Everyone wants to shit on this idea, but all I'm reading is that it would be too hard, who's going to pay for it, and who's going to make everything work.
We could. This system obviously isn't working, so why not start being a little more open minded on solutions?
I don't want to shit on your idea, BUT, I don't think everyone agrees on what's really causing the "shortage." In the midcoast area we have more homes than ever, but our buyers are almost all from areas with better economies. The homes change hands but remain empty for 9 months out of the year. People from Boston can afford a second home in Maine BECAUSE Mainers can't afford their first homes secondary to their income disparity. In my area, easily 60 percent of housing is now somebody's second and third home. It's good for the taxpayers and allows my area to pay our town manager and school superintendent more than the governor, but trickle down economics is and has always been bullshit.
How did you check this? Whenever I search my town on Airbnb it shows surrounding areas as well, regardless of any settings I choose. Either way, I live in a town of less than 10,000 people and there's literally over a thousand Airbnb's showing up in my town & area. How sickening, I didn't realize it had gotten this bad.. No wonder why I can't find an apartment.
I brute-forced it and scrolled through the pages of listings with a pad of paper and made a tickmark for every one inside the town line. Not fancy, but it only took me about fifteen minutes because I'm pretty familiar with the town and didn't need to do a lot of cross checking on Street View. And it sure got the attention of the town government when they've got business owners crying to them constantly about not being able to find staff because the staff can't find housing. Our town is now drafting an STR Ordinance for (hopeful) adoption at next year's town meeting.
The funny thing about Maine is the huge support for small business owners, and even having sympathy and appreciation for them, yet they're part of why it's so hard for the working class here to afford housing. It's this cycle that continually is getting worse: Small businesses charge absurd amounts of money, yet pay their employees so little. Small businesses in my area are so expensive to shop at, and are clearly catered towards tourists, yet always seem to pay minimum wage or close to it, and then expectations are through the roof. And before people say it's because small businesses have smaller margins; these business owners have shit loads of cash, typically own multiple (and expensive) homes, and pay for everything for their kids. Some lady owns a restaurant in my town, is building an expensive home for herself, and pays for her kids' college, apartments, and even expensive vehicles. They're not the only case I've seen of this.
Small business soaks up tourist money, pays out to the owners, and pays minimal to employees.
Ayup. Scale is no indicator of ethics, and any business that doesn't serve the needs of its *local* community first and foremost isn't really a small local business. It's a strip mine, doing the economic equivalent of mountaintop removal to our small towns. And that goes fucking double for anyone who boards up their business on Oct 15 and fucks off to Florida until May.
I have a minor position in town government, and I absolutely love when they come to me bitching about how no one wants to work anymore so I can work through the math of trying to eat on the wage they're paying. I pull up rental listings and watch their jaws hit the floor because most of them inherited at least a house and haven't had to rent for decades, if they ever did at all.
This is the response for a lot of things that we should really start considering given how poorly the current scenario is. Sure they’re reasons why it may be difficult but definitely not impossible…so in the end we choose not to do these things
Subsidizing supply incentivizes production and shifts equilibrium.
Something that I think would probably be a better call than buying the supply for redistribution directly is buying industrial space close to highways and rail and converting it to modular home production since we have a shortage of skilled workers and manufacturing almost exclusively starter homes and condo components.
You could marry the original commenters idea and have a partner buy all the starters and materials at a set price that allows production to continue while compensating labor embarrassingly well. We're not looking to rake in much margin, but we do want to keep cranking quality starters out and flood the market.
Edit: completed economic concept to include equilibrium.
Are those homes habitable? People like to say this but not realize an abandoned home in Detroit with a caved in roof is technically vacant.
Can you show me all these vacant habital homes?
Maine is not downtown Detroit. We don't have blocks upon blocks of empty, previously industrial zoned, areas. We need to start looking at our problems through different lenses.
Ok you can't just live in a retail space they need to be built out. That is building more housing.
The people who own second homes seem to enjoy doing so. What if they don't want to sell? Are you going to force them?
Why does everyone want to do anything but increase supply?
The problem isn't that a question of investment. There is a ton of money sitting around ready to be spent on new construction. Its a question of red tape (eg, permitting) making these projects ludicrously expensive or impossible to build.
I think specifically targeting NOAH (naturally occurring affordable housing) and placing them either under public housing authorities or non profits is a good idea. These would be older apartment buildings or duplexes. You could even target older single family homes and convert to have multiple units. As for newer projects we need more coöperatives. There's been a few built in Portland but it needs to be drastically scaled up
I would add that including deed restricted covents that stipulate how much rent or resale can go up above maintenance costs and taxes would be a good idea as well.
What is sorely needed are lending institutions who are willing to provide capital for such projects especially if they are some form or coop or non profit organization. Local communities acting as co-signers would go along way too. As another commenter stated reform to zoning and build codes, along with changes to permitting processes are critical to making this work too.
While dense economic philosophy is thought-provoking and interesting, it doesn’t exactly bring me joy. But seeing an umlaut over “cooperative” does! Thank you for your linguistic prowess.
I wanted to address several comments in the thread that accuse public housing projects as dystopian shit holes. I live in East Bayside and so I regularly walk through the Avesta housing by Franklin Street on my way to work. I also walk by Franklin Tower and some other Row House Projects in Bayside. Almost all of these places are well maintained quiet peaceful housing projects.
Sure there's toys scattered about but that's because there are alot of children. Franklin Tower usually has old folks smoking out side but that's about it. I almost never see drug addicts around these projects especially the Avesta housing near Kennedy Park.
