#low income single family homes for rent

[orionhousingsposts]

Navigating Los Angeles Apartments – Your Guide to Inexpensive Living

Los Angeles, the City of Angels, is known for its vibrant culture, entertainment industry, and diverse neighborhoods. Finding the perfect apartment in such a sprawling metropolis can be a daunting task. Whether you’re a student, a low-income family, or someone looking for an inexpensive place to call home, this guide aims to help you navigate the rental market in Los Angeles. With insights into the best realtor companies, real estate agencies in California, and tips for finding low-income rental homes and student apartments, this post covers everything you need to know.

[mariacallous]

so every time I post about building of more housing through HUD or whatever, people will always pop into the tags or the notes and say something like "we don't need to build any more housing!" "there's more than enough houses for people!" etc from the left

and I have an idea what the issue is, ie there's enough housing collectively across all of America, but not enough where people actually live/want to live, what good does an empty house in Montana do someone paying too much in rent in NYC?

but you're a lot smarter than me, what are they talking about? are they right? is my guess correct?

Finding an affordable place to live in the U.S. can feel pretty impossible whether you're a renter or a buyer.

To begin with, there's a massive shortage of homes — somewhere between 4 and 7 million. And those who are able to find homes are spending a much bigger chunk of their paycheck than in recent years.

...

All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly spoke with Alex Horowitz, the director of Pew's Housing Policy Initiative, to help understand why affordable housing feels like a pipe dream, and what can be done about it.

She began by asking about the shortage of 4 to 7 million homes in the U.S., and whether that was a shortage of all homes or affordable ones.

...

Alex Horowitz: We're short on all homes. Full stop. There just aren't enough of them. And that means that existing homes are getting bid up because we see high income households competing with low income households for the same residences since just not enough are getting built.

Mary Louise Kelly: And what's driving this? Why?

Horowitz: So restrictive zoning is the primary culprit. It's made it hard to build homes in the areas where there are jobs. And so that has created an immense housing shortage. And each home is getting bid up, whether it's a rental or whether it's a home to buy.

Kelly: I want to ask if there are any cities getting this right. Can you give me an example of one that has looked at it's zoning laws and said we could actually make this more affordable if we change things?

Horowitz: There are definitely cities that are getting this right. And we've seen a lot of changes in recent years to allow more homes, especially the kinds of homes that are in short supply, namely apartments, townhouses, duplexes and homes that don't cost as much as a detached single family house. Minneapolis is a great example. Minneapolis updated their zoning to make it much easier to build apartments near commerce and near transit, in part by eliminating parking minimums and also by making permitting easy. And it worked. They're producing housing at triple the rate of the U.S. and the rest of Minnesota, and that has meant that they've kept their rents flat for about seven years.

...

Kelly: Okay, so let's drill down first on the renters side of this. We heard from Natalie French, the renter who had to move out of her apartment when her rent went way up. How typical is that? Is that happening to people all over the country?

Horowitz: That is happening. And rents have been rising rapidly, up about 30% in the U.S. since 2017, with median rents now hitting about 1400 dollars a month. And we've never been at a time before where half of renters were spending 30% or more of income on rent. But that's happening for the first time.

Kelly: And then on the homebuying side, we hear a lot about mortgage rates. They keep climbing. They don't look like they're coming down anytime soon. Are there other factors that make this a tough time to buy?

Horowitz: A lack of starter homes is really keeping it difficult for first time homebuyers to crack the market. And that is because traditionally starter homes are small homes. That means a home on a small lot, maybe a townhouse. And we're seeing far fewer of those come onto the market. Many jurisdictions require large minimum lot sizes, and that means that land costs end up being a big part of the equation. Houston is the place that has had the most success in bringing starter homes into the market. And it was by reducing their minimum lot size. And then 80,000 townhouses followed.

Kelly: So does it boil down to the double whammy of: there aren't enough homes full stop, and even if there were a home, it's really hard to afford a mortgage in an era where mortgage rates are sky high.

Horowitz: Mortgage rates are a piece of the puzzle, but at a fundamental level, even when mortgage rates were low, it was hard to buy a home for the first time because there simply aren't enough of them. And a lot of the ones that we have are bigger than what people need. U.S. household size is at an all time low of 2.50 people per household. And so we see homes that are bigger than what a lot of residents are looking for.

Kelly: What about financing and lending? Setting aside what mortgage rates are, is it more difficult than in generations past just to get a loan to buy a house?

Horowitz: Oh, it's gotten much more difficult to get a mortgage. The availability of mortgage credit tightened dramatically during the Great Recession, and it never bounced back. So for someone who gets a mortgage today, they're likely to have a higher credit score than someone who's gotten a mortgage in the past. And that means simply fewer people are eligible for homes. And the cost to originate a mortgage has roughly tripled since 2009. And that has meant that lenders don't offer many small mortgages because they tend not to make money on them unless the mortgage is for over about $150,000.

[transwolvie]

i think people tend to avoid HOA's regardless because of the way they tend to attract weird controlling assholes as board members/presidents, so you live in an HOA neighborhood and some guy is on your ass for "weeds" in yard when it's the flowers you planted etc

I mean, sure, but also like.....condo and townhome HOAs can't do that. They're in charge of the gardening. If there's flowers that have been planted they're the ones who do it in the first place, and if something needs to be weeded that's also their job as opposed to mine.

What I'm pointing out is that there's a very distinct divide between HOAs for middle to upper middle class people, which are the ones known for controlling how your lawn can LOOK, but it's still up to YOU to change your lawn, and HOAs in lower income areas where people who own are still more likely to live in townhomes or condos instead of single family homes. The suburban HOA is the one that's associated with nosy, bossy neighbors.

As someone else already chipped in on my post, they used to live in a low income area in a townhome, where the HOA was used to fund community project and do general lawn care. My mom and I also both live in condos in low income areas, and, like I've been saying, the HOA is paid because it's THEIR job to do the mowing, weeding, outside home repair, etc. This is NOT the case for suburban HOAs.

An HOA for a condo is entirely a different beast than the HOA for a single family home in the suburbs. A condominium complex is an "HOA neighborhood" because all of the lawn space, the outside of the homes, etc.... that is the responsibility of the complex to upkeep and repair. It is your community fund for upkeeping the community. For a single family home, the HOA can fine you, but your property is still YOUR responsibility, so the money paid doesn't do anything for you, you still have to weed your own damn lawn.

I keep pointing it out because to act like all HOAs function the way the ones in the suburbs do is to act like everyone can afford to live in a single family home in suburbia. Poor people are more likely to live in condos or townhomes if they own instead of rent—they're smaller and cheaper than an actual house, and, as mentioned, if you can manage to save up a down payment, they're overall cheaper per month than renting even with the HOA fees. To not consider that for a significant chunk of people the HOA is a service that we pay money into and get actual services (lawn care, upkeep of the complex's public pool, outside repairs, etc) is to completely ignore the way that a lot of lower income people live as opposed to people in the suburbs.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Hypothetical AI election disinformation risks vs real AI harms

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT (Feb 27) in Portland at Powell's. Then, onto Phoenix (Changing Hands, Feb 29), Tucson (Mar 9-12), and more!

