I've come across this topic on many forums and want to get the perspective of our resident pardians on whether or not housing should be free and if so what kind of housing.

I see nothing wrong with shelters or adequate housing comparable to communist flats or housing projects but i dont think desirable housing of any sort ought to be freely available.

Thoughts?

if they are free sign me up. having a sfh is nice but it costs money! so if they are being made free instead i will take it

Basic 1br apartment maybe. We already subsidize housing for low income people

There's a problem with some systems. Let's use Nunavut and NWT for examples. The majority of housing is either staff housing for those that posses skills and are flown in to work or its public housing for those that can't afford to build a home and don't have a job that will pay or subsidize housing like the above.

Public housing is provided and subsidized based on the tenants prior years tax return. The more income they make the higher the rent is up to a certain cap which is dependant on community.

What has happened in those areas is a significant percentage have lost the will to work. Unemployment is rampant and highest in the country by a significant multiplier. I have spent years, and people always say why would it work I'll just have to pay more bills. It's a vicious cycle. If they have no income rent is 16 bucks to 36 bucks a month, community pending.

If it was free with nothing tied to income, I would have to think it would be better than the current system. The next major problem though is the state of those units. When your don't own something you're less likley to care for it and if you have ever spent any amount of years around public housing you know it's mostly trashed. The territories is a glaring example of this. Tenants leave the units uninhapitable for the next families.

I would like to see more subsidized rent to own models put in place. I think you would see increased care for the units and people won't feel like they're just getting behind by working since, yes they will pay more but they are building more equity. That's my vote.

Very interesting case studies in the states of investors turning trailer parks into rent to own models and it was highly successful, better tenants, less criminal activity, better community and care for units.

This post was edited by SBD on Jul 18 2020 11:55am

Nothing is ever truly free, someone has to pay for it.


On the topic: I think it is in the best interest of all communities to prevent homelessness as much as possible, and also to make sure that as few of its children as possible grow up in dire poverty. So yes, I support very basic shelters for the homeless, and I support some degree of subsidies for the housing of low income families with kids. I do not support making housing completely free though, and this public or subsidized housing only needs to be adequate, not desirable.

On top of that, I think that a community which is investing notable funds into subsidized housing has an obligation to its tax payers to do everything in its power to reduce homelessness as much as possible. In particular, this means that they are imho obliged to shy away from any further policies which turn them into a magnet for hobos, illegal immigrants, free loaders, etc. Pulling shit like San Francisco is a non-starter.

Free healthcare / education and now also free housing . Who's going to work if you can get everything for free?

Labor = money
Free stuff = No labor needed

In a system like this everything gets hollowed out and fails. No people's paradise for you but ruins

Why? Just buy a place to live.

Sometimes it is free because it offsets other costs. I.e. the birth control issue where a lifetime of free birth control costs less than a single unplanned pregnancy to the insurance company.

Homelessness is another of those issues where social services could be reduced and put into housing, or social services could be increased and pay for itself by removing the need for services in those communities.

Well, sure - if we take opportunity cost into account, that's a different conversation. And what I said is still true anyway: someone has to pay for it. In the case of housing, the immediate costs might well be offset over time by less costs for social services, or by kids having more success because they grew up in a more stable environment, etc. - but it still means that someone has to shoulder the immediate costs without seeing an immediate return on this investment.

Long term and very long term projects focused on public good that reaps a very long term reward are the exact kind of thing governments should do. Private companies just won't do risky ventures that only promise to pay off after years of investment and social development after all.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 18 2020 02:53pm