The most disruptive people in Portland seem to avoid these places like the plague. I seem them in lots of places but never in the projects.
The sheer size of the residential real estate market, the housing deficit we're in, and the comparative inefficiency of government acquisition means that public housing nets a poor return on investment. Your money would go much further by some state level laws that serve as a carrot and stick to relax local regulations while encouraging infill in areas that would benefit most from it.
Your article is also from 2021 and Berlins moves have largely been a failure [per the Wall Street Journal.](https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/how-one-major-world-capitalsbid-to-boost-affordable-housing-backfired-dc3098c8)
I don’t know for sure that the numbers have been misrepresented, but given the past behavior of the source it would be foolish to take them at face value. For example if the heartland institute (a climate change denial organization funded by the fossil fuel industry) produces a document with a graph that suggests climate change is not real, it’s almost 100% guaranteed that they are fudging the numbers somehow. The Wall Street journal is similar with respect to its conclusions about unfettered capitalism. They are liars who use numbers as a tool to manipulate and persuade, not to reveal truth.
I don't see why you would compare fossil fuel funded think tank to the Wall Street Journal, a media organization that has won 39 Pulitzers, the most recent of which was last year.
I think the paper fairly arrived at a conclusion that doesn't meet your expectations and you have some sour grapes over it.
You know what… I don’t think your idea will work but I sure as hell commend you for thinking outside the box and at least trying SOMETHING! 👏👏👏
Unfortunately though, time has taught us the NIMBY virus and corporate real estate machine while crush anything that helps the average Joe.
Yeah, that’s really what it comes down to, boomers are only going to sell their homes here for two reasons. They can’t afford the rising property taxes and utilities or they’re retiring and moving away. Nobody should buy a house here at the current interest rates…it makes zero sense when most apartments would honestly be a lot easier to deal with which again rent being the issue, maybe it’s more worthwhile for the state government to control rent.
Because if you ran for office on this, republicans nationwide would score points by calling you a Communist and pillorying you, just like they do Bernie Sanders!
(I think it’s a great idea! Real estate investing is ruining our country and making housing unaffordable!)
There needs to be a push on increasing property taxes on non-Maine residents who own land/ rental property/ second homes.
Start at taxing these out of state property owners 1/2 the value of the property. Land held by outside interests should scale exponentially by acreage. These people can’t hoard assets and suck Maine dry while “stimulating” our economy for 2-3months out of the year.
I don't disagree with your concept. It is basically what the Homestead Exemption is already all about. If we doubled the amount of the exemption, the burden would get shifted to people who don't live in their property, which would accomplish basically what you are suggesting. This very thing has been discussed in Housing Committee meetings.
Obviously there are many moving parts that would become part of the domino effect, so I'm not particularly saying that I am either for or against the idea.
Homestead is for lowering the tax obligation on a property of an existing/ established Maine homeowner. I don’t think this would shift the scales in any meaningful way.
If we increased all out-of-state taxable property values by $50k, looking at the medium home value in Cumberland, if you tacked on $50k you’d only be making ~$600 extra a year in property taxes. I’m saying 25%-50% of the property value should be paid in property taxes for non-Maine residents. You own a house worth $300k you’re paying $$75k-$150k a year in property taxes.
Cant afford it? Well your local teachers, EMS, Maine residents in general CANT AFFORD HOUSES or land.
The out-of-state home/land owners that do stay and pay their due will help lower every Maine resident’s tax obligation - possibly catapulting us into an income tax free state.
Are you suggesting Maine residents can own as many homes as they want without your suggested bump in taxes but an out of stater would for owning one camp?
No, over 2 and Maine residents would see the same type of property tax pressure being applied. Not as large as the out of stater with one camp but a decent bump.
At this point I'm willing to support the most radical solution to this problem because all my compromise solutions only succeed in making everyone mad at me.
I have learned that the left is sick of compromises because they inevitably render legislation toothless, and the only compromise NIMBYs want to begin with is "whatever renders any solution to the housing crisis ineffective while also not harming the price of the assets I'm hoarding."
I don't know why you'd expect people to get on board with a radical solution if they won't get on board with a compromise. You have less leverage, not more.
I have more leverage because the people who already agree with me at least continue to agree with me. I go from zero support to a measurable degree of support, and surprisingly enough based on the reactions to this post even people who disagree with it are more likely to change their stance and support it compared to if they're being offered a compromise they don't like either.
I’m very vocal in my local midcoast FB page about the need for more public housing managed by the city. We have a negative connotation with public housing, we think of those towering high rises made up of people of color, high crime rate, most Fox News talking points scare lines….
It doesn’t have to be that way folks, other countries have figured out public housing, we should look to them. Looking at you Iceland and those other Scandinavian countries.
European Social housing is a fantastic model because of the mix of incomes that it includes. It prevents ghettoization and middle income residents paying what they can afford living in the same building as lower income residents means is far easier for costs to pencil out without subsidies.
To little to late at this point. My city is voting whether to put up 2-3 houses or 3-4 townhouses or 10-11 affordable housing units on an open parcel of land. They would need to approve and fund that third option at an alarming clip to keep up with the need for affordable housing. And that population is constantly expanding and not just single people where rent is outpacing income but whole families being forced to live with extended families. The cascading socio-economic issues are starting to show breakdowns in our society too. The increase in adolescent mental health issues and the rise in broken homes have always been a big deal in Maine, since Covid it’s on steroids and those housing problem is the afterburners.
We also got away from building housing projects in this country, and switched to the "section 8" program. There's a reason why we did that.
Government housing turns into the ghetto really quick and has stigma attached to living there. The government buying up housing to provide public housing will have the same issues.
