One possible housing crisis solution? Public housing for all income levels
npr.org
npr.org
The thing I keep coming back to again and again is public housing. I would just start buying up land and building public housing. Getting the homeless off the streets would improve not just their lives, but also the lives of the people who already have homes who happen to live in areas with a lot of homeless.
I've also considered public pay-what-you-want restaurants.
If anyone wants to give me untold billions, I will get right on it.
[0] I would totally go for a private train car, though.
The gist of the interview was, don't judge the homeless for drugs and alcohol. It's often the only comfort they have. What would really help is a home, but the cost of housing is so high that saving all of your booze money would never be enough to rent an apartment anyway. Might as well spend it on something that will make you feel a little better.
I think the strategy is do it in a couple of prominent areas, and, assuming it actually works out, point to them as success stories and acquire philanthropic funding to keep doing it in more and more cities.
Which is why it's not bought and sold, but used as collateral to obtain low, low interest loans.
Is Musk a bad person?
https://nypost.com/2024/02/10/metro/residents-in-corruption-...
Bad tenants in privately owned rentals get kicked out. In public housing they just make things terrible for their neighbors.
Without the profit motive, rental property becomes dilapidated quickly. I think the real solution for public housing is to make it rent-to-own for the tenants so they actually care. Otherwise it just goes to shit.
In my dreams I would hire full time staff and significantly incentivize timely work with cold, hard cash bonuses.
> Bad tenants in privately owned rentals get kicked out. In public housing they just make things terrible for their neighbors.
I guess in this fantasy, I own all of the buildings so it isn't really "public" housing. I guess I would have the option of doing something about bad tenants. Rent-to-own is a pretty good idea.
In the past society put them in institutions, but that has been out since the 1960s or before - for good reason. Institutions invite by nature invite the staff to abuse the people. Homeless is better than institutions were (even including cases of someone freezing to death). From what I know of prisons I can tell you we have not solved this human nature problem and so I cannot support going back to institutions.
The story you linked has little to do with unions. Are unions really the issue?
I've seen a lot of buildings where repairs didn't get done. Their maintenance and admin staff weren't public employees or unionized. They were just regular people. A mix of jaded, bigoted, disorganized, and lazy people (and some kind ones!) without anything making them be better, because there's rarely any consequences for mistreating the poor. Bad behaviour left unchecked becomes the norm, especially when it saves a buck.
I'm pretty sure effective altruists have the same question, crunched the numbers, and figured out it was something like malaria nets or similar interventions in developing countries.
Even if you limit the set of possible projects to things that affect your local community, investing in public housing is probably bad bang/buck ratio given how much capital it takes (ie. hundreds of thousands) to help one family. Job training programs, micro loans, or funding YIMBY campaigns probably provide larger benefit.
Let's say instead of building houses, I invest the money in job training and crime intervention programs. Maybe employment goes up and crime goes down. Maybe it doesn't. And even if the numbers move in the correct direction, it is extremely difficult to quantify how much I helped versus external variables outside my control. I'd need a team of data scientists just to quantify how much I helped. And at the end of the day, I am still only helping the subset of people for whom those kinds of programs actually can help.
The nice thing about housing and feeding people is that it directly addresses the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can be 100% certain that you are helping. And you can be 100% certain you are helping almost everyone. Everyone needs food and shelter. Not everyone needs job training.
Maybe I overvalue simplicity and certainty, maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe there is just something appealing about just directly addressing a need.
If you have "untold billions" to spend, you can probably spend a few million on data scientists to make sure you're spending your money as effectively as possible. Moreover, impact shouldn't be hard to measure with RCTs (ie. only helping half of the neighborhoods and comparing it to the other half).
>The nice thing about housing and feeding people is that it directly addresses the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can be 100% certain that you are helping. And you can be 100% certain you are helping almost everyone. Everyone needs food and shelter. Not everyone needs job training.
Right, but by doing so, you're missing out all the possible higher value interventions, especially ones that aren't applicable to everyone, but would have much greater impact.
But the point is that I would be helping nearly everyone. Maybe job training would provide higher "value", however that is measured, but I would be leaving people behind, and that does not sit well with me. In a sense, people for who job training would make a big difference are already better off than the people for whom it wouldn't, even if their life circumstances are more or less identical otherwise.