You can barely turn around these days without encountering a think-piece warning of the impending risk of AI disinformation in the coming elections. But a recent episode of This Machine Kills podcast reminds us that these are hypothetical risks, and there is no shortage of real AI harms:

https://soundcloud.com/thismachinekillspod/311-selling-pickaxes-for-the-ai-gold-rush

The algorithmic decision-making systems that increasingly run the back-ends to our lives are really, truly very bad at doing their jobs, and worse, these systems constitute a form of "empiricism-washing": if the computer says it's true, it must be true. There's no such thing as racist math, you SJW snowflake!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/aoc-algorithms-racist-bias.html

Nearly 1,000 British postmasters were wrongly convicted of fraud by Horizon, the faulty AI fraud-hunting system that Fujitsu provided to the Royal Mail. They had their lives ruined by this faulty AI, many went to prison, and at least four of the AI's victims killed themselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

Tenants across America have seen their rents skyrocket thanks to Realpage's landlord price-fixing algorithm, which deployed the time-honored defense: "It's not a crime if we commit it with an app":

https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-fixing-case-big-landlords-real-estate-tech

Housing, you'll recall, is pretty foundational in the human hierarchy of needs. Losing your home – or being forced to choose between paying rent or buying groceries or gas for your car or clothes for your kid – is a non-hypothetical, widespread, urgent problem that can be traced straight to AI.

Then there's predictive policing: cities across America and the world have bought systems that purport to tell the cops where to look for crime. Of course, these systems are trained on policing data from forces that are seeking to correct racial bias in their practices by using an algorithm to create "fairness." You feed this algorithm a data-set of where the police had detected crime in previous years, and it predicts where you'll find crime in the years to come.

But you only find crime where you look for it. If the cops only ever stop-and-frisk Black and brown kids, or pull over Black and brown drivers, then every knife, baggie or gun they find in someone's trunk or pockets will be found in a Black or brown person's trunk or pocket. A predictive policing algorithm will naively ingest this data and confidently assert that future crimes can be foiled by looking for more Black and brown people and searching them and pulling them over.

Obviously, this is bad for Black and brown people in low-income neighborhoods, whose baseline risk of an encounter with a cop turning violent or even lethal. But it's also bad for affluent people in affluent neighborhoods – because they are underpoliced as a result of these algorithmic biases. For example, domestic abuse that occurs in full detached single-family homes is systematically underrepresented in crime data, because the majority of domestic abuse calls originate with neighbors who can hear the abuse take place through a shared wall.

But the majority of algorithmic harms are inflicted on poor, racialized and/or working class people. Even if you escape a predictive policing algorithm, a facial recognition algorithm may wrongly accuse you of a crime, and even if you were far away from the site of the crime, the cops will still arrest you, because computers don't lie:

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/texas-macys-sunglass-hut-facial-recognition-software-wrongful-arrest-sacramento-alibi/

Trying to get a low-waged service job? Be prepared for endless, nonsensical AI "personality tests" that make Scientology look like NASA:

https://futurism.com/mandatory-ai-hiring-tests

Service workers' schedules are at the mercy of shift-allocation algorithms that assign them hours that ensure that they fall just short of qualifying for health and other benefits. These algorithms push workers into "clopening" – where you close the store after midnight and then open it again the next morning before 5AM. And if you try to unionize, another algorithm – that spies on you and your fellow workers' social media activity – targets you for reprisals and your store for closure.

If you're driving an Amazon delivery van, algorithm watches your eyeballs and tells your boss that you're a bad driver if it doesn't like what it sees. If you're working in an Amazon warehouse, an algorithm decides if you've taken too many pee-breaks and automatically dings you:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenized-reverse-centaurs/

If this disgusts you and you're hoping to use your ballot to elect lawmakers who will take up your cause, an algorithm stands in your way again. "AI" tools for purging voter rolls are especially harmful to racialized people – for example, they assume that two "Juan Gomez"es with a shared birthday in two different states must be the same person and remove one or both from the voter rolls:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eligible-voters-swept-up-conservative-activists-purge-voter-rolls/

Hoping to get a solid education, the sort that will keep you out of AI-supervised, precarious, low-waged work? Sorry, kiddo: the ed-tech system is riddled with algorithms. There's the grifty "remote invigilation" industry that watches you take tests via webcam and accuses you of cheating if your facial expressions fail its high-tech phrenology standards:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/16/unauthorized-paper/#cheating-anticheat

All of these are non-hypothetical, real risks from AI. The AI industry has proven itself incredibly adept at deflecting interest from real harms to hypothetical ones, like the "risk" that the spicy autocomplete will become conscious and take over the world in order to convert us all to paperclips:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space

Whenever you hear AI bosses talking about how seriously they're taking a hypothetical risk, that's the moment when you should check in on whether they're doing anything about all these longstanding, real risks. And even as AI bosses promise to fight hypothetical election disinformation, they continue to downplay or ignore the non-hypothetical, here-and-now harms of AI.

There's something unseemly – and even perverse – about worrying so much about AI and election disinformation. It plays into the narrative that kicked off in earnest in 2016, that the reason the electorate votes for manifestly unqualified candidates who run on a platform of bald-faced lies is that they are gullible and easily led astray.

But there's another explanation: the reason people accept conspiratorial accounts of how our institutions are run is because the institutions that are supposed to be defending us are corrupt and captured by actual conspiracies:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/09/21/republic-of-lies-the-rise-of-conspiratorial-thinking-and-the-actual-conspiracies-that-fuel-it/

The party line on conspiratorial accounts is that these institutions are good, actually. Think of the rebuttal offered to anti-vaxxers who claimed that pharma giants were run by murderous sociopath billionaires who were in league with their regulators to kill us for a buck: "no, I think you'll find pharma companies are great and superbly regulated":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

Institutions are profoundly important to a high-tech society. No one is capable of assessing all the life-or-death choices we make every day, from whether to trust the firmware in your car's anti-lock brakes, the alloys used in the structural members of your home, or the food-safety standards for the meal you're about to eat. We must rely on well-regulated experts to make these calls for us, and when the institutions fail us, we are thrown into a state of epistemological chaos. We must make decisions about whether to trust these technological systems, but we can't make informed choices because the one thing we're sure of is that our institutions aren't trustworthy.

Ironically, the long list of AI harms that we live with every day are the most important contributor to disinformation campaigns. It's these harms that provide the evidence for belief in conspiratorial accounts of the world, because each one is proof that the system can't be trusted. The election disinformation discourse focuses on the lies told – and not why those lies are credible.

That's because the subtext of election disinformation concerns is usually that the electorate is credulous, fools waiting to be suckered in. By refusing to contemplate the institutional failures that sit upstream of conspiracism, we can smugly locate the blame with the peddlers of lies and assume the mantle of paternalistic protectors of the easily gulled electorate.

But the group of people who are demonstrably being tricked by AI is the people who buy the horrifically flawed AI-based algorithmic systems and put them into use despite their manifest failures.

As I've written many times, "we're nowhere near a place where bots can steal your job, but we're certainly at the point where your boss can be suckered into firing you and replacing you with a bot that fails at doing your job"

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/15/passive-income-brainworms/#four-hour-work-week

The most visible victims of AI disinformation are the people who are putting AI in charge of the life-chances of millions of the rest of us. Tackle that AI disinformation and its harms, and we'll make conspiratorial claims about our institutions being corrupt far less credible.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/27/ai-conspiracies/#epistemological-collapse

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[autisticadvocacy]

ASAN is deeply troubled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson. On Friday, June 28, the Supreme Court held that enforcing camping bans on public property against people who are unhoused is not cruel and unusual punishment as long as the laws about camping apply to everyone, including people who are housed. The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Court’s ruling means that people who cannot afford housing may be fined or even jailed for sleeping outdoors, even if there are not enough non-religious shelter beds for everyone who is unhoused in a particular community. We know that equal enforcement of an unjust law does not mean fair enforcement of a law. Today’s decision allows for an anti-camping law to be enforced even against people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors. This makes life harder for people experiencing homelessness and criminalizes it. This ruling opens the door for other jurisdictions to create similar laws.

This decision will disproportionately harm people experiencing homelessness, especially unhoused disabled people. People with disabilities are more likely to be unhoused or deal with housing insecurity than people without disabilities. In 2023, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated nearly one-third of individuals experiencing homelessness are experiencing chronic homelessness and have a disability.