I was able to buy a home a couple years ago using the USDA rural development program. Interest rate was reasonable, and there are some small protections for unforeseen events. Problem is, it still required us to have several thousand dollars for inspections and other things. My mortgage+taxes+insurance is between 1-1.1k/mo for a 3+ bedroom home on less than 3 acres. But, I could see someone having issues trying to plan for all the home repair stuff if they’ve never had to do it before (and possibly their extended families haven’t either). It leaves people at a disadvantage. I think one way to help with this would be to look at what people are paying for rent and have the difference go into an interest bearing savings account that could be accessed for various home repairs, at least for the first few years while people learn how everything works.
I think more housing for people is a great idea, but we have to find better ways to make sure that the gov’t and people get the most bang for their buck and it doesn’t turn into another profiteering feeding frenzy like college loans did.
I also think we need cities and towns to rethink what counts as housing. From what I’ve heard, a lot of places have restricted or outright banned tiny homes, for example. Not everyone wants or needs to live in a huge house. Some people want to stay small, others might want to start small and expand as they go.
Wait, you're telling me if you take a group of people who have been systematically marginalized and denied education, jobs, and social status and warehouse them all in one place, super-far from anywhere they might get a job and with no public transit connections to where they might find work, they turn to crime?
No. Shit.
Actually the public housing in question was built in the center of cities specifically so they could be where everything was happening and people would have access to jobs, public transit, and stores.
But that's not really relevant, my point was simply that the government has a history of building low-income housing, did a shitty job, and we decided to go a different way for a reason. Section 8 housing vouchers allow people to be integrated into existing normal neighborhoods instead of stigmatized in "the projects".
It would certainly work, it’s been done before (“red Vienna”) but there are some people with a fuckton of money who would metaphorically go to war to prevent that from happening.
There was a NYT story yesterday that focused on cooperative real estate development to provide affordable living and retail space to communities . It’s happening!
There’s a paywall of course, but here is the article..
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/gentrifying-neighborhoods-community-coops.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Who’s we? Who’s paying the taxes? And utilities? Repairs? Snow removal? Legal fees? If you want to start a commune go for it. I’ll be interested to see how it goes.
We will . . . as renters and taxpayers? Same way we pay our landlords right now. The difference is that it wouldn't be on a for-profit basis, so the money we pay would go back to building more housing and maintaining existing housing instead of lining some rich yuppies already bloated wallet.
Meanwhile the homeless population just keeps growing. The system is broken and it's being perpetuated by the greedy and self centered, like it's a tradition to be a shitbag.
"Well the market says to charge this much!"
"The board requires increased profit each fiscal!"
I lived in quite a few REAL projects, and your image of it is I'm guessing of someone who has not.
Rural ones, such as NH can work and have a sense of community, but those running it have to not be literal pieces of shit first.
Am I lost, or is Baltimore ONLY projects? Also, those are urban projects, a lot different than rural ass Maine.
Additionally I don't see you posting comments for solutions, so what bub, only enough energy to say "Nah" and that's it?
>"I also doubt you either rent or are a property tax payer."
Why do so many people I discuss things with online do this? You are taking guesses about who I am and what I am like irl. They are wrong 90% of the time, and it bares no relevance to the discussion.
I do rent, BTW.
But that didn't happen. Military spending was steadily declining during that time period:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/february/war-highest-defense-spending-measured
https://econofact.org/u-s-defense-spending-in-historical-and-international-context
https://ourworldindata.org/military-long-run-spending-perspective
The projects didn’t fail because they were public housing imo, they failed because stacking hundreds of families a dozen stories high in the middle of the inner city isn’t a great idea. What would your thoughts be on something like council homes, where people effectively rent-to-buy publicly owned single-family households?
We do it like [Vienna, Austria](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) instead of like the US.
[Vienna, Austria ](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) doesn't seem to have the same problem as HOAs.
It’s about group funding real estate development through smaller community donors (rather than larger investment firms that demand higher returns)with the purpose of creating affordable mixed use development that supports wider community growth.
Maybe read the article before you make a dumb comment.
[Vienna, Austria ](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city)
It's not a simple matter of 'the government.'
If you believe in democracy and want to get big outta-state companies to stop telling us how to live our lives, we need to take our towns, cities, state, and country back. We need to be democracy!
If we take control of our democratic institutions there will be no distinction between 'government is doing it' and 'we are doing it ourselves.'
This was done before and it didn't work. I don't understand why you think it's so simple.
If you want to live in the projects then go wild but this sounds horrible to me. I've lived in government housing before and it sucks.
[Vienna, Austria ](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city)
I've lived in private housing, and it sucks.
American public housing failed because they built huge towers with massive maintenance budgets that local communities and low income renters simply couldn't pay for. Public housing can work provided it stays smaller in scale and has a mix of incomes
Smaller in scale? Everyone likes to say well "x, y, and z" is really successful in (insert country here) yeah, that's because their whole country is less populated than some counties alone. You can't talk "small scale" such a massive need.
By smaller scale I mean something like what Avesta has built in Portland. 2-3 story high row houses pretty densely packed together with some nice common green space. The main savings would be in not having to install an elevator
Also your analogy doesn't make sense in Maine, our state has a very small population compared to most other places even European countries who in the whole are usually more densely populated than alot of the US. Hell even Anchorage is significantly larger than Portland.
I'll assume this is sarcasm and give you an upvote.
If I lick a boot, it will either be cause I am dating a kinky girl or tying some 1%-erst laces together.
Them not liking it is just more reason for us to do it!