I mean the real answer is with untold billions I could do both, and while we're dreaming I'd like a pony.
I wonder how much real world experience goes into these calculations. For instance the theory of malaria nets can be quite different from reality. From Wikipedia [1]:
> Where mosquito nets are freely or cheaply distributed, local residents sometimes opportunistically use them inappropriately, for example as fishing nets. When used for fishing, mosquito nets have harmful ecological consequences because the fine mesh of a mosquito net retains almost all fish, including bycatch such as immature or small fish and fish species that are not suitable for consumption. In addition, insecticides with which the mesh has been treated, such as permethrin, may be harmful to the fish and other aquatic fauna.
And they do spend a good chunk of money on housing, but they spend considerably more doing things like trying to eradicate polio.
Which indicates to me that while housing might not be the absolute most effective use of a charity dollar, it's high on the list. That feels about right to me.
Getting people under a roof can definitely help stop the bleeding, but the more important question is how to help solve whatever it was that led to the problem in the first place. If it really is as simple as a lack of available roofs, that would be a very simple problem to fix with all of that Bezos money.
Financialization of housing may be much better controlled by limiting what financial mechanisms can be made on top of real estate assets. As it stands, housing and related derivatives prop up a huge amount of "money" and investment portfolios. Government owned housing won't fix that directly, and the government is incentivized to not solve that because it would likely mean economic or monetary collapse.
Unpopular opinion, but much of the west is at least partially communist these days. We may not have a communist political structure that looks like a 20th century dictatorship claiming communism but we do have plenty of state-run programs that fit really well under a banner of communism (or socialism, or Marxism if the term communism is too loaded).
Boeing is another good example in my opinion. Again they aren't technically owned by the state, but the connection between the two is undeniable.
Utility companies in the US are also functionally owned by the state.
My point was never that most western countries are communist. I tried to be really clear in my GP comment that I was talking specifically about state programs that have many characteristics that overlap with communism.
edit to add the obvious one I missed: healthcare. Depending on the country, either the government took over the healthcare industry, the industry captured government regulation, or you have the worst of both worlds in the US where we somehow saw both sides take part in capturing parts of the other (and really ruining the whole system).
I expanded more on my other reply so I will diverge us to discuss there, I think you misunderstand the terms you are using.
Even at the state level, Louisiana is an interesting case. They're better now, but for quite a few years their roads went to shit because they refused to increase the legal drinking age and the federal government pulled funding.
I really doubt someone would call Switzerland communist.
I don't have stats for Switzerland handy but did look up Australia earlier. About 4% falls into there state-managed housing programs. That isn't nearly large enough to rival what the Soviet Union had for example, but the design of the system does seem to match with many communist goals. That is by no means a claim that Australia is communist, just a comment on their public housing program.
I believe you are misguided using the term communism or socialism, those have very specific meaning for an economic system, the overlapping characteristic being that workers own the means of production. That's it, socialised healthcare, public housing and so on are not communist/socialist.
Perhaps you are conflating social democracy with socialism/communism. The Nordics are not socialist/communist, like at all, Sweden has a freer market than the USA, and more wealth inequality, but do have social policies.
Your misuse of the terms is very confusing, I really suggest you brushing on what they mean so your communication is clearer. I got very confused at first on what you meant because there's no way any Western country is even close to Communism/Socialism/Marxism, like 100% not.
Would public housing have to be "a vast majority of the market"? It wasn't before. Also, as others have pointed out it works fairly well in Vienna, Austria.
You are correct about government incentives. Local governments have an incentive to keep property prices high so they can extract more property tax.
it's fine because they're rich so they deserve it
The untold billions is in Amazon, SpaceX, Tesla factories & etc... To have access to those we need to dismantle the assets to swap them to the billions they're currently valued at. Then allocate them more efficiently than the pension funds who owns most of the stock in S&P500. These guys are not sitting on a big pile of gold in their basements, they are constantly trying to invest this capital to produce something. These warehouses aren't cheap, nor programmers making 250K/year in Seatle. I am not sure your plan will work as intended :)
The housing market is mostly a supply side problem with bad laws and taxation put on top of it. A lot of emigrees came to USA and had affordable housing until recently. Sure, there are more people now, but the density is way lower than in other countries and we can build way higher than before.
But because of the controlling stake being a government, this seems like it could fail the 14th amendment’s equality clause. Since individuals are being presented with different rent.