Many factors contribute to increased homelessness among people with disabilities. Disabled renters report being less caught up on rent than the general population. This is often because rent continues to rise above what low-income households can afford. Many disabled people are also restricted by SSI asset limits and subminimum wage, which allows employers to legally pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage. These programs trap people in poverty and make it impossible to pay the rent on even a small apartment in many communities. Housing requires having a steady source of income. Disabled people are much less likely than non-disabled people to have a job and disabled people face pay gaps at work. Homelessness is not a moral failing. Homelessness is directly tied to the cost of housing and rent-to-income ratio.

Housing is expensive, and saving money is more difficult as a disabled person due to a host of factors. Being disabled is expensive. Households with an adult with a disability that limits their work need, on average, over $17,000 more a year to have the same standard of living as a nondisabled person. Many people with disabilities need features in housing that would be considered “luxuries” and therefore priced higher. For example, a person with a physical disability might need to live in an apartment building with a doorman or receptionist who can help them carry packages up to their apartment. A person with Tourette’s Syndrome, whose tics cause them to make loud and unpredictable noises at all hours, may need to live in a single-family home so they do not disturb neighbors through thin walls. Many homes are inaccessible. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires only 5% of units to be accessible for mobility disabilities and 2% to be accessible for visual and hearing disabilities, but the prevalence of mobility disabilities is 12%, visual disabilities 5%, and hearing disabilities 6%. Disabled people who are able to afford housing often face discrimination. The 2023 Fair Housing Trends Report notes that discrimination based on disability accounts for more than half of complaints filed (53.26%) with Fair Housing Enforcement Organizations (FHO), HUD, and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). These factors can all contribute to disabled people becoming unhoused.

We cannot allow people experiencing homelessness to be criminalized for their lack of resources and community supports. Our country must prioritize community-based resources — and recognize people experiencing homelessness as part of our communities. We know that options like supportive housing and employment, peer support services, and other community-based services are more effective, and far less harmful to our community, than criminal prosecution and jail time.

ASAN calls on Congress and state legislatures to better protect unhoused people through greater funding for homelessness and housing services and legislation to protect homeless people from criminalization for camping in public. We also call upon HUD to re-release the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule proposed in 2023. This rule would require state and local governments who receive HUD funding to get rid of segregation and other discriminatory practices in housing, which disproportionately impact people with disabilities, people of color, and other marginalized groups.

All people deserve to live self-directed lives in the community of their choosing. Criminalization and institutionalization of people experiencing homelessness cannot be the answer — we must end the housing crisis and ensure that all people have access to safe and adequate places to live. ASAN will continue to fight for all disabled people to have the right to live in the community, and our government must do the same.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network seeks to advance the principles of the disability rights movement with regard to autism. ASAN believes that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy equal access, rights, and opportunities. We work to empower autistic people across the world to take control of our own lives and the future of our common community, and seek to organize the autistic community to ensure our voices are heard in the national conversation about us. Nothing About Us, Without Us!

[wlw-webcomic-bracket]

In my professional life offline, I work with community development programs funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). One of the most important of these programs is the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, or “HOME” (not an acronym for some reason). In the last couple years, my office has contributed HOME funding to construction of around 400 new apartment units reserved for low-income families, plus conversion of a former hotel to single-resident occupancy units for people exiting homelessness and security deposit assistance for renters moving into market-rate units. I have a secondary role in the HOME program (most of my work is on a different grant, although I’ve contributed to the environmental reviews for all of our current round of projects), but I am immensely proud of what our team has done with a limited resource in a horrifically expensive housing market.

In 2023, House Republicans proposed cutting HUD’s 2024 budget for the HOME program by 67%, from $1.5 billion to $500 million.

Their proposal didn’t make it into the final bill. The President and Senate (under Democratic leadership) proposed HOME budgets of $1.8 billion and $1.5 billion, respectively. The final compromise budget allocated HUD $1.25 billion for the HOME program, a 17% cut which was passed down to every local HOME jurisdiction.

I’m glad the budget cuts weren’t worse. But what this means, in practical terms, is that one out of every six people we could have helped this year gets nothing. One out of every six people who would have received rent assistance is facing eviction. One out of every six people that would have received an affordable unit priced at 30% of their income has to keep giving 50% or more of their paycheck to market-rate landlords. We’re doing what we can with local resources, but there’s only so much you can do at the local level when federal funding goes away.

House Republicans are trying to reduce HOME funding to just $500 million again in 2025. So far, the Senate has rejected this, but barring a miracle upset, Democrats are almost certain to lose control of the Senate after next week’s election. If Republicans keep control of the House, and especially if they keep the House and win the Presidency, there is nothing stopping them from gutting housing programs completely.

I understand why people are frustrated with our choices this election. I am frustrated with our choices this election. But at the end of the day, I have a duty to my community. With Democrats in office, I can keep fulfilling that duty. With Republicans in office, I will lose the best tools I have to make a material difference to the vulnerable people who live around me. The people I serve will lose their housing, or they will lose their best path out of homelessness. There is no way around it.

Please, give me the tools to keep helping. Vote for Democrats up and down ballot, and once we’ve got them in office, thank them for doing what they do well and pressure the hell out of them to do better on the issues where they suck.

Because of gerrymandering (and geographic issues in general), control of the House will probably come down to just a few dozen races. I’m not endorsing any of these candidates on a personal level - some of them are probably good, some of them definitely suck - but they are the only bulwark we have against a party that wants to dismantle everything good about this country and lean into all the most shameful parts of our history. Every election matters, but if you live in one of these House districts, your vote is particularly important:

Alaska: AK-01 Mary Pelolta

Arizona: AZ-01 Amish Shah, AZ-06 Kirsten Engel

California: CA-13 Adam Gray, CA-22 Rudy Salas, CA-27 George Whitesides, CA-41 Will Rollins, CA-45 Derek Tran, CA-47 Dave Min

Colorado: CO-03 Adam Frisch, CO-08 Yadira Caraveo

Connecticut: CT-05 Jahana Hayes

Indiana: IN-01 Frank Mrvan

Iowa: IA-01 Christina Bohannan, IA-03 Lanon Baccam

Maine: ME-02 Jared Golden

Michigan: MI-07 Curtis Hertel Jr., MI-08 Kristen McDonald Rivet, MI-10 Carl Marlinga

Minnesota: MN-02 Angie Craig

Montana: MT-01 Monica Tranel

Nebraska: NE-02 Tony Vargas

New Jersey: NJ-07 Sue Altman

New Mexico: NM-02 Gabe Vasquez

New York: NY-04 Laura Gillen, NY-17 Mondaire Jones, NY-19 Josh Riley, NY-22 John Mannion

North Carolina: NC-01 Don Davis

Ohio: OH-09 Marcy Kaptur, OH-13 Emilia Sykes

Oregon: OR-05 Janelle Bynum

Pennsylvania: PA-07 Susan Wild, PA-08 Matt Cartwright, PA-10 Janelle Stelson

Texas: TX-34 Vicente Gonzalez

Virginia: VA-02 Missy Cotter Smasal, VA-07 Eugene Vindman

Washington: WA-03 Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Wisconsin: WI-03 Rebecca Cooke

[meret118]

A new report from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies reveals how billionaire investors have become a major driver of the nationwide housing crisis. They summarize in their own words:

Billionaire-backed private equity firms worm their way into different segments of the housing market to extract ever-increasing rents and value from multi-family rental, single-family homes, and mobile home park communities.— Global billionaires purchase billions in U.S. real estate to diversify their asset holdings, driving the creation of luxury housing that functions as “safety deposit boxes in the sky.” Estimates of hidden wealth are as high as $36 trillion globally, with billions parked in U.S. land and housing markets. — Wealthy investors are acquiring property and holding units vacant, so that in many communities the number of vacant units greatly exceeds the number of unhoused people. Nationwide there are 16 million vacant homes: that is, 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person. — Billionaire investors are buying up a large segment of the short-term rental market, preventing local residents from living in these homes, in order to cash in on tourism. These are not small owners with one unit, but corporate owners with multiple properties. — Billionaire investors and corporate landlords are targeting communities of color and low-income residents, in particular, with rent increases, high rates of eviction, and unhealthy living conditions. What’s more, billionaire-owned private equity firms are investing in subsidized housing, enjoying tax breaks and public benefits, while raising rents and evicting low-income tenants from housing they are only required to keep affordable, temporarily.