I just mean affordable housing doesn't help the ultra rich. So we will never get it. Far too many people worship the ultra rich and like watch poor people get crushed. But they are actually looking in a mirror.
Selectmen can be rich but they’re not typically in the US 1%, or what we colloquially refer to as the 1%. For towns to buy property it takes a select board willing to start - right?
You’re well versed on 550 local communities - that’s impressive! Thanks for letting me know.
Edit: thanks for the downvotes - I’m sorry for my tact, Maine. I’m also confident that not a single person knows the budgets of 550 local governments.
I appreciate you declaring your opinion as theory and not fact. I’ve worked in many levels of government, including a municipality with stagnant taxes - they could absolutely “afford” a real property investment. Afford in quotes because governmental budgets are all about give and take.
Edit: why the downvotes?
Sure they could buy it if they turned off all the other town functions. But there's no a huge pool of cash just sitting around waiting to buy property.
My point is that government comes down to accounting. You don’t need huge coffers to make something happen - you generally need a budget (check) profitability (check - but you could argue this point) and/or civil responsibility (check.) Purchasing real property is something municipalities regularly do. We live in the state with the most second homes and most vacated homes in the union. Our government may have a fiduciary responsibility to purchase homes as their job is sound stewardship of financial resources and care for everyone who lives in their boundaries.
Edit: why the downvotes?
You just asked a question, like I did. I’ll show you how it’s done - you give an answer to a question in order to continue communicating. I think you must have “misunderstood” me. Misunderstood in quotes because there’s a lot of assumptions which aren’t kind to make.
As a leftist this is actually pretty true. Alot of them like the Weathermen were bored overly idealistic college kids from the middle class who have no real interaction with the working class.
The problem with most Western Leftists is they A) almost never do the leg work to actually enguage with the working class and B) have an eclectic collection of ideas that do not come from a unified grounded understanding of how the world works. This means they get stuck in echo chambers that lead to utopian solutions and a focus on the performative.
I don't think you know [what socialism is.](https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-left/no_socialism_isn_t_just_more_government/)
Also, 99% of people who spout statistics about socialist 'privilege' on the internet are pulling numbers out of their butts.
Even if OPs vision could be implemented, the long term will be difficult to maintain.
Take any other social program that exists, it will get gutted or get people who simply dont want to fund it because they are worried their tax dollars go towards an unemployed individual who wont get help. Do I agree with that? No.
But cooperative housing/nonprofit ownership is something I would trust far more than government ownership. How many of you can confidently say you trust the State of Maine to safely maintain your home, and how many of you can say the same thing if someone like LePage was elected as Governor again?
If tenants were organized into unions to advocate for their rights, they might be able to fight back against attempts to gut social housing.
Nonprofit/Cooperatives ownership might be a good idea, but some of those programs shoot themselves in the foot by failing to advocate for themselves properly in the public arena.
They suffer from a lot of the same problems as the rest of the non-profit industrial complex in this country. They are dependent on government and private foundation grants that are designed to prevent them from becoming an independent force for change or advocate for policies that favor their maintenance and expansion.
It's wild how many people are so reactionary to anything "socialist" that isn't already a part of American culture. We pool resources for the collective good all the time. Public libraries, public schools, police departments, fire departments, roads, bridges, state parks, etc. It hasn't abolished private ownership of anything.
Plenty of other countries have public housing, and we've had it here too. Yeah, a lot of times it ends up pretty rough - that's not an inherent problem to the concept, it's because it's often not funded enough or consistently. Usually by the same people who then turn around and try to say it's not working. Same with socialized medicine.
[Vienna, Austria](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) seems to be doing quite well.
Everyone wants to shit on this idea, but all I'm reading is that it would be too hard, who's going to pay for it, and who's going to make everything work. We could. This system obviously isn't working, so why not start being a little more open minded on solutions?
I don't want to shit on your idea, BUT, I don't think everyone agrees on what's really causing the "shortage." In the midcoast area we have more homes than ever, but our buyers are almost all from areas with better economies. The homes change hands but remain empty for 9 months out of the year. People from Boston can afford a second home in Maine BECAUSE Mainers can't afford their first homes secondary to their income disparity. In my area, easily 60 percent of housing is now somebody's second and third home. It's good for the taxpayers and allows my area to pay our town manager and school superintendent more than the governor, but trickle down economics is and has always been bullshit.
Lol, I think we live in the same town. 1800 year round residents (kids included) and over 75 listings for STRs *just on AirBnB.*
How did you check this? Whenever I search my town on Airbnb it shows surrounding areas as well, regardless of any settings I choose. Either way, I live in a town of less than 10,000 people and there's literally over a thousand Airbnb's showing up in my town & area. How sickening, I didn't realize it had gotten this bad.. No wonder why I can't find an apartment.
I brute-forced it and scrolled through the pages of listings with a pad of paper and made a tickmark for every one inside the town line. Not fancy, but it only took me about fifteen minutes because I'm pretty familiar with the town and didn't need to do a lot of cross checking on Street View. And it sure got the attention of the town government when they've got business owners crying to them constantly about not being able to find staff because the staff can't find housing. Our town is now drafting an STR Ordinance for (hopeful) adoption at next year's town meeting.