I guess it all depends on how it’s structured.
14th amendment regulates governments. Something that would be normal for a private sector participant can be discarded when public money or direct public ownership is involved.
Then again, low income public housing has different rates based on how many dependents you have or earn.
But I wouldn’t assume anything. Maybe the constitutional challenge never happened specifically because only poor people were the tenants. By mixing it with people who can pay market rents anywhere but might want the lower rate, there is a new attack surface to challenge it.
I don't see zoning reform mentioned anywhere in the article. Presumably the city's projects are still subject to the same zoning restrictions and regulations as a developer would on their own, but without the difficulty of trying to secure a loan.
This seems nice as an additive but doesn't represent a large fraction of the market. It helps in the first place because they're building more. If cities adopt reforms to help small developers, these projects would be redundant. We have examples of some cities improving in real time.
That will be especially true in the US; given that the US is one of the most meritocratic countries, the non-immigrant US poor as a group are probably the least functional large socio-economic group anywhere in the world. I'd personally rather live next to some Haitians or refugees from Taliban than multi-generational American poor, urban or rural. But if you have a choice why live next to poor people at all?
A similar misdirection is "inflation". Measuring how much prices are rising is meaningless. It is like evaluating your bank account by looking only at how much money comes in. That is why we have bank statements that tell us show starting balance, income, expenditures and ending balance. The only thing that matters is the difference between what comes in to your account and what goes out. Try getting a bank loan for a house by telling the bank only how much you earn each month.
If inflation is low, but the difference between wages and cost is too high for people to afford housing, or food, or health care, or an unexpected $500 expense, then there is bad problem despite the low inflation. The measure we need isthe difference between common wages and common expenses. If the difference between wages and living expenses is growing dramatically, then that is problem. There is not a housing crisis, there is a WAGE crisis.
How does one solve this rather obvious problem? One raises the minimum wage from $7.25 to something that allows people to afford housing. We have not done this, nor is there any discussion on doing this. So now one must ask why we, as a country have not done this?
In legal proceedings a common technique is to ask who benefits. Cui Bono? Who benefits from very-low-wages? Certainly not the common people.
Yet we are supposed to be a democracy and our government is supposed to be one that responds to the people. Is this true? Certainly we can note that common people are more and more distrustful of our system of government. Could this be caused by the people asking Cui Bono, and finding that the answer is not "We the People".
The idea that such projects are so popular and aren't necessarily meant to help only those most in need is confusing in what is usually considered somewhat of a free market. Why aren't these types of projects being built privately if they are so successful? And how do you justify subsidizing housing for those making at or even above the average household income level?
- Eminent domain land
- lease to builder for 99 year leases
- tenants not owners
- in 99 years local government has another shot
But you will find in most places the 'Crowns' abilities to exercise its ownership rights is fairly neutered and reserved for reasons the layman would refer to as eminent domain.
I'm of the opinion that big apartment blocks are a quick way to add more housing, even though a lot of people think back on communist-era mass produced low quality concrete apartment cells. But it doesn't have to be like that. Construction is scalable, and (to appease the capitalists), a good apartment building is at least 100 years of guaranteed recurring income (assuming rent instead of buy, but the post is about public housing), and the investment will be earned back relatively fast.
That said, affordable housing should be available for everyone. When I was looking for a house, I didn't need anything fancy, two bedroom apartment would be more than fine for me. But by then I was earning too much for social housing, meaning there was a huge rent gap to the free market where I could get something equivalent but starting at twice as expensive per month. Not that it matters, the wait list for social housing was 15 years at that point.
For a long time the general advice was to spend at most a quarter or a third of your income on housing, but for most people this isn't viable and they have to pay more.
Will it stand as a shining example after 10-20 years, when poorer tenants are in arrears or move in unauthorized people, United States union mentality workers or overpriced contractors do the bare minimum for upkeep, and people who can afford to move out do?
Eastern European style commie blocks, though rudimentary (eg no elevators in many) solved a pressing housing problem post war in that part of the world, in societies that were quite collectivist even before collectivisation.
Compare to the reality of housing projects in the UK and US, constructed around the same time but which were demolished, or became synonymous with urban blight.
There is no “solution” to “solve” any of these things 100% the idea of universal housing is not realistic considering current government housing and HUD is known for its unsafe, low quality, overpriced and corruptible attributes. UBI is a real implementable “solution” that will “improve” the problem.
