The neoliberal left

[Cutlass]

Very interesting info. Thanks, Cutlass.

Funnily enough, we have rather the reverse problem here. Specifically, a lot of private landlords rent out to council tenants and the council pays (most of) the rent as housing benefit. At the same time, there are national level policies that inflate the housing market. This leads to high rents, based on high house prices, while tenants have less reason to negotiate since someone else is paying; and as many of the people in receipt of housing benefit are in work, it also puts downward pressure on wages, since these need not cover the full cost of rent.

So it's very damaging, unless you're a landlord or capitalist of course, but to untangle this mess, unless done very carefully, would cause serious hardship to many poorer people. It's a lesson on the dangers of mixing public provision with private gain.

In the US shortages of appropriate housing are almost always caused by local government regulation and zoning laws. They exclude multifamily, apartments, and small houses from areas to keep the price up. And that keeps the poor out. There are federal, state, and local housing assistance programs. But it can take years being on a waiting list to get into a program.

 

[Katie88]

In the US shortages of appropriate housing are almost always caused by local government regulation and zoning laws. They exclude multifamily, apartments, and small houses from areas to keep the price up. And that keeps the poor out. There are federal, state, and local housing assistance programs. But it can take years being on a waiting list to get into a program.

We see a lot of similar devices here. When areas of public housing are redeveloped (for context, there was a big sell off of public housing here that started in the 1980s and not much built to replace them), they are often replaced by high-end properties, with some affordable units included; these 'affordable' homes are often anything but, and poorer people are pushed out. For obvious reasons, this is especially prevalent in high-value areas.

Likewise, many people have to wait many years on waiting lists to be housed, and the criteria effectively exclude many from getting one. There's also, especially in London, a thriving black market in council house subletting. The Grenfall tragedy revealed the extent to which people who have no right to be in the country, never mind to a council house, are occupying public housing.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It's affordable housing! Only $979,999 for a 1-bedroom/3 room apartment!

 

[Hrothbern]

Expensive housing is a very practical way to get and keep people addicted to strive for higher income,

a very nice method to keep them orderly in line with our current society,
I would not call it modern slavery, that is too simplistic, but it acts very practical in the same fashion in the disguise of freedom of choice, and "everybody" has a chance to get there.

I think it is no coincidence that the wave of public housing capacities being increased in many western (european) countries during the 80ies, stopped with the emerging neoliberalism everywhere.
And assuming that for a life of more freedom for "the many" an affordable (public) housing is a cornerstone,
imo ANY movement that believes in "a better world" that has not included more public housing, is just another "one issue" movement, easily marginalised, or absorbed, or negated, by the main stream establishment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We see a lot of similar devices here. When areas of public housing are redeveloped (for context, there was a big sell off of public housing here that started in the 1980s and not much built to replace them), they are often replaced by high-end properties, with some affordable units included; these 'affordable' homes are often anything but, and poorer people are pushed out. For obvious reasons, this is especially prevalent in high-value areas.

Likewise, many people have to wait many years on waiting lists to be housed, and the criteria effectively exclude many from getting one. There's also, especially in London, a thriving black market in council house subletting. The Grenfall tragedy revealed the extent to which people who have no right to be in the country, never mind to a council house, are occupying public housing.

Am I misreading you or are you trying to spin that fire into an attack on immigration?

 

[Katie88]

Am I misreading you or are you trying to spin that fire into an attack on immigration?

It's about allocation of resources. Public housing is a scare resource and there are criteria that people have to meet to obtain it (I should like to see these changed somewhat, but that's another discussion), and even then sometimes they have to wait for very long periods. The black market I described allows unscrupulous tenants to sublet public housing to people who do not meet the criteria, including, as the Grenfell tragedy revealed, many who should not even be in the country. As I said, the problem is particularly acute in London because of the general shortage of housing there.

More broadly, there are three issues:

1 - Supply: as I said in other posts, councils do not build enough houses, and are often compelled to sell off what they do have, which tends to push poorer people out.
2 - Proper allocation of existing resources: fair criteria and ensuring that the same are fulfilled; also strict monitoring and punishment of those who illegally sublet.
3 - Demand: increasing demand has a few different causes, but the only one that can be addressed completely by public policy is immigration.

 

[Lexicus]

Any framing of this issue that doesn't place the blame pretty much entirely on wealthy landlords and capitalists who want to keep the supply of housing artificially scarce isn't discourse that I want to participate in. I mean, talk about neoliberal, blaming poor immigants for the predations of capitalists is pretty close to peak neoliberalism...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So...yes?

