property, many could be seen urinating in the hallways and using drugs out in the open.

The high rate of unpaid rents, the need to repair millions of dollars’ worth of destruction brought about a inability for CHA to make renovations to the buildings and the buildings were left in total neglect by the late 1970s, but this was the fault of CHA for not carefully screening tenants starting in the mid-1960s and now by the late 1970s the impact was felt and the CHA could not and would not be able to fix the mistake. Now this neighborhood was once again just as bad as or worse than it was before the projects, what was supposed to fix the problem only created a new one.

...

CHA is the Chicago Housing Authority.

It's also a good example of what happens when cops are just taken out of the equation and laws are not enforced.

[Pants-of-dog]

Now that there has been some text quoted, we see that these problems are not inherent to public housing. Tenants who do not pay rent or pose a security risk are not uncommon in any low income rental situation.

Consequently, the only criticism that Cabrini Green forces us to make is that tenants need to be screened.

[wat0n]

No private business would allow tenants stay in their properties without paying rent indefinitely. They would at least act to get them evicted.

Furthermore, no government would tolerate private developers having tenants living in dilapidated premises against the law. Yet when governments themselves are in that business this can happen, for several years and even decades.

[Pants-of-dog]

The text does not say that the CHA allowed residents to live there indefinitely without paying rent. This is an unproven assumption.

Governments have allowed private developers having tenants living in dilapidated premises, even if this is against the law. The current NYC estimate appears to about 50 000 of these dwellings. Theoretically, the government can find and close these homes, and sanction the landlords. They do not.

[wat0n]

Note that the text says the city did allow tenants live without paying rent.

The NYC claim needs a source.

[Pants-of-dog]

The unsupported assumption is that the CHA allowed people to stay without paying rent indefinitely.

The quoted text does not say this.

[wat0n]

The text doesn't state otherwise.

It does not say the city engaged in evictions of delinquent tenants before the demolition of the complex (since everyone had to be relocated).

You're grasping at straws, too. It's clear Cabrini-Green was a failure, it was meant to provide housing to stop crime in the area as it had been known as "Little Hell" - a close to lawless part of the city with rampant crime like murder - yet the project eventually became one of the most dangerous parts of Chicago.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not going to entertain speculation.

If there is evidence that CHA allowed people to stay indefinitely without paying rent, that evidence needs to ge presented, and then in order to make that useful for discussing public housing in general, one would beed evidence that this is common for public housing.

[wat0n]

I can't think of any better example that the city would allow tenants to live without paying rent and that cops wouldn't dare venture into the complex.

[late]

Cabrini-Green was a failure

Why is it you guys keep reaching into the past???

We've learned a lot since then, and places in Europe never made that mistake.

Not only that, we have millions of homeless now, and it's likely to get worse.

I used to say that if you act like a 3rd world country, you eventually get to be one. But we are getting there.

Success is something we know how to do. We used to do it, we just need to pull our crazies out of our ass and do it.

[wat0n]

@late some believe nationalizing the housing sector would solve all housing problems, as if there were no examples of catastrophic failures of public housing.

I don't think the successful countries in Europe have nationalized their housing.