Progressive nonsense is incessant. My hoot of the day is AOC and Bernie Sanders have teamed up for a new green housing deal. I explain where we are and what’s on deck.
Common Dreams is out with another economically insane idea. Please consider AOC, Sanders Renew Fight for Green New Deal for Public Housing.
Backed by dozens of progressive groups and congressional Democrats, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday reintroduced legislation designed to tackle both the affordable housing crisis and the climate emergency.
The New York Democrat and Vermont Independent are leading the renewed fight for the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act, which would invest up to $234 billion over a decade into “weatherizing, electrifying, and modernizing our public housing so that it may serve as a model of efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency for the rest of the nation.”
Joining the pair in backing the bill are 55 other House Democrats and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
Markey, who has spearheaded the broader battle for a Green New Deal with Ocasio-Cortez, said that “in the five years since its introduction, Green New Deal advocacy has catapulted environmental justice to the top of the national agenda, helped deliver historic victories, and charted a course for a better future.”
Green Housing Deal Summary
- Expand federal programs to provide residents with meaningful work investing in their communities, to own and operate resident businesses, to move toward financial independence, and to participate in the management of public housing;
- Expand resident councils so that public housing residents have a seat at the table for important decisions regarding their homes; and
- Replenish the public housing capital backlog and repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which limits the construction of new public housing developments.
- The legislation would also create two grant programs for deep energy retrofits; community workforce development; upgrades to energy efficiency, building electrification, and water quality; community renewable energy generation; recycling; resiliency and sustainability; and climate adaptation and emergency disaster response.
How Much Would This Cost?
AOC says the bill would invest up to $234 billion over a decade into “weatherizing, electrifying, and modernizing our public housing”.
The real goal is everyone has a right to affordable housing.
Don’t kid yourself, the whole policy would cost many trillions of dollars of which $234 billion is not even a down payment.
Once you issue guarantees with government involved costs soar out of sight.
Even most Democrats recognize this. The bill is so idiotic that it only gathered support 7 Senate advocates and 42 House advocates.
Faircloth Amendment
The real threat is not that the above insanity passes in one fell swoop, but that its starts with a repeal of the Faircloth Amendment, which limits the construction of new public housing developments.
The Faircloth Amendment was a provision of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. It amended the Housing Act of 1937, which authorized federal financial assistance to help states and housing authorities provide housing for low-income people. The amendment says, “a public housing agency may not use any of the amounts allocated for the agency from the Capital Fund or Operating Fund for the purpose of constructing any public housing unit, if such construction would result in a net increase from the number of public housing units owned, assisted, or operated by the public housing agency on October 1, 1999, including any public housing units demolished as part of any revitalization effort.” In other words, the amendment prevents housing authorities from ever maintaining more public housing units than they had in 1999.
The amendment was named for its sponsor, Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth, a successful hog farmer from South Carolina who served one term in the Senate, from 1993-1999.
The Faircloth Amendment, and the rest of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, were enacted amid a broader movement for welfare reform that was pushed by Congressional Republicans and co-signed by the Clinton White House in the 1990s. The movement was grounded in a belief that public assistance programs were detrimental to people’s ability to achieve economic independence, and that welfare recipients themselves were either overly dependent on the government or outright abusers of taxpayer money. Most lawmakers saw public housing complexes as crime-infested, unhealthy places that kept people trapped in poverty. Running against Clinton in 1996, former Republican Senator Bob Dole, said that public housing was “one of the last bastions of socialism in the world,” and called for its elimination.
“It was essentially viewed as a failed program,” says Susan J. Popkin, director of the Urban Institute’s Housing Opportunities and Services Together (HOST) Initiative and author of a series of books about public housing in Chicago and around the country.
Since the 1980s, the restriction of federal funding has had a much bigger impact on public housing than the Faircloth Amendment. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that the U.S. loses around 10,000 public-housing units a year to demolition or disposition because of accumulated maintenance issues.