Everyone will earn x more dollars, every landlord will know for a fact that, no matter what, all their tenants will at least earn x dollars, every house seller and every lending bank will know that every prospective buyer can afford to pay x * 12 months * 20 years more.
What would we have achieved then? How does "destroying" money prevent it?
Bear in mind I know nothing about the effects and side-effects of monetary destruction.
I recognize two zones: places where you play with something dangerous that you cannot keep accidents entirely on your land, and everything else. I don't allow any housing on or near the first, and I require extra plans. Farms and some industrial sites are the first. Most everything else is the second and should allow whatever use you want with minimal restrictions - it needs to be safe for fire/rescue crews, meet some energy standards... If it makes the neighborhood ugly - that is your first amendment right to do with your land!
It's obvious that most people won't actually see a direct increase in resources (because that won't work).
But other than that, perfect.
If you try to stuff it all into somewhere like London then you end up either with huge overcrowding (it's really hard to double the capacity of 150 year old infrastructure) or with people living so far out of the centre that commute costs really start to bite.
If you build new towns then you have to be really careful to somehow distribute the wealth properly otherwise you just end up with slums.
I actually think that for the most part what people aren't willing to accept is that the capitalist model actually does allocate housing fairly well according to need, it's just that if you're on the wrong side of that equation then it feels terribly unfair to be asked indirectly via the market to move to a cheaper area.
> I actually think that for the most part what people aren't willing to accept is that the capitalist model actually does allocate housing fairly well according to need
I generally agree as well, but it seems like we are no longer satisfying lower ends of the market and developers would prefer to not build rather than build homes that don’t hit their IRR numbers. The federal government in the US could build housing and auction it off to individuals or families or run a sort of lottery system. Could add a few rules to prevent bad actors from renting the places out or something along those lines.
[1] As an aside everyone working for the housing agency or federal transportation admin should have to read The Death and Life of Great American Cities and be treated in that knowledge before taking a job there.
Feels like that's a far easier target to attack first.
But if you're the real estate company that's a lot of overhead and duplication. Maybe you need to get twice the permits. You need twice the customers to buy. You have to bring your construction crews out to build two sets of crappy counter tops and kitchen cabinets.
How do you solve that problem? You build one $500,000 house (or more). You say the counters are "granite" and the floors are "hardwood". It's a forever home!
Now the two families that can afford the $250,000 houses each can't afford the $500,000 house of course or else they would be looking for a $500,000 house. So now they're out and the builder can sell the $500,000 house and make extra money.
There's nothing wrong with this, but it clashes with a problem that we face as a society which is not enough housing at prices that the public deems affordable.
The market can theoretically solve this, but sometimes markets get caught in local minimums that are misaligned with what the public wants. This could be an area where the government can step in and provide contracts to smaller builders, or just contract to build larger housing units (think of the now very expensive housing in NYC) and sell them at little to no gain or just give them away on a lottery system.
The money that would be needed to be spent is rather minuscule in comparison to the money we spend on other things. I'm unsure why we don't pursue a policy where we allocate, say, $100 billion toward building smaller and mixed-use housing. We have plenty of money to do so and it's really great for the whole country economically - I don't think anyone loses out. Congress needs to act.
I think the challenge is that for the foreseeable future enough people can afford those homes, which leaves us with the other two probably not having a great housing situation until we've saturated the market with the $500,000 homes (or equivalent given an inflation rate or whatnot).
Certainly my example is an oversimplification, but I just wanted to highlight that it's more than just zoning code or parking minimums (parking minimums in particular are very nasty) and that there are other economic incentives or factors. Some real estate companies may prefer to just sit on cash given the 4% interest rates we're seeing today. It depends on their IRR target.
Unlike, perhaps, software services, it seems to me that it's difficult for new entrants to enter the market and scale quickly to lower prices, and when they do enter the market they wind up with the same calculation that the other home builders do and just build the same thing. The factors that would enable home builders to build more include changing economic incentives.