. . .

Thirty-two percent is the magic threshold, according to research funded by the real estate listing company Zillow. When neighborhoods hit rent rates in excess of 32 percent of neighborhood income, homelessness explodes. And we’re seeing it play out right in front of us in cities across America because a handful of Wall Street billionaires are making a killing.

As the Zillow study notes:

“Across the country, the rent burden already exceeds the 32 percent [of median income] threshold in 100 of the 386 markets included in this analysis….”And wherever housing prices become more than three times annual income, homelessness stalks like the grim reaper.

That Zillow-funded study laid it out:

“This research demonstrates that the homeless population climbs faster when rent affordability — the share of income people spend on rent — crosses certain thresholds. In many areas beyond those thresholds, even modest rent increases can push thousands more Americans into homelessness.”This trend is massive.

. . .

As noted in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Meet Your New Landlord: Wall Street,” in just one suburb (Spring Hill) of Nashville:

“In all of Spring Hill, four firms … own nearly 700 houses … [which] amounts to about 5% of all the houses in town.”

This is the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

“On the first Tuesday of each month,” notes the Journal article about a similar phenomenon in Atlanta, investors “toted duffels stuffed with millions of dollars in cashier’s checks made out in various denominations so they wouldn’t have to interrupt their buying spree with trips to the bank…”

The same thing is happening in cities and suburbs all across America; agents for the billionaire investor goliaths use fine-tuned computer algorithms to sniff out houses they can turn into rental properties, making over-market and unbeatable cash bids often within minutes of a house hitting the market.

. . .

As the Bank of International Settlements summarized in a 2014 retrospective study of the years since the Reagan/Gingrich changes in banking and finance:

“We describe a Pareto frontier along which different levels of risk-taking map into different levels of welfare for the two parties, pitting Main Street against Wall Street. … We also show that financial innovation, asymmetric compensation schemes, concentration in the banking system, and bailout expectations enable or encourage greater risk-taking and allocate greater surplus to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street

.”It’s a fancy way of saying that billionaire-owned big banks and hedge funds have made trillions on housing while you and your community are becoming destitute.

. . .

Turns out it was Blackstone Group, now the world’s largest real estate investor run by a major Trump supporter. At the time they were buying $150 million worth of American houses every week, trying to spend over $10 billion. And that’s just a drop in the overall bucket.

As that new study from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies found:

“[Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman’s] Blackstone is the largest corporate landlord in the world, with a vast and diversified real estate portfolio. It owns more than 300,000 residential units across the U.S., has $1 trillion in global assets, and nearly doubled its profits in 2021. “Blackstone owns 149,000 multi-family apartment units; 63,000 single-family homes; 70 mobile home parks with 13,000 lots through their subsidiary Treehouse Communities; and student housing, through American Campus Communities (144,300 beds in 205 properties as of 2022). Blackstone recently acquired 95,000 units of subsidized housing.”

In 2018, corporations and the billionaires that own or run them bought 1 out of every 10 homes sold in America, according to Dezember, noting that:

“Between 2006 and 2016, when the homeownership rate fell to its lowest level in fifty years, the number of renters grew by about a quarter.”

And it’s gotten worse every year since then.

. . .

Warren Buffett, KKR, and The Carlyle Group have all jumped into residential real estate, along with hundreds of smaller investment groups, and the National Home Rental Council has emerged as the industry’s premiere lobbying group, working to block rent control legislation and other efforts to control the industry.

As John Husing, the owner of Economics and Politics Inc., told The Tennessean newspaper:

“What you have are neighborhoods that are essentially unregulated apartment houses. It could be disastrous for the city.”

As Zillow found:

“The areas that are most vulnerable to rising rents, unaffordability, and poverty hold 15 percent of the U.S. population — and 47 percent of people experiencing homelessness.”

. . .

The loss of affordable homes also locks otherwise middle class families out of the traditional way wealth is accumulated — through home ownership: over 61% of all American middle-income family wealth is their home’s equity.

And as families are priced out of ownership and forced to rent, they become more vulnerable to homelessness.

Housing is one of the primary essentials of life. Nobody in America should be without it, and for society to work, housing costs must track incomes in a way that makes housing both available and affordable.

Singapore, Denmark, New Zealand, and parts of Canada have all put limits on billionaire, corporate, and foreign investment in housing, recognizing families’ residences as essential to life rather than purely a commodity. Multiple other countries are having that debate or moving to take similar actions as you read these words.

To address the housing shortage and bring down prices for renters and homeowners alike, the Harris campaign’s plan calls for a historic expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and the first-ever tax incentive for homebuilders who build starter homes sold to first-time homebuyers. Building upon the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed $20 billion innovation fund, the campaign proposes a $40 billion fund that would support local innovations in housing supply solutions, catalyze innovative methods of construction financing, and empower developers and homebuilders to design and build affordable homes.

To cut red tape and bring down housing costs, the plan calls for streamlining permitting processes and reviews, including for transit-oriented development and conversions. The agenda also proposes making certain federal lands eligible to be repurposed for affordable housing development. Collectively, these policy proposals seek to create 3 million homes in the next four years.

The campaign plan cites the Biden-Harris administration’s ongoing actions to support the lowest-income renters, including its actions to expand rental assistance for veterans and other low-income renters, increase housing supply for people experiencing homelessness, enforce fair housing laws, and hold corporate landlords accountable.

Building upon these commitments, the Harris agenda calls upon Congress to pass the “Stop Predatory Investing Act,” which would remove key tax benefits for major investors who acquire large numbers of single-family rental homes (see Memo, 7/17/23), and the “Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act,” which would crack down on algorithmic rent-setting software that enables price-fixing among corporate landlords.

To make homeownership attainable, Vice President Harris’s proposal would provide up to $25,000 in downpayment assistance for first-time homebuyers who have paid their rent on time for two years. First-generation homeowners – those whose parents did not own homes – would receive more generous assistance.

Vice President Harris’s economic agenda also includes proposals to lower grocery costs, lower the costs of prescription drugs and relieve medical debt, and cut taxes for workers and families with children. The plan would restore the American Rescue Plan’s expanded Child Tax Credit, which provided up to $3,600 per child for low- and middle-income families for one year before it expired in 2022, and would enact a new $6,000 tax credit for families in the first year after their child is born. These measures to reduce expenses and boost household income would also improve housing security for low-income families, who often face impossible tradeoffs between paying rent and affording food, medical care, and other basic needs.

-----

Sorry for the length, but I thought this was really important.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

How Trump's billionaires are hijacking affordable housing

Thom Hartmann

October 24, 2024 8:52AM ET

Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump attends the 79th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City, U.S., October 17, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

America’s morbidly rich billionaires are at it again, this time screwing the average family’s ability to have decent, affordable housing in their never-ending quest for more, more, more. Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, and Denmark have had enough and done something about it: we should, too.