As Jenny Schuetz argued in her recent post on the Brookings Institution website, the Faircloth Amendment is only a paper obstacle to an expansion of public housing. Other obstacles include the availability of land zoning rules that prevent the development of any new housing in many areas, and existing housing authorities’ relative ineffectiveness as real estate developers, she wrote.
But the biggest challenge to expanding public housing is a lack of federal funding. The Green New Deal for Public Housing, a proposal introduced in Congress in 2019 by Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, calls for the federal government to spend $180 billion repairing and retrofitting every existing public housing unit in the U.S. Restoring the 200,000 public-housing units that have been lost would require billions in federal spending and an abrupt departure from the trend of pulling away from publicly owned housing, even without repealing the Faircloth Amendment. Politically, though, repealing the amendment could be powerfully symbolic. As Ross Barkan wrote in the New York Times, “repeal would be a vital signal that America is back in the business of expanding public housing.”
Urban Institute Research
The Faircloth Amendment is one the best amendments in history. Thank you Senator Lauch Faircloth!
Yet, the amendment is somewhat symbolic.
According to research from the Urban Institute, there were 2,156,625 people living in 1,067,387 public housing units as of 2016, and Popkin says the U.S. has around 200,000 fewer public-housing units than it did in the mid-1990s. Many housing authorities have un-funded maintenance and rehabilitation needs, including the New York City Housing Authority, which needs to spend an estimated $45.2 billion in the next twenty years just to keep its existing units habitable.
The Philadelphia Housing Authority is limited to 20,133 units but only owns around 14,000 units. The Chicago Housing Authority is limited to 35,453 units but maintains fewer than 21,000. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta owns 3,500 units out of an allowed 11,965.
Government is the Problem
We do not need the government back in the public housing business. The costs of government programs soars out of sight.
New York with its damn rent control legislation needs to spend $45.2 billion in the next twenty years just to keep its existing units habitable.
Let New York and Chicago fix their own self-made problems. Federal and sate governments are the problem, not the solution to any alleged housing crisis.
Congratulations to NY, IL, and CA
Meanwhile, congratulations are owed to anyone voting with their feet to get out of socialist hellholes.
For discussion, please see Congratulations to NY, IL, LA, and CA for Losing the Most Population
Absolute Basis Losers
- New York: -631,104
- California: -573,019
- Illinois: -263,780
The writing of this article misses the real point of the legislation. As is often the case with school bonds in school districts, the voters are told to support the local schools by passing a bond. The bond passes and the politically connected building contractors gets the bond money…Oh, I left out the part about contributing the school board, AOC and others…
This is just the same scam writ large…
Please refrain from telling me what I don’t understand.
Because what you just said is well understood universally.
Yes, school boards are padded with “support the kids” proponents when really it is support the unions.
Everyone knows that. But that not the point of the point of public housing, nor what I miss. So, you are wrong twice.
No, no, I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt by taking their purported reasons for “public housing” at face value. The point of “public housing” to some is to give their donors “shovel ready projects.” It can be likened to the arms contractors reassuring us that all of money spent being “united with Ukraine” is being spent in the United States on the DoD’s “shovel ready projects.” Both forms of Tammany’s “honest graft.”
“Once you issue guarantees with government involved costs soar out of sight.”
Really? Isn’t this housing supposed to be built in land already owned by the government? So the only costs would be the cost of building, not the cost of the land?
Regardless of what the law says I can see massive concrete apartment complexes straight up in the air which will soon turn into slums. All the big cities will see the obvious economies in high rises.
Is she as much a clueless imbecile that she portrays
Tried this already. Public housing is what you try to leave. Please vote the vermin out.
While you can vote your way into Socialism, unfortunately, you’ll have to shoot your way out.
Another thought to add this being an aspect of economics. When a person owns something they tend to care for it and possess it. Because it is theirs they will likely not abuse it as there is a vested interest in it.