I'm not sure how we change those incentives. I've seen various programs and policy ideas floated around, I believe Harris wants to provide a $25,000 downpayment assistance, for example. But in my mind all of these programs and policies are just treating the symptoms instead of the disease. The disease is society wants more housing and at a lower price. The market is failing to address this. We could try to come up with incentives and plans, or we can go back to basics: supply and demand. The government can increase the supply directly - and just provide contracts to build more housing at a lower price point, particularly in cities where there exists more economic opportunity. Incentives and other policies seem like a middleman ready to be taken advantage of.
We often times think of zoning being restricted in cities, but it's arguably more restrictive outside of cities. Notice how everything that is built is the exact same spread out suburban lots, with no mixed use development, giant highways, giant parking lots, Wal-Marts, Starbucks, and other developments? Is there a single developer in the United States that's building differently en masse?
My wife and I live in a historic neighborhood close to downtown Columbus. There are bars and restaurants and shops nearby, a park in the middle, etc. The home prices here are quite substantial because it's a nice, charming village within an urban environment. Though it's not the only one.
People move here and pay large sums of money to live here. Clearly it's worth a lot right? So why don't developers build more developments like this when there's such high demand and prices command such a premium? One could build the homes a little closer together, make the streets a little more narrow, add buildings and churches and market stalls within. The economic value is clearly demonstrated. What's the barrier?
Where you are concerned about letting market forces go to work I agree, one way to do that is to stop subsidizing a specific development pattern.
Developers (and the bankers that fund them) do what they know works. They are not the ones seeing issues for the most part - they get their money. Most will not change. However when I look I see a small number of neighborhoods that are different scattered around - mixed use does happen in a few places (though badly - location location location applies to mixed use and most of them are putting the stores in location that are inconvenient for anyone who doesn't live there and so not enough people will use them to support the stores). Which is to say if it is allowed you will not see overnight changes, but a few developers will try something new and eventually some will find the formula for success and then other developers who are watching will copy that. We are looking at 20 years from making useful changes before we can use useful results - but it is still a change worth doing.
We don't need to replace surface parking lots all in one go. We can do that over time while we introduce good transit options and make our cities a lot better. We can also construct stacked parking garages instead of having surface parking lots. There are a lot of options here. As we replace inefficient and economically draining parking lots we can introduce housing and areas for business. As we introduce these we increase the viability of transit. It's a bad idea to focus on supporting or building parking lots which are not used that often. It's not good for anyone except those who are extracting economic rent.
> If people need to drive they need to store the car someplace.
People need housing too. We also need more small businesses and economic opportunity. Car storage is not a priority. We have an overabundance of it anyway.
> Not only are parking lots cheap, they also spread out all the traffic which is a big problem car oriented cities face.
Parking lots are cheap for the owners to build and operate, but they're incredibly expensive for cities. I don't follow the logic here about spreading out traffic. Typically traffic problems [1] are due to everyone using the same highways at the same times. That's not really solved or addressed by parking lots. If it were, we could just build parking lots instead of expanding highways, but in addition to that being economically stupid, it wouldn't solve the problem.
> Parking lots are a solution to the problems of density, if you don't need it you need to solve traffic first, otherwise cities need to get less dense to support the limits of cars.
It's kind of a chicken-egg problem, but the Overton window is shifted so far to the left that we need to shift it back to something sensible. So instead of even caring about cars and parking lots, we need to care only about housing, small and local businesses, and transit and just neglect cars/parking lots. Otherwise we'll just continue to build more parking lots and highways which drain the local economy and never actually do anything economically productive.
Today society invests 99% of its effort toward car-only infrastructure which is brittle, expensive for taxpayers, and bad for citizens. We should flip that around for a few years.
[1] We don't have traffic problems, and if we did they'd be solved by getting people out of cars. When people think about traffic problems they are thinking about the time they use the highways at the peak times. We shouldn't optimize society to cater toward "car traffic between the hours of 4PM and 6PM at the costs of all other development patterns".
Parking lots accomplish the later by limiting what can exist in that area, and the more empty they are the better as it means there are less people going to that one area. Of course there is a cost to this - if you don't have as much to do in one area it means you need to drive to more areas, and quickly you reach a point where some things in your city are not a reasonable distance and so most people go there (in the case of walmart this doesn't matter as there are plenty of others, but a niche/specialized store cannot capture the whole population and in turn this means it will struggle to get enough interested customers to stay afloat). It also means that jobs on the far side of the city are not in range.