There are a few things that are essential to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that should never be purely left to the marketplace; these are the most important sectors where government intervention, regulation, and even subsidy are not just appropriate but essential. Housing is at the top of that list.

A few days ago I noted how, since the Reagan Revolution, the cost of housing has exploded in America, relative to working class income.

When my dad bought his home in the 1950s, for example, the median price of a single-family house was around 2.2 times the median American family income. Today the St. Louis Fed says the median house sells for $417,700 while the median American income is $40,480—a ratio of more than 10 to 1 between housing costs and annual income.

ALSO READ: He’s mentally ill:' NY laughs ahead of Trump's Madison Square Garden rally

In other words, housing is about five times more expensive (relative to income) than it was in the 1950s.

And now we’ve surged past a new tipping point, causing the homelessness that’s plagued America’s cities since George W. Bush’s deregulation-driven housing- and stock-market crash in 2008, exacerbated by Trump’s bungling America’s pandemic response.

And the principal cause of both that crash and today’s crisis of homelessness and housing affordability has one, single, primary cause: billionaires treating housing as an investment commodity.

A new report from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies reveals how billionaire investors have become a major driver of the nationwide housing crisis. They summarize in their own words:

— Billionaire-backed private equity firms worm their way into different segments of the housing market to extract ever-increasing rents and value from multi-family rental, single-family homes, and mobile home park communities. — Global billionaires purchase billions in U.S. real estate to diversify their asset holdings, driving the creation of luxury housing that functions as “safety deposit boxes in the sky.” Estimates of hidden wealth are as high as $36 trillion globally, with billions parked in U.S. land and housing markets. — Wealthy investors are acquiring property and holding units vacant, so that in many communities the number of vacant units greatly exceeds the number of unhoused people. Nationwide there are 16 million vacant homes: that is, 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person. — Billionaire investors are buying up a large segment of the short-term rental market, preventing local residents from living in these homes, in order to cash in on tourism. These are not small owners with one unit, but corporate owners with multiple properties. — Billionaire investors and corporate landlords are targeting communities of color and low-income residents, in particular, with rent increases, high rates of eviction, and unhealthy living conditions. What’s more, billionaire-owned private equity firms are investing in subsidized housing, enjoying tax breaks and public benefits, while raising rents and evicting low-income tenants from housing they are only required to keep affordable, temporarily. (Emphasis theirs.)

It seems that everywhere you look in America you see the tragedy of the homelessness these billionaires are causing. Rarely, though, do you hear about the role of Wall Street and its billionaires in causing it.

The math, however, is irrefutable.

Thirty-two percent is the magic threshold, according to research funded by the real estate listing company Zillow. When neighborhoods hit rent rates in excess of 32 percent of neighborhood income, homelessness explodes. And we’re seeing it play out right in front of us in cities across America because a handful of Wall Street billionaires are making a killing.

As the Zillow study notes:

“Across the country, the rent burden already exceeds the 32 percent [of median income] threshold in 100 of the 386 markets included in this analysis….”

And wherever housing prices become more than three times annual income, homelessness stalks like the grim reaper. That Zillow-funded study laid it out:

“This research demonstrates that the homeless population climbs faster when rent affordability — the share of income people spend on rent — crosses certain thresholds. In many areas beyond those thresholds, even modest rent increases can push thousands more Americans into homelessness.”

This trend is massive.

As noted in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Meet Your New Landlord: Wall Street,” in just one suburb (Spring Hill) of Nashville:

“In all of Spring Hill, four firms … own nearly 700 houses … [which] amounts to about 5% of all the houses in town.”

This is the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

“On the first Tuesday of each month,” notes the Journal article about a similar phenomenon in Atlanta, investors “toted duffels stuffed with millions of dollars in cashier’s checks made out in various denominations so they wouldn’t have to interrupt their buying spree with trips to the bank…”

The same thing is happening in cities and suburbs all across America; agents for the billionaire investor goliaths use fine-tuned computer algorithms to sniff out houses they can turn into rental properties, making over-market and unbeatable cash bids often within minutes of a house hitting the market.

After stripping neighborhoods of homes young families can afford to buy, billionaires then begin raising rents to extract as much cash as they can from local working class communities.

In the Nashville suburb of Spring Hill, the vice-mayor, Bruce Hull, told the Journal you used to be able to rent “a three bedroom, two bath house for $1,000 a month.” Today, the Journal notes:

“The average rent for 148 single-family homes in Spring Hill owned by the big four [Wall Street billionaire investor] landlords was about $1,773 a month…”

As the Bank of International Settlements summarized in a 2014 retrospective study of the years since the Reagan/Gingrich changes in banking and finance:

“We describe a Pareto frontier along which different levels of risk-taking map into different levels of welfare for the two parties, pitting Main Street against Wall Street. … We also show that financial innovation, asymmetric compensation schemes, concentration in the banking system, and bailout expectations enable or encourage greater risk-taking and allocate greater surplus to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.”

It’s a fancy way of saying that billionaire-owned big banks and hedge funds have made trillions on housing while you and your community are becoming destitute.

Ryan Dezember, in his book Underwater: How Our American Dream of Homeownership Became a Nightmare, describes the story of a family trying to buy a home in Phoenix. Every time they entered a bid, they were outbid instantly, the price rising over and over, until finally the family’s father threw in the towel.

“Jacobs was bewildered,” writes Dezember. “Who was this aggressive bidder?”

Turns out it was Blackstone Group, now the world’s largest real estate investor run by a major Trump supporter. At the time they were buying $150 million worth of American houses every week, trying to spend over $10 billion. And that’s just a drop in the overall bucket.

As that new study from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies found:

“[Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman’s] Blackstone is the largest corporate landlord in the world, with a vast and diversified real estate portfolio. It owns more than 300,000 residential units across the U.S., has $1 trillion in global assets, and nearly doubled its profits in 2021. “Blackstone owns 149,000 multi-family apartment units; 63,000 single-family homes; 70 mobile home parks with 13,000 lots through their subsidiary Treehouse Communities; and student housing, through American Campus Communities (144,300 beds in 205 properties as of 2022). Blackstone recently acquired 95,000 units of subsidized housing.”

In 2018, corporations and the billionaires that own or run them bought 1 out of every 10 homes sold in America, according to Dezember, noting that:

“Between 2006 and 2016, when the homeownership rate fell to its lowest level in fifty years, the number of renters grew by about a quarter.”

And it’s gotten worse every year since then.

This all really took off around a decade ago following the Bush Crash, when Morgan Stanley published a 2011 report titled “The Rentership Society,” arguing that snapping up houses and renting them back to people who otherwise would have wanted to buy them could be the newest and hottest investment opportunity for Wall Street’s billionaires and their funds.

Turns out, Morgan Stanley was right. Warren Buffett, KKR, and The Carlyle Group have all jumped into residential real estate, along with hundreds of smaller investment groups, and the National Home Rental Council has emerged as the industry’s premiere lobbying group, working to block rent control legislation and other efforts to control the industry.

As John Husing, the owner of Economics and Politics Inc., told The Tennessean newspaper:

“What you have are neighborhoods that are essentially unregulated apartment houses. It could be disastrous for the city.”

As Zillow found:

“The areas that are most vulnerable to rising rents, unaffordability, and poverty hold 15 percent of the U.S. population — and 47 percent of people experiencing homelessness.”

The loss of affordable homes also locks otherwise middle class families out of the traditional way wealth is accumulated — through home ownership: over 61% of all American middle-income family wealth is their home’s equity.

And as families are priced out of ownership and forced to rent, they become more vulnerable to homelessness.

Housing is one of the primary essentials of life. Nobody in America should be without it, and for society to work, housing costs must track incomes in a way that makes housing both available and affordable.