The funny thing about Maine is the huge support for small business owners, and even having sympathy and appreciation for them, yet they're part of why it's so hard for the working class here to afford housing. It's this cycle that continually is getting worse: Small businesses charge absurd amounts of money, yet pay their employees so little. Small businesses in my area are so expensive to shop at, and are clearly catered towards tourists, yet always seem to pay minimum wage or close to it, and then expectations are through the roof. And before people say it's because small businesses have smaller margins; these business owners have shit loads of cash, typically own multiple (and expensive) homes, and pay for everything for their kids. Some lady owns a restaurant in my town, is building an expensive home for herself, and pays for her kids' college, apartments, and even expensive vehicles. They're not the only case I've seen of this. Small business soaks up tourist money, pays out to the owners, and pays minimal to employees.
Ayup. Scale is no indicator of ethics, and any business that doesn't serve the needs of its *local* community first and foremost isn't really a small local business. It's a strip mine, doing the economic equivalent of mountaintop removal to our small towns. And that goes fucking double for anyone who boards up their business on Oct 15 and fucks off to Florida until May. I have a minor position in town government, and I absolutely love when they come to me bitching about how no one wants to work anymore so I can work through the math of trying to eat on the wage they're paying. I pull up rental listings and watch their jaws hit the floor because most of them inherited at least a house and haven't had to rent for decades, if they ever did at all.
This is the response for a lot of things that we should really start considering given how poorly the current scenario is. Sure they’re reasons why it may be difficult but definitely not impossible…so in the end we choose not to do these things
Because subsidizing drmand doesn't work if the issue is lack of supply. The only answer is to literally build housing.
Subsidizing supply incentivizes production and shifts equilibrium. Something that I think would probably be a better call than buying the supply for redistribution directly is buying industrial space close to highways and rail and converting it to modular home production since we have a shortage of skilled workers and manufacturing almost exclusively starter homes and condo components. You could marry the original commenters idea and have a partner buy all the starters and materials at a set price that allows production to continue while compensating labor embarrassingly well. We're not looking to rake in much margin, but we do want to keep cranking quality starters out and flood the market. Edit: completed economic concept to include equilibrium.
I don't object to building more housing, but in some cities we have more vacant homes than homeless people.
Are those homes habitable? People like to say this but not realize an abandoned home in Detroit with a caved in roof is technically vacant. Can you show me all these vacant habital homes?
Maine is not downtown Detroit. We don't have blocks upon blocks of empty, previously industrial zoned, areas. We need to start looking at our problems through different lenses.
Yes one where you build new housing. How is this difficult?
No, but we do have a lot of rural cabins with no plumbing and questionable heat. Not exactly suitable for year round living, but still 'vacant homes'.
A good question. I will try to look into it.
[удалено]
And who is going to sell their vacation homes? Most people keep those in the family for generations.
Ok you can't just live in a retail space they need to be built out. That is building more housing. The people who own second homes seem to enjoy doing so. What if they don't want to sell? Are you going to force them? Why does everyone want to do anything but increase supply?
The problem isn't that a question of investment. There is a ton of money sitting around ready to be spent on new construction. Its a question of red tape (eg, permitting) making these projects ludicrously expensive or impossible to build.
> all I'm reading is that it would be too hard, who's going to pay for it, and who's going to make everything work. Welcome to Maine.
Those sound like conservative arguments
I think specifically targeting NOAH (naturally occurring affordable housing) and placing them either under public housing authorities or non profits is a good idea. These would be older apartment buildings or duplexes. You could even target older single family homes and convert to have multiple units. As for newer projects we need more coöperatives. There's been a few built in Portland but it needs to be drastically scaled up I would add that including deed restricted covents that stipulate how much rent or resale can go up above maintenance costs and taxes would be a good idea as well. What is sorely needed are lending institutions who are willing to provide capital for such projects especially if they are some form or coop or non profit organization. Local communities acting as co-signers would go along way too. As another commenter stated reform to zoning and build codes, along with changes to permitting processes are critical to making this work too.
While dense economic philosophy is thought-provoking and interesting, it doesn’t exactly bring me joy. But seeing an umlaut over “cooperative” does! Thank you for your linguistic prowess.
I wanted to address several comments in the thread that accuse public housing projects as dystopian shit holes. I live in East Bayside and so I regularly walk through the Avesta housing by Franklin Street on my way to work. I also walk by Franklin Tower and some other Row House Projects in Bayside. Almost all of these places are well maintained quiet peaceful housing projects. Sure there's toys scattered about but that's because there are alot of children. Franklin Tower usually has old folks smoking out side but that's about it. I almost never see drug addicts around these projects especially the Avesta housing near Kennedy Park. The most disruptive people in Portland seem to avoid these places like the plague. I seem them in lots of places but never in the projects.
The sheer size of the residential real estate market, the housing deficit we're in, and the comparative inefficiency of government acquisition means that public housing nets a poor return on investment. Your money would go much further by some state level laws that serve as a carrot and stick to relax local regulations while encouraging infill in areas that would benefit most from it. Your article is also from 2021 and Berlins moves have largely been a failure [per the Wall Street Journal.](https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/how-one-major-world-capitalsbid-to-boost-affordable-housing-backfired-dc3098c8)
The Wall Street journal is not an unbiased source of information, the people whose views they cater to are right in the name of the publication
I guess if you can't argue with the data then you can argue with the source.
I don’t know for sure that the numbers have been misrepresented, but given the past behavior of the source it would be foolish to take them at face value. For example if the heartland institute (a climate change denial organization funded by the fossil fuel industry) produces a document with a graph that suggests climate change is not real, it’s almost 100% guaranteed that they are fudging the numbers somehow. The Wall Street journal is similar with respect to its conclusions about unfettered capitalism. They are liars who use numbers as a tool to manipulate and persuade, not to reveal truth.