Parking ramps allow for more density - but they are not only a lot more expensive, but if people pay the price they invite more traffic to the dense areas that already has too much traffic, while a lot spreads limits traffic because there is only so many places you can walk to from a parking space (the distance places may not have anything in range).
I agree it needs to be a gradual transition to mass transit. Density does enable many more things in a city (the point of a city is all the things you can do - if you don't like it move to Alaska), and mass transit done well enables more of those things. However note that I qualified that with done well - many cities only have poorly done mass transit and the ridership shows.
Affordable homes can be had out in more rural areas (and I don't mean Bumfuckistan, I mean smaller cities and towns), the problem is everyone wants a flat in Manhattan or Tokyo without paying up. Metropolitan real estate has always been expensive, this in itself is nothing new.
What we have to discuss is the distribution of living space, just like here in Austria I guess in the UK there's a lot of older people still living in the same house as a couple (or even alone) as when they had their children still living with them. We need incentives for people to downsize when they are still able to do it on their own.
That is precisely why land in cities is more expensive.
There are more people wanting land in a given area but the given area doesn't scale to the population, so people start paying more to have more of that limited space thereby driving out those who can't (or don't).
It's like how some people will pay for first/business class or premium economy class on a jetliner so they have more of the limited space in a flight cabin than those who didn't pay up.
The problem, which frankly isn't an actual problem, is that some people feel like bitching up instead of paying up for a good that is valued highly. We can discuss endlessly whether the valuation of city real estate is too high, but the conclusion is always going to be either paying up or getting out.
Houses in the countryside should be cheaper because they are easier to build and the land has less value.
What’s potentially more expensive out in the country is the infrastructure. The house price is lower to reflect that, the overall cost of ownership/living may be the same or higher as a result.
I hope someone else with more experience chimes in, but I hear London is egregious in this regard. I'm not sure how many people actually aspire to live there.
City centers need a higher proportion of residential and other places need a higher concentration of commercial/industry. That isn’t a market issue because these things are controlled by local governments.
There wouldn’t be a housing crisis if your zoning required 1:1 jobs to homes ratios, or even anything close.
What I want to see is “there’s no more office space available here, we’ll have to move somewhere else”
That and square footage limitations for worker density in office spaces.
A whole lot of the housing crisis boils down to local governments allowing a whole lot of office space growth and not much residential growth.
The "capitalist model" does indeed address supply and demand issues. However I feel it breaks down when the market is globalised and housing is used as safety deposit boxes rather than actual places to live.
London is a peculiar in that the communities are propped up by the renters. Having lived here all my life I have gotten used to communities changing hands every 5 years or so.
It's beyond me why housing security isn't more of a thing here for those with jobs crucial to a thriving local community - e.g teachers, healthcare workers etc.
It's apparent that what we have isn't a fully liberal capitalist market, but a game of monopoly.
Pretty sure none will be willing to trade back and would view any attempts at establishing public housing for all as a scary step in the wrong direction.
I'm living in the exUSSR. Plenty of older people are nostalgic about security they had back then.
Food, housing, healthcare and even job were mostly handled for them. Most of the people prefer that to the extreme freedom and self-reliance.
When we talk about balance of these things, though, Scandinavian countries seem to be pretty popular.
I myself don't think socialist model will work without AGI, but maybe some hybrid model will do.
But it is my sense from past conversations that none of these friends and acquaintances would be willing to trade back. I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that the people who stayed vs the people who left might have different opinions over those governments too.
The man who is willing to risk floating 90 miles across shark infested seas in a makeshift raft might have a different perspective of security and personal risk then someone who just kept their head down and suffered silently…or was content in their station.
My point was it is a bad thing because people would likely not be willing to trade back to that for housing security. They had housing security and still left.
That seems like a net win when you don't just consider the cost of doing it, but the cost of not doing it.
But
> Initially, public housing was intended to be built widespread, and as such be mixed-income, but lobbyists who did not want to see public housing decrease their housing values blocked such housing from going up
>With the introduction of suburbs and expansion of choices for the white working class, the demographics of public housing changed from more class and racially integrated to predominantly impoverished, single-parent, welfare, and people of color[30]. This led to stigmatization of public housing, through pushing the narrative that people living in public housing were "Welfare Queens", or otherwise living in a state of abject poverty and terrible conditions[30]. These demographic changes also decreased support for housing, leading to the government cutting funding for the program
Well? Go on? At what cost?