PDA

View Full Version : Habitat and housing: Hillary


Tadit Anderson
07-28-2007, 08:43 PM
So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other
factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part
of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of
affordable housing?

The short answer is "pure" ideological economistics which is quite
diconnected from the results of its application except as it benefits the
wealth extraction privileged. The slimy answer is that the boom and bust
cycles particularly relative to real estate is "inevitable" or caused by
mysterious external factors which by routine are never addressed. In other
words the "Free Market" is only "Free" for the wealthy, and then through
the influence of politicians and universities to provide a cover story. It
amounts to a big "WHOOPS," and a lame "Sorry." It is a product of the
commitment to a deficient economic model relative to tax policies. The
pattern continues by the influence of those who do benefit from this
selective ignorance and the politician's default loyalty to support and
appease their patrons and in effect subsidize real estate speculation on
multiple levels. This is also the major basis of sub-urban sprawl.
Land, as it is valued apart from any structures upon it is a product of
publicly provided infrastructure and the health of the community. The
second layer is the fueling of real estate speculation by privatized, fiat
currency banking as has become the convention by sheer dint of disconnect
from its effects. Real estate speculation fuels a boom and bust process
and drives the price of real estate upward during the boom side of the
cycle making it difficult to develop affordable housing, and in the bust
side of the cycle wealth is being extracted from the communities beyond
their abilities to produce a living income for all. Low income populations
are doubly targeted. Controlling the commons in the interest of the
community has been marginalized with the pretense of the inevitability of
both the boom and bust cycles and that some portion of the population is
expendable in favor of land speculation.
Real estate speculation has been hard wired into our culture from the
earliest days. The Whiskey Rebellion was in large part a result of massive
land speculation in western Pennsyvania, and was precipatated by
Hamilton's excise tax on spirits, a shortage of currency in the region,
and a body of rent and tax collectors willing to do the bidding of the
Philadelphis(later Washington) patricians. The patricians of the
Continental Congress were deeply invested in the process of land
speculation to the point of it was in their interest to subsume leadership
of the Colonial rebellion and to control the westward expansion in their
own interests.



2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's
success on a larger scale?

Not until the default economic model includes land as a separate and
unique factor and not until the value and principle of the commons is
restored, contrary to privatizing everything but waste, infrastructure,
and warfare. HfH is a non-profit which apart from its capitalizing process
is still tied to the largesse of corporate donors looking for browning
point and positive PR.

Install a land rent basis for taxation and much of this problem will
disappear. The remaining megalithic need for reform will be for the
restoration of the control of the monetary system in the interest of the
public, not privatizatized institutions.


Hillary
Philadelphia






This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

Rivee059 at newschool.edu
07-29-2007, 09:17 PM
sorry to respond so late in the game...

But in the response to the question regarding why we, as a society, think that the private sector can answer housing and many other problems is not necessarily rooted in empirical evidence.
I feel that the prevailing notion in most conventional intellectual circles is that private sector performs better. Why? What's the private sector fuss? Well, not ALL advocates of private sector expansion agree with each other. There are those private sector advocates that say that its better to do it with private sector resources because its cost effective. Well, sometimes you get what you pay for...
Then again, other private sector advocates just feel that it is better to leave it up to "society", or buyers and sellers, producers and consumers. the challenge is always to avoid a monopoly.
Sometimes the private sector is better, especially when you have the majority asking for it. But let's not sacrifice public service with ideology.

This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

L Lapointe
07-30-2007, 08:38 AM
I have one question before I hopefully be able to provide a meaningful
comment to this interesting topic. I am in Canada so no one gets to own
their home if they are in affordable housing....is that the same in the US?
or Europe?



-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1634790-4989577@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1634790-4989577@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Edgardo Rivera
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:12 PM
To: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu; ideasinc@ee.net
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing: Hillary

sorry to respond so late in the game...

But in the response to the question regarding why we, as a society, think
that the private sector can answer housing and many other problems is not
necessarily rooted in empirical evidence.
I feel that the prevailing notion in most conventional intellectual circles
is that private sector performs better. Why? What's the private sector fuss?
Well, not ALL advocates of private sector expansion agree with each other.
There are those private sector advocates that say that its better to do it
with private sector resources because its cost effective. Well, sometimes
you get what you pay for...
Then again, other private sector advocates just feel that it is better to
leave it up to "society", or buyers and sellers, producers and consumers.
the challenge is always to avoid a monopoly.
Sometimes the private sector is better, especially when you have the
majority asking for it. But let's not sacrifice public service with
ideology.


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

pdruhan at cadcom.org
07-31-2007, 05:30 PM
Luc,
I am not sure about your question. The term affordable housing
encompasses all housing options and programs to lower housing costs, not
just homeownership. Habitat exists in Canada as well, but where there
is some difference is that the U.S. has a number of mortgage assistance
programs not available in Canada. Economists could argue against
mortgage assistance because it may be factored into the price of homes
through increased demand. The long-term benefit would therefore accrue
to sellers and lenders.
In Canada, low-income families can receive social assistance shelter
payments that can be applied to mortgage costs.
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1636436-8121008@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1636436-8121008@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Luc
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:25 PM
To: 'Edgardo Rivera'; communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu;
ideasinc@ee.net
Subject: RE: Habitat and housing: Hillary


I have one question before I hopefully be able to provide a meaningful
comment to this interesting topic. I am in Canada so no one gets to own
their home if they are in affordable housing....is that the same in the
US?
or Europe?



-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1634790-4989577@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1634790-4989577@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Edgardo
Rivera
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:12 PM
To: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu; ideasinc@ee.net
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing: Hillary

sorry to respond so late in the game...

But in the response to the question regarding why we, as a society,
think that the private sector can answer housing and many other problems
is not necessarily rooted in empirical evidence.
I feel that the prevailing notion in most conventional intellectual
circles is that private sector performs better. Why? What's the private
sector fuss?
Well, not ALL advocates of private sector expansion agree with each
other.
There are those private sector advocates that say that its better to do
it with private sector resources because its cost effective. Well,
sometimes you get what you pay for...
Then again, other private sector advocates just feel that it is better
to leave it up to "society", or buyers and sellers, producers and
consumers.
the challenge is always to avoid a monopoly.
Sometimes the private sector is better, especially when you have the
majority asking for it. But let's not sacrifice public service with
ideology.



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list