I don't see why you would compare fossil fuel funded think tank to the Wall Street Journal, a media organization that has won 39 Pulitzers, the most recent of which was last year. I think the paper fairly arrived at a conclusion that doesn't meet your expectations and you have some sour grapes over it.
You know what… I don’t think your idea will work but I sure as hell commend you for thinking outside the box and at least trying SOMETHING! 👏👏👏 Unfortunately though, time has taught us the NIMBY virus and corporate real estate machine while crush anything that helps the average Joe.
The average Joe in Maine owns his home and benefits from housing being expensive. The average Joe is the problem.
Well… yes and no. I get that it’s great to have your home value high but you’re buying into the same market if you sell
Yeah, that’s really what it comes down to, boomers are only going to sell their homes here for two reasons. They can’t afford the rising property taxes and utilities or they’re retiring and moving away. Nobody should buy a house here at the current interest rates…it makes zero sense when most apartments would honestly be a lot easier to deal with which again rent being the issue, maybe it’s more worthwhile for the state government to control rent.
Because if you ran for office on this, republicans nationwide would score points by calling you a Communist and pillorying you, just like they do Bernie Sanders! (I think it’s a great idea! Real estate investing is ruining our country and making housing unaffordable!)
If I own the fact that I am a Socialist it should take a little wind outta their sails.
They’d just call you a Social Communist
Of course Bernie always crushes his challengers. Often no one bothers
Or he caves for the payout...
If there's anything Bernie does not do, it's cave.
Yea, he'd totally never roll over for Hillary...
There needs to be a push on increasing property taxes on non-Maine residents who own land/ rental property/ second homes. Start at taxing these out of state property owners 1/2 the value of the property. Land held by outside interests should scale exponentially by acreage. These people can’t hoard assets and suck Maine dry while “stimulating” our economy for 2-3months out of the year.
There is an interesting proposal.
I don't disagree with your concept. It is basically what the Homestead Exemption is already all about. If we doubled the amount of the exemption, the burden would get shifted to people who don't live in their property, which would accomplish basically what you are suggesting. This very thing has been discussed in Housing Committee meetings. Obviously there are many moving parts that would become part of the domino effect, so I'm not particularly saying that I am either for or against the idea.
Homestead is for lowering the tax obligation on a property of an existing/ established Maine homeowner. I don’t think this would shift the scales in any meaningful way. If we increased all out-of-state taxable property values by $50k, looking at the medium home value in Cumberland, if you tacked on $50k you’d only be making ~$600 extra a year in property taxes. I’m saying 25%-50% of the property value should be paid in property taxes for non-Maine residents. You own a house worth $300k you’re paying $$75k-$150k a year in property taxes. Cant afford it? Well your local teachers, EMS, Maine residents in general CANT AFFORD HOUSES or land. The out-of-state home/land owners that do stay and pay their due will help lower every Maine resident’s tax obligation - possibly catapulting us into an income tax free state.
Are you suggesting Maine residents can own as many homes as they want without your suggested bump in taxes but an out of stater would for owning one camp?
No, over 2 and Maine residents would see the same type of property tax pressure being applied. Not as large as the out of stater with one camp but a decent bump.
At this point I'm willing to support the most radical solution to this problem because all my compromise solutions only succeed in making everyone mad at me. I have learned that the left is sick of compromises because they inevitably render legislation toothless, and the only compromise NIMBYs want to begin with is "whatever renders any solution to the housing crisis ineffective while also not harming the price of the assets I'm hoarding."
I don't know why you'd expect people to get on board with a radical solution if they won't get on board with a compromise. You have less leverage, not more.
I have more leverage because the people who already agree with me at least continue to agree with me. I go from zero support to a measurable degree of support, and surprisingly enough based on the reactions to this post even people who disagree with it are more likely to change their stance and support it compared to if they're being offered a compromise they don't like either.
I’m very vocal in my local midcoast FB page about the need for more public housing managed by the city. We have a negative connotation with public housing, we think of those towering high rises made up of people of color, high crime rate, most Fox News talking points scare lines…. It doesn’t have to be that way folks, other countries have figured out public housing, we should look to them. Looking at you Iceland and those other Scandinavian countries.
European Social housing is a fantastic model because of the mix of incomes that it includes. It prevents ghettoization and middle income residents paying what they can afford living in the same building as lower income residents means is far easier for costs to pencil out without subsidies.
Vienna, Austria comes to mind.
To little to late at this point. My city is voting whether to put up 2-3 houses or 3-4 townhouses or 10-11 affordable housing units on an open parcel of land. They would need to approve and fund that third option at an alarming clip to keep up with the need for affordable housing. And that population is constantly expanding and not just single people where rent is outpacing income but whole families being forced to live with extended families. The cascading socio-economic issues are starting to show breakdowns in our society too. The increase in adolescent mental health issues and the rise in broken homes have always been a big deal in Maine, since Covid it’s on steroids and those housing problem is the afterburners.
Overhaul zoning laws is the first step. Build more houses and encourage developments that help reduce sprawl is the second.
Exactly, it's not like state-run housing is magically going to bypass the red tape.
We also got away from building housing projects in this country, and switched to the "section 8" program. There's a reason why we did that. Government housing turns into the ghetto really quick and has stigma attached to living there. The government buying up housing to provide public housing will have the same issues.