You can dress it up all you like but this is still ugly:

The Grenfall tragedy revealed the extent to which people who have no right to be in the country, never mind to a council house, are occupying public housing.

 

[luiz]

So...yes?

You can dress it up all you like but this is still ugly:

So you're saying a black market should be allowed to operate in public housing, essentially allocating the units to the highest bidder, regardless of meeting the criteria set by public authority to regulate public housing.

Sounds like a neoliberal, free market solution.

 

[Katie88]

Any framing of this issue that doesn't place the blame pretty much entirely on wealthy landlords and capitalists who want to keep the supply of housing artificially scarce isn't discourse that I want to participate in. I mean, talk about neoliberal, blaming poor immigants for the predations of capitalists is pretty close to peak neoliberalism...

Feel free not to participate, then.

So...yes?

You can dress it up all you like but this is still ugly:

Immigration is a major issue when it comes to housing. 100,000s come every year. They have to live somewhere.

Personally, I think it's pretty ugly that British people languish for years on waiting lists while public housing is occupied by people with no right to be here. But you're welcome to take a different view.

 

[Lexicus]

Personally, I think it's pretty ugly that British people languish for years on waiting lists while public housing is occupied by people with no right to be here. But you're welcome to take a different view.

When you're a socialist but also a nationalist so you just decide to call yourself a national socialist

So you're saying a black market should be allowed to operate in public housing, essentially allocating the units to the highest bidder, regardless of meeting the criteria set by public authority to regulate public housing.

Sounds like a neoliberal, free market solution.

I'm pretty sure that's, you know, not what he said at all, but okay.

 

[Katie88]

When you're a socialist but also a nationalist so you just decide to call yourself a national socialist

I thought you didn't want to participate?

But tell me, why do you think that illegal immigrants to a country should be able to access its public resources on equal (or even better!) terms than citizens?

 

[Lexicus]

But tell me, why do you think that illegal immigrants to a country should be able to access its public resources on equal (or even better!) terms than citizens?

Because I don't think arbitrary and racist immigration systems should play any role whatever in determining who gets access to basic resources.

 

[Katie88]

Because I don't think arbitrary and racist immigration systems should play any role whatever in determining who gets access to basic resources.

So you want open borders? You're welcome to your opinion, but vanishingly few people, though, ironically, many large corporations, agree with you. And in a democracy, public resources should be allocated broadly in line with public need and public will.

 

[Farm Boy]

Residence in a major megalopolis with thriving global economy is not a basic right. Seeing as residence on the plot of dirt we have maintained with our hands is also not a right(unless there are some really big cultural divides here I haven't caught onto). This will be of increasing tension as employment automates and the economic prosperity of the hinterlands falls. There are plenty of places to live, but not a lot of great work in them, and frankly most economically powerful liberal forces seem to prefer sheep to men out in the boondocks anyways.

 

[metalhead]

Any framing of this issue that doesn't place the blame pretty much entirely on wealthy landlords and capitalists who want to keep the supply of housing artificially scarce isn't discourse that I want to participate in.

And they keep housing artificially scarce for the sole purpose of driving up their own property values.

It's ironic how many "liberals" out in the suburbs immediately balk at the idea of high-density housing going in anywhere within 10 miles of their houses.

 

[Lexicus]

And they keep housing artificially scarce for the sole purpose of driving up their own property values.

I think in most urban areas the major consideration is the rents you can extract as a landlord. Can't charge high rents if there's plenty of housing for everyone. I may have been misinterpreting what you meant by "their own property values" but I think that keeping the value of the property they live in high isn't the primary reason for restricting the supply of housing. That is probably a consideration for many voters, but not as much for developers and other capitalists who are intimately involved in the process of building new housing.

 

[metalhead]

In the suburbs, property values tend to be based on school district quality first and foremost. High density, low cost housing significantly increases the supply of housing in a given school district, driving down the value of the existing homes or at least decreasing the rate at which that value goes up. Which means that the people who, say, work at my kids' day care have to live 2 bus rides and sometimes as long as 2 hours away, because nobody thought it was worth it to greatly increase their quality of life at the cost of a couple percent reduction in their property value.

 

[Cutlass]

Residence in a major megalopolis with thriving global economy is not a basic right. Seeing as residence on the plot of dirt we have maintained with our hands is also not a right(unless there are some really big cultural divides here I haven't caught onto). This will be of increasing tension as employment automates and the economic prosperity of the hinterlands falls. There are plenty of places to live, but not a lot of great work in them, and frankly most economically powerful liberal conservative forces seem to prefer sheep to men out in the boondocks anyways.

ftfy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Them too. When they agree on stuff, that stuff tends to happen.