Something that is rented will get treated differently by a tenant. It is only a temporary housing occupation so there is no interest to invest in that entity only to exploit the situation.
Capitalism works because it allows ownership. That is a powerful incentive to put ones efforts where they would benefit ones own person.
Have not seen anyone make the following observation.
If a person were to look at what Givernment deems acceptable behavior for people to engage in they would observe that things have now become the Wild West. There is no law getting enforced that protects a persons belongings or even their own bodies from harm. in cities.
DEI as guiding principle means criminals get a free pass.
By extension public housing will be subject to that same standard when run by government.
Would any sane person wish to live in a place where crime, drug abuse, physical harm are the standard. Public housing thus is destined to become Ghetto Building as who else but those without a future would live there.
Just take stock of what is happening in all the Tent cities erected to house illegals.
Nothing but a cesspool of disease. That is Government housing as it actually becomes real time.
WE went out to dinner for kids birthdays
as we drove across town – which we hard do anymore
we ID’d at least 10 small businesses – walgreens/CVS/car washes/retail/office
all boarded up – or as our city(Tucson) likes to do – tear it down and now have empty lot – new buildings bring in MUCH higher taxes
I saw a NICE 2 story office – around 10,000 SF – perfect to renovate into dozen apartments
but city would require us to tear down instead of converting at 1/2 cost
AOC=POS
Yes, she’s one of the squat members.
The Federal government has shown that when it builds public housing it is producing a public ‘bad’, something that is worth less than the money spent to produce it. And paying workers and contractors too much is part of the Federal government’s concept of doing it. Or doing anything!
The same goes for anything that the Federal government finances.
Much the same happens in states, counties and cities when those local governments attempt to do it.
”
Government is the Problem
We do not need the government back in the public housing business.
”
Neither do we need them in the “private” housing business.
Instead, they should simply not be involved AT ALL.
No bans nor restrictions whatsoever, and you’ rapidly have so much housing laying around, that it would for all intents and purposes be nearly free. And that wouldn’t change even if the entirety of Latin America decided to flood across the Texas border.
Housing is; 100 years post flying machines and even 50 years post literally walking on the moon; soooo insanely trivial to construct, that in no society where people have even the tiniest traces of freedom, could it possibly be scarce, hence cost much at all. Supposed “scarcity” of something as trivial as “housing”, of all possible things, is no more possible in any society even fractionally free, than scarcity of tennis socks: It simply CAN NOT happen.
And furthermore: Noone in possession of even the tiniest traces of economic literacy, could ever, even in theory, not immediately recognize this, by the latest at the age of five. Yes: It really is that trivially obvious. Only the very stupidest among the stupidest of idiots; those stupid enough to believe in “AI”, “making money from my home”and central banking; could ever fail to recognize something quite so trivial.
And yet here we are. Un effing believable!
It is easy to build a house. My Dad has done it. It is harder when the neighbors are opposed to building it. The restriction on freedom to build of zoning and building codes. That is why it has been so hard to build more housing these past few years and few decades. And why we have such concepts as ‘blockbusting’ out of the history of attempting to make more housing available, and ‘redlining’ out of the history of trying to prevent some people from moving into this neighborhood. …
“It is harder when the neighbors are opposed to building it.”
Only if totalitarian government is involved. Otherwise, some moronic busybody “neighbor”‘s opinion wouldn’t carry any more sway than his opinion on the color of tennis socks you wanted to buy or knit.
IOW: It’s ALL, to a tee, nothing but pure and undiluted totalitarianism. Nothing whatsoever other than exactly that. Trashy, negative value add lowbrows cheering on a goongang of undifferentiated totalitarian government to rob others for the negative-talent lowbrows’ benefit. And absolutely nothing other than that, whatsoever.