Singapore, Denmark, New Zealand, and parts of Canada have all put limits on billionaire, corporate, and foreign investment in housing, recognizing families’ residences as essential to life rather than purely a commodity. Multiple other countries are having that debate or moving to take similar actions as you read these words.

America should, too.

ALSO READ: Not even ‘Fox and Friends’ can hide Trump’s dementia

[obii-wan-kenobiii]

PROPOSITION 33, BROKEN DOWN:

long post below the cut - scroll for tldr

let’s start from the beginning - what IS prop 33?

proposition 33, put simply, allows for city councils to set rent caps on housing in their cities. this would repeal a state law known as the costa hawkins rental housing act that prevents local governments from controlling rent on single-family homes, homes built after 1995 (or earlier in some cases), and when tenants move out. if it passes, local governments could create whatever measures they want to limit annual rent increases, and the state couldn’t intervene. (source) now, what this actually MEANS is that landlords can’t endlessly raise rent prices for their own gains. for the last 30 years, california has imposed limits on the amount a city can interfere with rent prices via the costa-hawkins act (source). proposition 33 allows cities to individually control rent on any type of housing.

now, why is this relevant?

according to the public policy institute of california, around 30% of california renters spend more than half their income on rent. to put this in perspective, 44% of the 39 million people living in california are renters. that means 17,160,000 people rent somewhere to live in california. now, 30% of those people is about 5,148,000 people. think about that. over five million people who pay over half their income to live. (source) (source) on top of this, a study by UCSF has shown that californians are homeless because of sky high rent costs pushing people out onto the streets.

let’s move onto common arguments against prop 33, and why they either are irrelevant in the face of the issue specifically or why the benefits of proposition 33 being passed outweigh the negative effects it may have! please note that the current state of housing in california will be referred to as the status quo.

funded by notorious slumlord

no guarantee that living conditions are good

could decrease property value, further contributing to the shortage of housing available

eliminates protection for seniors, veterans, and the disabled

weakens renter protections

overturns over 100 state affordable housing laws

prop 33 would repeal the strongest rent control law in the nation

and now, let’s break all of these down!

“prop 33 is funded by a notorious slumlord” proposition 33 is supported & receives funding from corporate ceo michael weinstein who runs the AHF (aids healthcare foundation), whom the LA times describes as a "slumlord" with a long record of health and safety violations and unfair evictions. this is true! it is also, however, supported mostly by labor unions and nonprofit organizations representing renters and other groups. these include the voter information guide include the california democratic party, the coalition for economic survival, the california nurses association, california alliance of retired americans, the alliance of californians for community empowerment and tenants together. the sheer amount of support prop 33 has from groups & organizations that work to counteract exactly what AHF has been penalized for shows disregarding it entirely because of the organization isn't a choice to be made. more can be found regarding the issues with the AHF here.

“no real guarantee that living conditions will be good” regarding living conditions, let’s first take a look at the status quo: according to the U.S. government accountability office, “An estimated 15 percent of rental units in 2017—more than 5 million—had substantial quality issues (such as cracked walls and the presence of rodents) or lacked essential components of a dwelling (such as heating equipment or hot and cold running water), according to GAO’s analysis of American Housing Survey data. The share of units with deficiencies was relatively stable from 2001 to 2017. Serious deficiencies more often affected households with extremely low incomes or rent burdens. In addition, lower-income households rented approximately two-thirds of the units with substantial quality issues and nearly 80 percent of units lacking essential components.” (source). this argument really only has one thing going for it, but proposition 33 is intended to deal with rent costs and nothing else. there is already an issue with living conditions. proposition 33 being voted either way will do nothing to change this issue. therefore, it’s an irrelevant argument and can thus be disregarded. this is something only further legislation can change.

"prop 33 could decrease property value, contributing to the shortage of housing available" the only source for this that i could find was from the chair of UC berkeley’s fisher center for real estate and urban economics, who appears in a no on 33 ad and has argued that costa hawkins needs to be preserved or construction will slow and landlords will pull rental units off the market. this echoes the view of many economists at California’s elite universities and elsewhere that rent control reduces rental supply, a view that’s backed by some empirical studies. however, other economics and policy researchers see rent control as part of the solution to housing insecurity. according to a report by the federal housing finance agency, “Rent regulations support those who need it most, including those who are not being adequately and safely served by the current set of regulations that provide landlords substantial market power in the housing market"

"proposition 33 eliminates protection for seniors, veterans, and the disabled" this claim is from a no on 33 video ad and is not true. prop 33 doesn’t contain any language regarding seniors and veterans, and the law it would repeal, costa hawkins, doesn’t either. (source)

"proposition 33 weakens renter protections" renter protections, in california specifically, are defined as the right of residential tenants to be protected from certain rent increases and possibly protected from certain types of evictions. (source) proposition 33 is a law regarding rent, not evictions, and thus eviction as part of the definition is irrelevant for this specific case. in looking at this definition, we can clearly see what it promises is in fact only an affect that is increased by prop 33 being put into affect.

"proposition 33 overturns over 100 state affordable housing laws" ken rosen, a UC berkeley business school professor, makes this claim in a no on 33 video ad. opponents of prop 33 argue that it would give cities who don’t want to build housing a way to undercut new development by mandating rents so low that developers couldn’t afford to build. they say that could make it hard to enforce recent state laws aimed at addressing the housing crisis, such as the “builder’s remedy” that relaxes zoning rules in cities whose housing plans haven’t been approved by the state.  a spokesperson in a no on 33 ad claims that “a city would be able to create the economic conditions to basically ignore those laws and requirements," but that’s not the same as repealing those laws. and California courts have held that rent control policies are unconstitutional if they don’t allow landlords to earn “a just and reasonable return on their property” — meaning any city that tries to force landlords to charge obviously unfeasible rents could face legal challenges.

"prop 33 would repeal the strongest rent control law in the nation" no on 33 campaign ads make this claim, saying the proposition would erase california’s “progress on housing” by getting rid of a law signed by governor gavin newsom. newsom signed a law in 2019 that caps rent increases in california at 5% plus the rate of inflation, or a maximum of 10%. prop 33 in fact doesn’t repeal this law, which is set to expire in 2030. it would, however, add this sentence to state law: “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control.”  proponents say cities need this flexibility to keep annual rent increases below 10%, a rate they say still puts a big burden on tenants. (source)

so, to summarize: proposition 33 is a law proposed that would repeal a law previously passed, which, if passed, will allow cities control over how high landlords can charge their rent. over 5 million californians spend more than half their income on rent alone. proposition 33 is a proposed legislation that deals specifically with rent prices being high. while there are many incredibly significant with things other than simply the rent when you look at the california housing situation, this law is incapable of dealing with them. what prop 33 does do is effectively provide a solution to the constant rent increases many tenants face regularly. the housing crisis in california is solvable, and proposition 33 is a step towards that.

[sea-snail-mail]

Hi, 🌸

I'm FARAH. My family has lost everything in the war in Gaza. We’ve shared our story on GoFundMe, and we would be grateful if you could take a moment to see the pinned post, reblog it, and donate if possible. A $5 will be sufficient & supportive.Here’s the link to our story:

https://gofund.me/0dd287db

Thank you so much for your support.

Best regards, 💚

Farah

Hello, I'm so sorry for everything you have been going through, I'll do whatever I can!!

Please donate and share Farah's campaign. Their gofundme has been vetted by gazavetters (no. 42) as stated on their pinned post. They are low on funds with $2,876/$50,000 of their goal.