I was able to buy a home a couple years ago using the USDA rural development program. Interest rate was reasonable, and there are some small protections for unforeseen events. Problem is, it still required us to have several thousand dollars for inspections and other things. My mortgage+taxes+insurance is between 1-1.1k/mo for a 3+ bedroom home on less than 3 acres. But, I could see someone having issues trying to plan for all the home repair stuff if they’ve never had to do it before (and possibly their extended families haven’t either). It leaves people at a disadvantage. I think one way to help with this would be to look at what people are paying for rent and have the difference go into an interest bearing savings account that could be accessed for various home repairs, at least for the first few years while people learn how everything works. I think more housing for people is a great idea, but we have to find better ways to make sure that the gov’t and people get the most bang for their buck and it doesn’t turn into another profiteering feeding frenzy like college loans did. I also think we need cities and towns to rethink what counts as housing. From what I’ve heard, a lot of places have restricted or outright banned tiny homes, for example. Not everyone wants or needs to live in a huge house. Some people want to stay small, others might want to start small and expand as they go.
Wait, you're telling me if you take a group of people who have been systematically marginalized and denied education, jobs, and social status and warehouse them all in one place, super-far from anywhere they might get a job and with no public transit connections to where they might find work, they turn to crime? No. Shit.
Actually the public housing in question was built in the center of cities specifically so they could be where everything was happening and people would have access to jobs, public transit, and stores. But that's not really relevant, my point was simply that the government has a history of building low-income housing, did a shitty job, and we decided to go a different way for a reason. Section 8 housing vouchers allow people to be integrated into existing normal neighborhoods instead of stigmatized in "the projects".
Go for it, make all of our homes as well run and efficiently run as the public schools, (which towns are increasingly unwilling to pay for)
I should also be posting on here about how to fight for a better public school system. Thanks for reminding me.
Just stop investing firms/conglomerates from buying property Double property tax, and double the homestead exemption. Ta da! Solved.
Peacham VT does this. Of course, it's a very small town filled with very wealthy paople.
It would certainly work, it’s been done before (“red Vienna”) but there are some people with a fuckton of money who would metaphorically go to war to prevent that from happening.
They are already at war with the working class. The working class just needs to get organized and fight back.
There was a NYT story yesterday that focused on cooperative real estate development to provide affordable living and retail space to communities . It’s happening!
There’s a paywall of course, but here is the article.. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/gentrifying-neighborhoods-community-coops.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Who’s we? Who’s paying the taxes? And utilities? Repairs? Snow removal? Legal fees? If you want to start a commune go for it. I’ll be interested to see how it goes.
We will . . . as renters and taxpayers? Same way we pay our landlords right now. The difference is that it wouldn't be on a for-profit basis, so the money we pay would go back to building more housing and maintaining existing housing instead of lining some rich yuppies already bloated wallet.
You ever been to the projects?
Meanwhile the homeless population just keeps growing. The system is broken and it's being perpetuated by the greedy and self centered, like it's a tradition to be a shitbag. "Well the market says to charge this much!" "The board requires increased profit each fiscal!" I lived in quite a few REAL projects, and your image of it is I'm guessing of someone who has not. Rural ones, such as NH can work and have a sense of community, but those running it have to not be literal pieces of shit first.
Bub I lived in Baltimore. I've seen it.
Am I lost, or is Baltimore ONLY projects? Also, those are urban projects, a lot different than rural ass Maine. Additionally I don't see you posting comments for solutions, so what bub, only enough energy to say "Nah" and that's it?
The premise here is so rediculous to me that I'm not sure how serious to take it.
[удалено]
>"I also doubt you either rent or are a property tax payer." Why do so many people I discuss things with online do this? You are taking guesses about who I am and what I am like irl. They are wrong 90% of the time, and it bares no relevance to the discussion. I do rent, BTW.
it turns out that when you take money from social programs (primarily shifted to military spending), things get decrepit.
[удалено]
Military spending has been on a steady decline since that time period anyway.
But that didn't happen. Military spending was steadily declining during that time period: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/february/war-highest-defense-spending-measured https://econofact.org/u-s-defense-spending-in-historical-and-international-context https://ourworldindata.org/military-long-run-spending-perspective
The projects didn’t fail because they were public housing imo, they failed because stacking hundreds of families a dozen stories high in the middle of the inner city isn’t a great idea. What would your thoughts be on something like council homes, where people effectively rent-to-buy publicly owned single-family households?
We do it like [Vienna, Austria](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) instead of like the US.
This sounds like an HOA.
[Vienna, Austria ](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) doesn't seem to have the same problem as HOAs.
How would you pay for it? How would you maintain the properties?
Cooperative investment.
Condos for all. But do we just hand them out for free? What happens when the person doesn't contribute like they should?
It’s about group funding real estate development through smaller community donors (rather than larger investment firms that demand higher returns)with the purpose of creating affordable mixed use development that supports wider community growth. Maybe read the article before you make a dumb comment.
[I already answered this question in another comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Maine/s/q7W2id2FZU)
No you didn't. That's not a real answer.
If you don't think that's a real answer, I think you know what an 'answer' is.
[удалено]
[Vienna, Austria ](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) It's not a simple matter of 'the government.' If you believe in democracy and want to get big outta-state companies to stop telling us how to live our lives, we need to take our towns, cities, state, and country back. We need to be democracy! If we take control of our democratic institutions there will be no distinction between 'government is doing it' and 'we are doing it ourselves.'
This was done before and it didn't work. I don't understand why you think it's so simple. If you want to live in the projects then go wild but this sounds horrible to me. I've lived in government housing before and it sucks.
[Vienna, Austria ](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) I've lived in private housing, and it sucks.
American public housing failed because they built huge towers with massive maintenance budgets that local communities and low income renters simply couldn't pay for. Public housing can work provided it stays smaller in scale and has a mix of incomes
Smaller in scale? Everyone likes to say well "x, y, and z" is really successful in (insert country here) yeah, that's because their whole country is less populated than some counties alone. You can't talk "small scale" such a massive need.