I like the government handouts and I want every aspect of my life to be controlled by the government run by ruling class because they know better. I submit myself to these tyrants to run my life, please do take control our lives and dictate us. Please print and give money so I can live my life at your mercy. I’m not sure why we didn’t figure this out before AOC, why people should work to make money? why put limit of 32 hrs work week, why not 0 hrs? Why can’t the government just print the money and give it to the people so no one has to work, this all sounds good to me, what can go wrong? I like these AOC & Berine economic geniuses, we need more of these people .
I appreciate tremendous sarcasm
Speaking of housing, i read that Baltimore is going to be selling abandoned row houses for a dollar.
I read that too. With the caveat that the new owner has to refurbish and live there.
That’s actually a good idea. Actual ownership of something make people keep it up and improve it. That’s what we need more of.
“The amendment was named for its sponsor, Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth, a successful hog farmer from South Carolina who served one term in the Senate, from 1993-1999.”
A far cry from Feinstein and McCain, who left their fingernails embedded in their Senate seats, when they passed.
Faircloth was from North Carolina, not the lesser state to the south.
Just a minor point of correction for Mish
Sure Mish, you’re right that this is the foot in the door for new public housing. Right now it’s just a virtue signaling democrat who wants to be seen spending money (we don’t have) to fix problems that already exist with public housing in NYC, Philadelphia, wherever.
What I thought this might be about is something new, a way to subsidize a variety of housing options from apartments to single-family homes. Wasn’t this the thing even back in the 80s and 90s? I guess it must have failed bigly since it’s disappeared into the mists of time, but there might just be some ways to try it again.
Between Oct 2023 and Jan 2024 US10Y dropped from 5% to 3.8%. If we enter a
recession, or deep correction : lower highs/lower lows. The rich rotate from stocks to
gov bonds.
The gov plans to build 2 million new multi families units. The gov financed 50% (!!) of the multi construction. not the regional banks. If we enter a recession those bedroom communities near the major cities, that expanded like mushrooms, with 3%/4% mortgages, might have liquidity problems. The rich might rotate to cash and gov bonds on the cusp of recession, trapping traders. The poor are protected by several gov defensive belts. The middle class and the upper middle class will suffer the most bc they are not able to cut their hyper flexible spending habits.
Well you can live in a cave. Those are about 59 degrees year round. Jen Pskai had no problem with school children eating lunch in 40 degree weather. So get those shovels Reagan had for bomb shelters and dig dig dig for green housing for the poor and illegal alien criminals
Housing wouldn’t be so unaffordable if the Fed hadn’t screwed around with the interest rates. The Federal goverment also played a role in causing many problems in housing. The government track record is not good. Everything it touches results in inflated prices: education, healthcare, housing, energy, military, …
At the end of the day people need to be responsible for themselves. They can’t expected a bunch of grifter politicians to make their life perfect. The more power they give to DC, the lower their standard of living will become.
Public housing has indeed not been done well in N.America. But it can be done well. One only needs to look at Singapore. In fact, Singapore’s retirement system that supports housing is a great example of how government can do good. I think it could do better will less investment restrictions but overall a good system. I am not sure a similar system could work over here though with too many private interests running our governments in the background.
Well, progressives are trying to bring back the 10% inflation from the 70’s why not bring back a bunch of new Cabrini-greens while they’re at it.
Public housing works extremely well in certain areas but there is a specific formula. One; high dollar government salary. Two; public housing counties must be close proximity to D.C.:
link to en.wikipedia.org
income_counties_in_the_United_States
link to youtube.com
Without these two criteria being met all public housing miserably fails.
Mish, I’ve followed your blog since well before a lot of these commenters I’m seeing now.
Lots of economic illiterates here now. I’m happy to debate in good faith, but they seem emotionally unstable, young (in their 20’s perhaps) and thin skinned.
Where are the folks who knew a thing or two about Austrian school economics?
These kids are all about social justice-ing with heavy doses of LOTS of other people’s money and heavy governmental coercion. I smell some “OK Boomer dude!” out there, too.
