Recent comments in /f/UpliftingNews

mtcwby t1_j9ughmf wrote

The problem with subsidies is they encourage a lot of political wheeling and dealing and generally high build costs as people milk it.

I'd like to see them decouple the low income housing fees from new construction because I think ironically they drive prices up and create more of a need for low income housing. It's not that it's not funded but don't collect from new construction and do something out of the general fund instead. Local government's role in the increase in housing prices is not really mentioned but with hookups and the like it can easily top 200k. That gets marked up too by the developer because they're putting the initial cash out there. Ameliorate that some and we might get out of this vicious cycle we're currently in with high rates and high costs making it difficult to build. More so than zoning in many ways.

3

CBSnews OP t1_j9ug4au wrote

Here's a preview of the story:

Cashman Whiteley was pictured on the cover of a local newspaper back in August with a simple headline: "Cash Whiteley is a man." But his struggles are more complicated. The 59-year-old started to experience homelessness when his life spiraled out of control and he couldn't break out of it.

Until recently, he was living on the street and in need of medical help – then a group of people who didn't know each other stepped in. Whiteley believes they saved his life in the process.

The acts of humanity started with Carmen Flores and her partner, Tatiana Guerrero, who welcomed Whiteley into their home in January after seeing him on the street looking sick. He was sleeping in front of a church – "on a cement, cold slab," according to Flores.

"And the church didn't open its doors," Flores said. "I was like, 'OK, if our institutions aren't doing it, then we have to do something.'"

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cashman-whiteley-man-no-home-treated-as-if-he-didnt-matter-group-of-people-helped-southern-california/

88

AutoModerator t1_j9ufxxe wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Elicyz t1_j9ufmb1 wrote

Similar thing happened to me in high school. The majority of our squad was caught drinking at the same event so they were suspended from performing. Me and a couple other nerds who weren’t at the event were forced to perform at basketball games while the suspended girls sat with our student section. It was embarrassing for us.

8

Graywulff t1_j9uf7wj wrote

I’m boston it’s 12% of units anyway. So allowing them to go to any height should be 24-30% if they do it here.

They’re trying to pass rent control which might deter landlords from building, but also I moved a dozen times bc my rent got jacked up like 250/mo or more after my first years lease was up. Typical boston scam, along with realtors fees.

1

GoodAndBluts t1_j9uegcm wrote

They are a bit shit compared to the Scottish ones (the originators of this tradition)

Chilly Connolly

David Plowie

For Your Ice Only

Gangsta Granny Gritter

Grit A Bit

Grit Expectations

Gritallica

Gritney Spears

Grittest Hits

Gritty Gritty Bang Bang

Han Snow-lo

I Want To Break Freeze

Luke Snowalker

Meltin' John

Plougher O’Scotland

Ready Spready Go

Sir Andy Flurry

Sir Grits A Lot

Sir Salter Scott

Slippy McGritty

Snowbegone Kenobi

Snowkemon Go

Spready Mercury

Sprinklebell

True Gritter

Yes Sir Ice Can Boogie

3

ginger_guy t1_j9uec7w wrote

I'm actually really glad they included the 20% low income requirement. The poverty rate in California is 12% so a 20% requirement (I know, its AMI, but still) is a great way to make sure lots of construction will happen without the negative side effect of hyper concentration of wealth.

2

Starrion t1_j9udx98 wrote

Local government loses the chance to block development. There is no cash cost to the town that can be counted as a subsidy. The only net effect for the town is that people were able to buy the units cheaper or rent for cheaper than if the development wasn't built under that rule.

Putting payments to all would simply cause prices to rise further if you have more money chasing the same scarce housing stock.

1

Ultimate_Driving t1_j9ubeqe wrote

My point was that even if a percentage of the units built are dedicated for what they consider to be "low income," it's only families with upper middle class incomes who can afford to buy those units. They're still too expensive for people earning low incomes to afford.

2