Here is their story told Mohanada - Farah's Husband- from their gofundme in case you have not seen it:

"Mohanad and Farah: Our Dreams Reduced to Rubble

My name is Mohanad,28, and this is my wife, Farah,23 .We live in Gaza, Palestine. We met at work, where we both shared dreams of a bright future. Our love grew, and we soon got engaged, filled with hope and excitement for what was to come. We took a big step and bought a small apartment on installments [costs 31500$]. It was our dream home, and we carefully selected beautiful furniture to fill it with. Each piece represented a part of the future we were building together. But the world around us had different plans.

The war began, and our dreams quickly turned into a nightmare. We both lost our jobs—our only source of income. For forty long days, we couldn’t see each other. Every day was filled with fear and uncertainty. Then, in a single, devastating moment, a bomb destroyed our dream apartment.

All that was left were the debts we still had to pay. Despite the pain and the loss, we refused to let the war take our love away. We got married, but there was no celebration, no ceremony, no joy—just the two of us, surrounded by a few close friends, and the darkness of the war around us

On December 27, 2023, as the war escalated, we were ordered to evacuate Al-Nuseirat due to the growing danger. With no clear destination, we headed to Rafah, where we sought refuge in a school. A classroom was designated for us and several other families. Life in the school was extremely difficult; there was no privacy, and we were many in a small room, making daily life filled with challenges. Sleep was disrupted, and food and water were scarce.On January 16, 2024, we decided to leave the school due to its harsh conditions, and we found a small plot of land owned by an acquaintance and set up a makeshift shelter, trying to find some stability amidst the chaos.However, on February 13, 2024, Rafah also became an unsafe area, forcing us to leave our tent and return to Al-Nuseirat. We settled again in a rented house, sharing it with three other families, living under the constant anxiety of the possibility of another evacuation at any moment

Every night, we face an indescribable struggle, as the sounds of conflict blend with our fear, making safety feel like a distant dream.

How Your Donations Will Help:

Survival: meet daily living needs such food, drink, and rent costs around $400 a month with prices skyrocketing

Reconstruction: Our apartment costs us 31500$ which is need to rebuild or pay off installments after war.

'If the conflict persists and conditions deteriorate further, evacuating from Gaza could become a necessary step.'

We are reaching out for your help to make this dream a reality. Every donation even $10, no matter how small, brings us one step closer to safety and a new beginning.

Please help us start over."

[marvelling-at-marvel-blog]

One of the things I liked about Ted Lasso was Jamie's childhood room in season 3.

I am not talking about the posters on the wall, which is fantastic, but I mean the actual room. It actually looks like a room a child in a lower income family grew up in. How often do you watch a tv show and see characters' childhood or teen rooms with these big ass beds, or loft like rooms, rooms the size of main bedrooms or having the design and look of an almost professional level desginer. It used to drive me insane growing up watching characters on tv who were meant to be low or lower middle income have rooms I could only have dreamed off, or living in houses/apartments that would just be insanly high in rent or to own.

But Jamie's room is realistic of what a small home or council home room of a well loved child would look like. A single bed, a small tv, littered with childhood mementos. Maybe a little childish if teen Jamie spent a lot of time there but Jamie strikes me as always being out on the football field and not ashamed to have a room full of his childhood memories, especially in his mothers house.

Ted Lasso does a great job of keeping these characters real to life, and I think this is a great example of that.

[orionhousingsposts]

Affordable rental housing near me | Orion Housing is the Best Choice

Shelter, more specifically stable and comparatively low housing for families is one of the main elements of a healthy community. It gives people a basic safety net and lets them help their close ones secure jobs, get an education, and in general, lead healthy lives. However, this does not make it easy to find the perfect rental especially since many areas of the world have seen the costs of housing rise. This may result in several social impacts such as financial pressure, displacement, and sometimes, homelessness.

Orion Housing, affordable rental housing near you knows that every person should have a haven and a proper shelter to live in. That is why in our company you can find different rental prices in superb locations. We know that the digestion of a good house is not just the price of the house but so many other factors that come with the house or compound. In a true guess, it is about searching for a home, for a place to have roots and to live a stable life. Orion Housing is set to deliver professionals, families student apartments Los Angeles at affordable rates.

[mariacallous]

Does the U.S. have a housing crisis?

The cost of housing in the U.S. has risen steeply in the last four years, both rents and the cost of purchasing a home. As with all markets, prices are determined by the relationship between supply and demand. Right now in the U.S., demand is out-pacing supply, especially in metropolitan areas, and thus driving up prices. That means a larger and larger share of income is going to pay for housing: For low-income renting households, about a third of their expenditures go toward rent. For those reasons, many are describing the current situation as a “housing crisis.” 

What’s driving the housing price increase?

On the supply side, in some areas there just aren’t enough units. Estimates vary, but experts broadly agree that the U.S. has millions fewer units of housing than American families need. A big part of this is long-term issues related to zoning: A tapestry of city and state single-family zoning laws across the country prevent construction of more affordable, denser housing units in many neighborhoods – 75% of residential land in the U.S. is zoned for private, single-family homes.

There are more recent issues driving the demand side of the equation. For one, the COVID-19 pandemic increased demand for larger homes, so new construction homes have been larger and more expensive.  The pandemic also changed where people want to live. That means less demand in some places and more in others, including suburban areas with large plots, and so new construction will take some time to catch up.

What can we do about it?

Much of the problem is at the state and local level. When it comes to federal policy, economists generally agree that a key part of the solution will be a mix of measures to boost the supply of affordable housing. The presidential candidates and other policymakers have floated a number of ideas that aim toward this end. Vice President Harris’s argues her proposals would mean the construction of 3 million new housing units over four years. Those proposals include an expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to subsidize building of affordable homes and a $40 billion fund for the use of providing incentives for state and local governments to come up with innovative solutions, which could include changes in zoning practices and housing regulations.  Former President Trump’s campaign has also proposed eliminating regulations to increase supply but has offered no details on how.   

On the other hand, several proposals floated by the campaigns would solve some problems but create others. Harris’ plan to offer $25,000 to some first-time home buyers would help those households afford downpayments but would stoke demand in the home purchase market—which is already unsustainably tight. The suggestion by the Trump campaign that mass deportations would decrease demand for housing doesn’t contend with the significant disruptions that would entail. Just for starters, home builders would face a reduction in labor supply. And Trump’s idea to ban mortgages for undocumented immigrants is targeting a trivial number of mortgage borrowers but would create more of a paperwork headache for all mortgage borrowers, which would just make renting more attractive.

Researchers have also come up with a number of innovative ideas to increase the supply of housing. For example, the Hamilton Project recently published a proposal to convert offices, many of which are underutilized post-COVID, to apartments. This approach would have the additional benefit of producing 50-75% fewer carbon emissions than demolition and new construction.

While home sale prices have leveled off recently, homeownership is still out of reach for many, and rent prices have continued to climb. The November election will be consequential for determining which policies the government enacts to make housing more affordable. 

[chronicas]

Okay just because this has been on my mind for weeks now. You should never have to choose between food and rent. One, if such a choice comes up, always choose rent, obviously. BUT if not being able to afford food is the problem, there are options. Sorry this post got so long it wasn’t meant to..

Apologies in advance I only know how this works in America, but it’s likely your country has something similar. What you’ve gotta do for this is go to your state government page and find your state’s food assistance program, SNAP, Food Stamps, whatever it is, find that and apply. You’ll probably get around $250 a month for a single household. If you’re low income, you should be eligible. If you’re on SSI/SSDI or Medicaid, you are almost certainly eligible. On top of that you gotta find a local food bank. They might ask you for your income, but they likely won’t bar you from their services if they’re a good food bank. This is a good place to get any kind of canned food and pasta, but good food banks will likely also have meat, eggs, and milk. A lot of food banks have even started delivering straight to your home. I’ve also worked with a lot of Churches to get food. I’m sure plenty of Synagogs and other religions orgs have similar programs, but it depends on how well funded they are.