One fellow who’s VERY ANGRY at me right now seems to be operating at about 2 or 3 standard deviations of wisdom lower than the curve used to be on this board.
Yes, I let a lot of silliness slide
Thanks
Thanks for responding. It’s still a great board, even if I don’t have as much time as I used to.
I do appreciate the work you do, especially your thoughts on the economic reports. Those are meaningful and interesting.
The political stuff is interesting, too, and will continue to be so as we approach this crazy election in November.
“Where are the folks who knew a thing or two about Austrian school economics?”
It struck me odd when Charles Kock asked Hayek to move to America, Hayek turned him down over the need for his Austrian social entitlements, then Koch sent him a pamphlet on U.S. Social Security benefits.
Businessman. You have answered your own question.
Discussing, debating, or even promoting Austrian economics, libertarianism, capitalism, socialism, communism, etc is mostly a waste of time for several reasons: you are unlikely to change the other person’s opinion; you are unlikely to have an effect on whatever system is currently in place; there are better ways to spend your time.
I occasionally fall into this trap myself; sending the same reply, over and over, to the same person, who will probably never change their mind, no matter how logical or correct my argument is.
It’s like discussing religion or politics. Another huge waste of time.
Better to spend my time reading the blog and skimming the comments, looking for the nuggets of wisdom that I can take advantage of to improve my life.
I agree, that as time passes, there seem to be more and more folks here who get sucked down the cult conspiracy rabbit holes and then spew their cult misinformation. I used to deal with this by using the Ignore button so I would never have to see their posts again. Now, I am forced to keep a list of names to Ignore on my own.
Better to brag about your winnings in the casino stock market or tout CO2 hysteria talking points, eh Dave?
I’m all about the reasoned debate. There will always be weird people on comment boards, and that’s fine.
But I do evaluate a board based on how many Leftists are spouting useless economic drivel on it. If it’s a sprinkling, I can handle the noise.
If it’s ferociously irrational, with children losing their tempers and name-calling, then I lose my patience.
Thanks for responding.
Many commentators are “angry, sentimental and very passionate”, They hate data. The multi family chart indicates that we just passed the early 70’s highs. That was 50 years ago. For decades they decayed. The multi families in the major cities are depressing, yet where can they go. Improving green wouldn’t change a thing. Pour tax payers money on bad items : housing, schools, yet defund the police – showing that the gov and community organizers do care about them for votes.
Public housing is inevitable. More is needed. It can be done better.
But it won’t be.
When I saw the number this group came up with and what they planned to do … I figured that they were missing at least one zero. They likely know this but know that when it goes from $240B to $3T … they will not be held accountable. This is social engineering and totally playing with funny money. How does this factor in with the reparations discussions at the federal level. I calculate decent reparations (1/2 of what the San Francisco group recommended … cover half of the African Americans in the country) would add about $121T to the debt … so whether this housing costs $1T or $5T may not be that important. It will allow us to make an interest payment each year quite close to what our total National Debt is now. So that sounds good right?
A balanced budget is the greenest thing congress can do. Going into debt to dragging production forwards increases energy usage and thus increases CO2 emissions. Thus balance the budget you F-ing retards and stop spending other people’s money!
This scene from Utopia explains how we can go green… you won’t like it
link to youtube.com
That Youtube video is frightening and I can see where we are going unless we reject the green lunacy prevalent in government today.
My take away from the scene is that the idiot guy should kill himself and remove one useless climate nut job from the planet. People should walk their talk.
Warren, Sanders, AOC et al don’t seem to remember beyond yesterday afternoon and thus have not learned the lessons of the very worst social experiment in the country’s history — public housing high-rises.
We learned from that that these areas will become governed and infested with gang members. More gang members will be recruited, simply because of proximity of children to the gangs. People do not take care of things they do not own or care about. Crime is the very worst in these areas, and children stay mired in poverty.
But the communists want more! But maybe their plan is not to rebuild these highrises, but to “spread them out” like more recently. Only LOTS more of them.
