Yes, well, unfortunately the most efficient actors in any market are typically the ones making the wealth extraction features of the whole system more efficient - this occupation pays the best. I often feel that the only thing that saves us from absolute, overwhelming exploitation is inefficiency.
Saving people by purposefully denying them the means to build affordable housing?
Keep in mind, it won’t be those people building affordable housing for themselves - it will be some company doing it, and some company managing the property after it’s built, possibly the same company, possibly not, possibly the same company pretending to be different companies.
Those companies will have a contractual relationship with the government and/or landowners. Government contracts will be required to go with the lowest bidder by default, so bare minimum construction quality necessary to pass inspection. Nongovernment contracts will be pushed to maximize profits and minimize costs, so construction designed to look upscale while being made of the absolute cheapest contractor-grade materials available.
You understand that OP and others are talking about R1 zoning, right? Splitting a single family home into two lots of homes? Or building an inlaw in the backyard? I’d truly enjoy a discussion for exceptionally high density city planning, but our missing housing isn’t from highrises. It’s legally mandated half acre lots of mostly lawn.
Big corps and developers are not bidding on government contracts to pave over a suburban half acre. For sure they do big projects and what you point out is a problem with those, but it’s an independent problem from R1 zoning.
Hell, corps are doing shitty things with today’s regulations! Why shouldn’t we change our laws to prevent housing exploitation and build more housing in R1 zones?
Yes, well, unfortunately the most efficient actors in any market are typically the ones making the wealth extraction features of the whole system more efficient - this occupation pays the best. I often feel that the only thing that saves us from absolute, overwhelming exploitation is inefficiency.
Saving people by purposefully denying them the means to build affordable housing? I don’t know, man. Who’s exploiting who?
Keep in mind, it won’t be those people building affordable housing for themselves - it will be some company doing it, and some company managing the property after it’s built, possibly the same company, possibly not, possibly the same company pretending to be different companies.
Those companies will have a contractual relationship with the government and/or landowners. Government contracts will be required to go with the lowest bidder by default, so bare minimum construction quality necessary to pass inspection. Nongovernment contracts will be pushed to maximize profits and minimize costs, so construction designed to look upscale while being made of the absolute cheapest contractor-grade materials available.
You understand that OP and others are talking about R1 zoning, right? Splitting a single family home into two lots of homes? Or building an inlaw in the backyard? I’d truly enjoy a discussion for exceptionally high density city planning, but our missing housing isn’t from highrises. It’s legally mandated half acre lots of mostly lawn.
Big corps and developers are not bidding on government contracts to pave over a suburban half acre. For sure they do big projects and what you point out is a problem with those, but it’s an independent problem from R1 zoning.
Hell, corps are doing shitty things with today’s regulations! Why shouldn’t we change our laws to prevent housing exploitation and build more housing in R1 zones?