Incoming: Heavy use of scare-quotes to emphasize I don’t agree with certain framings which nonetheless get my point across.

It’s hard not to be suspicious of any new housing built in an American city. A new apartment building intended for low-income tenants was opened in the “poor side” of town in an area I used to live.

For op sec, I won’t share which city, but consider a typical American town with rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods, and guess where most of the crime and policing is.

Is this a progressive move?

On the one hand, lowering housing costs is always a good thing, especially when it helps people who have less.

On the other hand, it could be a cynical ploy to continue quarantining “the poors” somewhere far away from the “nice” neighborhoods.

My gut feeling is that some sort of mixed-income housing would be the best progressive stepping stone because, gradually, middle class (ie white) people would have an increasing stake in this neglected part of town. But then again, that could also become a form of gentrification which ends up displacing the poorer tenants, so this solution would have to include some sort of rent control to work.

  • 2Password2Remember [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 days ago

    “progressive” is a meaningless term IMO but to answer the spirit of your question: i don’t think low-income housing developments are good really, presumably they’re all gonna be owned by the same landlords that owned all the other housing stock and therefore won’t actually decrease the cost of rent in the city. there’s no way to get housing prices to go down except by expropriating housing from landlords and giving it to people who don’t currently own a home

    Death to America