So maybe they’re just looking for more section 8 units out there in the burbs? Probably. Nothing like having one of these a block away from my well-maintained house that I pay for and maintain. Late night parties, gang activity, drug sales, car drifting at night, loud music — what’s not to love?!
This stuff all goes away when people are responsible for their own housing and themselves.
Ugh. The communists will never give up.
Assumptive, mathematically defunct.
The Commies’er comin’!
.
Learn what Communism ACTUALLY is and stop bleating about it when it’s not at all what you are saying. Nonsense from people who don’t understand what communism is just ruins your argument, not that you had much of an argument.
“Nonsense from people who don’t understand what communism is just ruins your argument, not that you had much of an argument”
By all means, parse & elaborate on my 6 word “argument”…. I suspect you misinterpreted me.
Yeah, that’s NOT Communism, learn what the word means and you won’t sound dumb.
“ the lessons of the very worst social experiment in the country’s history” had to do with SLAVERY…and / or the Murder and Persecution and internment of Native Americans onto Reservations.
Another REALLY Bad Social Experiment was the failed Insurrection by many Southern states and the Civil War they started. That was a DOOZY of a failure.
Public Housing concentrating poverty into Extremely Large High Rises isolated from other parts of the city were Bad ideas for sure but not even close to the worst things that this country has ever done.Not. Even. Close.
Yes, they screwed up…they need to fix things and they need more affordable housing, NOT just for people who are currently struggling with poverty and lack of basic education and healthcare. There is a tremendous demand and lack of affordable housing for many families and young adults.
It doesn’t all need to be done by the government but certainly many anti-affordable housing rules and regulations need to be removed and replaced with positive incentives.
This has been a massive problem in the US for DECADES.
You sound very young.
You also seem to not understand what a “social experiment” is. It’s not the things you cite.
Your naivete in understanding human nature is an example of not having lived long enough to understand what works and doesn’t.
I’ll leave it there, because I don’t want to make you feel unsafe.
That $234 billion could be used, instead of creating jobs in the U.S., in the form of tax cuts to billionaires to create jobs in China, Mexico or India.
While it’s true that lower utility bills puts money in the hands of Americans, China really wants the jobs and executive salaries could really use the boost.
Damned Socialists.
Incoherent.
Amazing that you can be incoherent with only a single word.
Sarcasm works well in the prior comment.
Your youth is showing again. I understood the “sarcasm,” but no, that’s not what I was referring to.
He may be young, I’m not, I’m also a business owner.
You make assumptive statements and call them fact, sounds like you surround yourself with people who agree with you, never having to doubt or fact check yourself.
Gangs aren’t the result of public housing, You’re assuming a parallel is causation, like drinking water causes cholera, without knowing the bacteria in the water is the problem.
Let’s stop drinking water, lest we all die.
The federal government needs to offload all HUD activity to states. Housing is a local issue, not a national one. The more experiments conducted, the sooner we find a solution. The same goes for the Department of Indoctrination.
Half the states can’t even educate their children. Much less house them. Too much graft at the state level and it’s harder to do anything about gerrymandering to attempt to get supermajorities when they don’t have the votes any other way.
link to nytimes.com
How Does Paris Stay Paris? By Pouring Billions Into Public HousingOne quarter of residents in the French capital live in government-owned housing, part of an aggressive plan to keep lower-income Parisians — and their businesses — in the city.
Which these days I am pretty sure are entirely occupied by Muslims and are the famous ‘no go’ areas of Paris.
The problem is the rest of the Parisians are in effect subsidizing the low income Parisians.
Probably you do not know what is Paris now. More and more liké a city in a pour country. This is obvious if you go in Paris from Singapore, Tokyo, Moscow or Dubai
I was there for 5 days in April 2024. Same city for me. Except for the huge increase in tourists.
Today is March 24th, 2024. Did you use a time machine to get from your five days in Paris April 2024 back to here?