Use any money you save from this for your fresh produce, but I recommend getting frozen vegetables as they have just as much nutrients as fresh produce would. I also recommend getting an instant pot or slow cooker if you can afford it. Thrift stores might have some that still work decently. I got my instant pot and my slow cooker second hand from family members so I got lucky, but if you can afford them they’re seriously a life saver.

My biggest recommendations of food to keep on hand is bread and stuff you like on sandwiches, always have eggs, always have rice, and always have some frozen vegetables. Invest in spices wherever you can, you can make a lot or really delicious meals that are super simple just by having some good seasonings. If you get on food assistance, spices are covered by that, basically everything consumable is except alcohol.

Spices I recommend to keep on hand: Sea Salt, Black Pepper, Basil, Thyme, Oregano, Ginger, Red Pepper, Garlic, Onion, any Umami/Mushroom Blend, Rosemary, Marjoram, Sage. That’s everything I use for 90% of my meals.

Also grow your own food! Mainly herbs! The easiest one to start with is green onions, you can buy some from the store, put the bottoms in a small cup with just enough water to reach the roots, let the roots grow a bit then put them in soil after about a week. Basil, thyme, parsley, and rosemary are my other favorites to grow. You can get a devoted pair of kitchen scissors to just cut your herbs directly into whatever you’re cooking! If you have enough space and time on your hands I really recommend growing tomatoes and bell peppers!! Feel free to ask me about gardening!

My Favorite Easy Meals:

Spaghetti with meat sauce: Get canned tomato sauce and diced tomatoes, mix those in a pan and add as many spices as you want until you like the flavor, you can look online for common spaghetti sauce seasonings. Get some ground beef (btw meat can be frozen indefinitely) and cook that up then throw it in your sauce. Cook noodles while you’re doing that, the whole process shouldn’t take more than an hour if you have an extra pair of hands, hour and a half if you’re by yourself at max.

Teriyaki Chicken: Easiest thing ever, just buy some chicken strips and some teriyaki sauce, marinate that shit then pop it in the oven for like around 20min or until it’s cooked to 165°F.

Egg Fried Rice: One of my favorite easy meals. Pop the (WASHED!!) rice in an instant pot or rice cooker (if you don’t have either a pot with a lid will work fine!), toss in about a tablespoon of mirin in with your rice then let it do it’s thing following instructions. About 15min before your rice is done throw some frozen vegetables in a pan (whatever kind of vegetables you like!! It really doesn’t matter!) cook those a little, put em aside in a bowl. Then take some eggs, scramble em in the same pan, put aside. Throw your cooked rice in the pan then add soy sauce, red pepper, umami blend, and any other spices you’d like (but no salt! There’s plenty of sodium in the soy sauce!).Then add your ingredients you put to the side. If you add enough eggs or are just tired, this can be it’s own meal! Or you can have it as a side with teriyaki chicken or anything else you think it’d taste good with!

Ramen: Get a bunch of packs of cheap ramen noodles but don’t use the soup packet. Make your own soup with any kind of broth (chicken or seafood works best, but just pick a favorite), add a tablespoon of soy sauce to a cup of broth, a teaspoon of mirin to cup of broth, some minced ginger (or powered) to taste, any spices you want (I like to add the mushroom blends and some seaweed flakes), cook the noodles for the recommended time in the broth then add an egg cooked in any style you want. You can get fancy with a soft boiled egg, but those take a while to learn to get right. I normally fry my eggs. And if you have any ham or beef strips those also go good with it! Top it with green onions! Takes about 45 minutes roughly.

Omelet: Whisk some eggs in a cup and add some spices (and fresh green onions if you want!), throw it in a pan, add any cheese, meat, or veggies you like on it (I like cheddar, bell peppers, and bacon in mine) then wait for it to cook on one side then fold it in half, after it’s cooked on one of the half sides, flip it over to get the other side, you can stab it in the middle to see if it’s fully cooked in the center. Takes less than 20 minutes.

Buttered Potatoes: You can get some small potatoes, cut em up, throw them in an oven-safe dish with some butter (1/4-1/2 a stick depending on how many potatoes you’re making), salt, rosemary, and black pepper. Cook them in the oven on like 350°F for about 25-30min. You can use this as a side with any kind of meat or anything else you feel it’d go good with! Sometimes it just makes a good snack as leftovers.

Things you can cook up and add to other stuff: cook a bunch of bacon and you can crumble it into stuff like omelets, mac ‘n cheese, salads!

Feel free to ask me for cooking advice! It’s one of my favorite things to do and there’s a good chance I can help you figure out how to make something. I’m happy to help talk to you about dietary restrictions and substitutes also!

I do all this and never spend a penny from my paycheck on my food! Good food is obtainable! Look online for more recipes or try and use some of these methods to enhance a simple recipe you already know!

And remember to fight to keep food assistance programs open and available! It’s an insanely valuable resource for folks in poverty! If your local government acts against these programs, speak up against them! If you can, please donate to your food bank and ask them what kind of food they need. Volunteer with them also if you can!

[realcleverissues]

Two crazy data points:

The number of renters classified as "rent burdened" jumped 25% compared to 20 years ago. (Biggest jump is in people earning $45k-$75k, of whom only 21% were rent burdened 20 years ago, and now 41% are.)

The number of rentals under $1000 fell by around 20%~, while the number renting for over $1000 have basically doubled.

In short: Not enough homes -> Massive home price inflation

This has long hurt lower income earners, but some may have justified it as a reflection of being a low income earner (which is true, but doesn't solve the social problem and is also not the whole story). Now we see data showing clearly even upper-middle-income earners struggling as well. The housing crisis is real.

The housing crisis has lots of detrimental effects, such as home price inflation, which leads to general inflation, which also leads to homelessness, poverty, crime, and more. Just as complex as the outcomes are the causes, but certainly one of the biggest is single-family-zoning which forbids construction in *most* residential areas of not just giant apartment buildings, but even modest 3 story or duplex homes which are needed to alleviate the housing crisis.

NIMBYism is ruining society and literally killing people.

[chenghui-lim]

Nudging all the way in Policy Design

The reading was particularly helpful when thinking about the design of an effective nudge. Regardless of whether the nudge is mindful, mindless, externally or internally imposed, it serves to encourage a change in an individual behavior towards a more desirable outcome (e.g., Gym Pact nudging individuals towards more exercise and better fitness). We often see nudging used in government policies that aim to create more social good, yet policies are a mix bag of successes and failures.

Two components that may explain this outcome (a) the persistency of the nudging before behavior shifts more permanently to a “new normal” (b) the need to align other initiatives with the nudging. In Singapore where the government uses nudging to address low birth rate, it has not had as much success. One such tool is the accessibility to public housing. Subsidized public housing are mostly build-to-order and requires 3 to 5 years of construction time. Many young couples find themselves accelerating their timeline towards marriage, because without a marriage certificate, they will not be able to get the keys to their apartments. Unmarried or single individuals are not allowed to purchase public housing until they are 35. These individuals will then have to either rent or buy from the private market that is often so expensive that only the top percentage of income earners qualify. The path towards owning an affordable home now becomes a part of the broader nudging initiative for more families and births. However, this likely contributed to weaker marriages and more annulment, as couples run on an externally imposed clock to seal the deal.

Birth rates not only remained stubbornly low but also fell in recent years because the bigger obstacles such as rising cost of raising a child and competing demands from work are not addressed. Here, we observed that while nudging leads towards behavior desirable for the nation and the government, the other initiatives were not aligned for the eventual goal of more births to be reached. The restriction on singles to buy public housing since 1964 clearly shows the longevity of this nudge because it can be done, but not necessarily the success of shifting mindset towards wanting bigger families.  

#MITSloanBranding2024B