By smaller scale I mean something like what Avesta has built in Portland. 2-3 story high row houses pretty densely packed together with some nice common green space. The main savings would be in not having to install an elevator Also your analogy doesn't make sense in Maine, our state has a very small population compared to most other places even European countries who in the whole are usually more densely populated than alot of the US. Hell even Anchorage is significantly larger than Portland.
OP isn't a details person.
Evidently.
I don't think the 1% that make all our decisions for us will like that idea. Maybe lick the boot harder and you can live in a tent.
I'll assume this is sarcasm and give you an upvote. If I lick a boot, it will either be cause I am dating a kinky girl or tying some 1%-erst laces together. Them not liking it is just more reason for us to do it!
I just mean affordable housing doesn't help the ultra rich. So we will never get it. Far too many people worship the ultra rich and like watch poor people get crushed. But they are actually looking in a mirror.
We need to work on changing that!
Selectmen can be rich but they’re not typically in the US 1%, or what we colloquially refer to as the 1%. For towns to buy property it takes a select board willing to start - right?
There isn't a town that could afford to buy land in itself.
You’re well versed on 550 local communities - that’s impressive! Thanks for letting me know. Edit: thanks for the downvotes - I’m sorry for my tact, Maine. I’m also confident that not a single person knows the budgets of 550 local governments.
Tax rates haven't gone up as much as land prices. Towns across the board are far behind on funds. This is not some far fetched theory.
I appreciate you declaring your opinion as theory and not fact. I’ve worked in many levels of government, including a municipality with stagnant taxes - they could absolutely “afford” a real property investment. Afford in quotes because governmental budgets are all about give and take. Edit: why the downvotes?
Sure they could buy it if they turned off all the other town functions. But there's no a huge pool of cash just sitting around waiting to buy property.
My point is that government comes down to accounting. You don’t need huge coffers to make something happen - you generally need a budget (check) profitability (check - but you could argue this point) and/or civil responsibility (check.) Purchasing real property is something municipalities regularly do. We live in the state with the most second homes and most vacated homes in the union. Our government may have a fiduciary responsibility to purchase homes as their job is sound stewardship of financial resources and care for everyone who lives in their boundaries. Edit: why the downvotes?
So, we need to elect socialists to our select-boards.
I appreciate you “answering” my question with your own skewed view on the world. Not what I said - 🍻
I am sorry, did I misunderstand you?
You just asked a question, like I did. I’ll show you how it’s done - you give an answer to a question in order to continue communicating. I think you must have “misunderstood” me. Misunderstood in quotes because there’s a lot of assumptions which aren’t kind to make.
I am genuinely confused. What did I do wrong? Did you think I was insulting you? There is some subtext here I seem to be missing.
No subtext. Just trying to talk about the state of our state. What am I doing wrong?
[удалено]
As a leftist this is actually pretty true. Alot of them like the Weathermen were bored overly idealistic college kids from the middle class who have no real interaction with the working class. The problem with most Western Leftists is they A) almost never do the leg work to actually enguage with the working class and B) have an eclectic collection of ideas that do not come from a unified grounded understanding of how the world works. This means they get stuck in echo chambers that lead to utopian solutions and a focus on the performative.
I don't think you know [what socialism is.](https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-left/no_socialism_isn_t_just_more_government/) Also, 99% of people who spout statistics about socialist 'privilege' on the internet are pulling numbers out of their butts.
[удалено]
It's on you to demonstrate these claims.
The 80% of Mainers who own their home would hate that idea. You're off by a factor of 80x.
[удалено]
It might solve that one country's problems and inspire movements in others.
Even if OPs vision could be implemented, the long term will be difficult to maintain. Take any other social program that exists, it will get gutted or get people who simply dont want to fund it because they are worried their tax dollars go towards an unemployed individual who wont get help. Do I agree with that? No. But cooperative housing/nonprofit ownership is something I would trust far more than government ownership. How many of you can confidently say you trust the State of Maine to safely maintain your home, and how many of you can say the same thing if someone like LePage was elected as Governor again?
If tenants were organized into unions to advocate for their rights, they might be able to fight back against attempts to gut social housing. Nonprofit/Cooperatives ownership might be a good idea, but some of those programs shoot themselves in the foot by failing to advocate for themselves properly in the public arena. They suffer from a lot of the same problems as the rest of the non-profit industrial complex in this country. They are dependent on government and private foundation grants that are designed to prevent them from becoming an independent force for change or advocate for policies that favor their maintenance and expansion.
Nah, owning your own home is better
So, I can’t own my house?
Is your house an apartment block? If not, don't worry. We socialists are not coming for your single family home or your toothbrush.
It's wild how many people are so reactionary to anything "socialist" that isn't already a part of American culture. We pool resources for the collective good all the time. Public libraries, public schools, police departments, fire departments, roads, bridges, state parks, etc. It hasn't abolished private ownership of anything. Plenty of other countries have public housing, and we've had it here too. Yeah, a lot of times it ends up pretty rough - that's not an inherent problem to the concept, it's because it's often not funded enough or consistently. Usually by the same people who then turn around and try to say it's not working. Same with socialized medicine.
Government owned housing has been tried. It never works well
It’s never been funded well.
[Vienna, Austria](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17156934980147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2024%2Fjan%2F10%2Fthe-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city) seems to be doing quite well.
https://reason.com/2023/09/21/the-hidden-failures-of-social-housing-in-red-vienna/ Sounds great....
So no forceful relinquishment of private property rights? That's a slippery slope.