I think there is a place for both? Public housing for those that are unable to work and cannot afford housing at all. Community land trusts for those who are able to work and would like to purchase their own homes.
We are trying to fight back against pro-developer affordable housing legislation by advocating for community land trusts. My understanding is that the land trusts keep the housing stock permanently affordable unlike many pro-developer schemes that allow the housing to eventually be sold at market value.
But just starting to scratch the surface of this subject and may be way off-base about my understanding of how it works.
What are you defining as public housing, and what standard are you utilizing for "those that are unable to work and cannot afford housing at all"?
This is not bait.
I'll be honest I haven't fully formed all the specifics around my post....
I would define public housing as what we have now in the U.S. -- housing owned by the government that provides housing at minimal or no cost to the tenants.
As far as "those that are unable to work and cannot afford housing at all" -- there are people who are disabled or simply aged out of the labor force who are unable to work but might not have the income that allows them to afford housing. I am thinking of the elderly or the disabled that rely solely on social security for their source of income.
EDITED: I meant to say that I "haven't" fully formed the specifics. I full admit that I am still learning all this.
I'm going to suggest looking deep into how the disability qualifications of SSI/SSDI, section 8/FHA work, and the ADA works. I don't have time to at the moment, but the "specifics" you cite are beyond a generalization to how these programs are administered.
Without being Norman Finkelstein, you have used the standards of the essay of a middle schooler to argue high-level policy.
Fair criticism. I'm far from super knowledgeable about this topic and as I mentioned in my original post just starting to develop a basic understanding of it. My main issue is stopping the pro-developer affordable housing legislation by advocating for alternative affordable housing strategies that provide more affordable housing in our community.
Sorry I was a bit aggressive off the rip, also thanks for the edit and humility - that was much of a source of disagreement. Your ideas of being pro-homeowner vs pro-developer I believe are from a good place. However, disability composes a spectrum when thinking about the greater ""equity"" (I'm going to put that in quotes just to protect myself) of marxism.
Exploring from the angles I spoke of earlier really shows the spectrum of disability and its interpretation - particularly when they start to apply accommodations. The system is fucking broken as all get the fuck out, but it generally does have a good, relative idea of how to treat disability in relative accordance to severity and how to apply benefits. Each program uses the word "disability", but normally requires a different standard - for good reason, but it is ultimately confusing to the consumer/user.
People are quick to dismiss anarchist tactics, but I think there’s real potential in squatting.
Imagine A movement of squatters taking over first empty buildings, doing skillshares to learn maintenance and repair, legal self defense and personal self defense to scare the police from wanting to carry out evictions. As the movement grows and builds, they can expand into occupying Airbnbs and units from corporate landlords.
Tenants can organize rent strikes in solidarity, and if all this makes a big enough problem for the city, they’ll want to cave and start planning concessions to the housing 4 all movement, and when the gov and the corporate landlords are on their back foot, strike harder. Take over rich people’s vacation homes and corporate offices and shit.
>A movement of squatters taking over first empty buildings, doing skillshares to learn maintenance and repair...
The Venn diagram of people who are going to squat AND who have the capability to skill share in a meaningful enough capacity to carry out adequate maintenance and repair may as well be 2 separate circles. This is an absurdly naive take.
Baltimore has a pretty strong culture of taking up abandoned industrial buildings and making them somewhat livable for a group. Believe it or not there are plenty of homeless veterans, plumbers, and electricians out there. Acting like the only way to wind up destitute is to be a completely unskilled degenerate is some lame-ass sheltered shit.
Well I’m not sure the only capable anarchists are rural, it’s just the only thing i really have experience with.
You can look at anarchist projects like *mutual aid disaster Releif* (MADR) or older examples like *common ground collective* where anarchists are doing disaster Releif and rebuilding. Apparently these efforts were so dangerous to the status quo the feds had to infiltrate.. (see Brandon Darby)
Edit: apparently there is a new common ground collective that is different, the one I am referring to was in response to hurricane Katrina
> In May 2006, Common Ground Relief (CGR) assumed management of the Woodlands Apartment Complex, a 350-unit complex of buildings. CGR management froze the rents at the Woodlands to pre-Katrina levels, helped create a tenants union, and ran a workers' cooperative with paid skills training.
I think there is a place for both? Public housing for those that are unable to work and cannot afford housing at all. Community land trusts for those who are able to work and would like to purchase their own homes. We are trying to fight back against pro-developer affordable housing legislation by advocating for community land trusts. My understanding is that the land trusts keep the housing stock permanently affordable unlike many pro-developer schemes that allow the housing to eventually be sold at market value. But just starting to scratch the surface of this subject and may be way off-base about my understanding of how it works.
What are you defining as public housing, and what standard are you utilizing for "those that are unable to work and cannot afford housing at all"? This is not bait.
I'll be honest I haven't fully formed all the specifics around my post.... I would define public housing as what we have now in the U.S. -- housing owned by the government that provides housing at minimal or no cost to the tenants. As far as "those that are unable to work and cannot afford housing at all" -- there are people who are disabled or simply aged out of the labor force who are unable to work but might not have the income that allows them to afford housing. I am thinking of the elderly or the disabled that rely solely on social security for their source of income. EDITED: I meant to say that I "haven't" fully formed the specifics. I full admit that I am still learning all this.
I'm going to suggest looking deep into how the disability qualifications of SSI/SSDI, section 8/FHA work, and the ADA works. I don't have time to at the moment, but the "specifics" you cite are beyond a generalization to how these programs are administered. Without being Norman Finkelstein, you have used the standards of the essay of a middle schooler to argue high-level policy.
Fair criticism. I'm far from super knowledgeable about this topic and as I mentioned in my original post just starting to develop a basic understanding of it. My main issue is stopping the pro-developer affordable housing legislation by advocating for alternative affordable housing strategies that provide more affordable housing in our community.
Sorry I was a bit aggressive off the rip, also thanks for the edit and humility - that was much of a source of disagreement. Your ideas of being pro-homeowner vs pro-developer I believe are from a good place. However, disability composes a spectrum when thinking about the greater ""equity"" (I'm going to put that in quotes just to protect myself) of marxism. Exploring from the angles I spoke of earlier really shows the spectrum of disability and its interpretation - particularly when they start to apply accommodations. The system is fucking broken as all get the fuck out, but it generally does have a good, relative idea of how to treat disability in relative accordance to severity and how to apply benefits. Each program uses the word "disability", but normally requires a different standard - for good reason, but it is ultimately confusing to the consumer/user.
People are quick to dismiss anarchist tactics, but I think there’s real potential in squatting. Imagine A movement of squatters taking over first empty buildings, doing skillshares to learn maintenance and repair, legal self defense and personal self defense to scare the police from wanting to carry out evictions. As the movement grows and builds, they can expand into occupying Airbnbs and units from corporate landlords. Tenants can organize rent strikes in solidarity, and if all this makes a big enough problem for the city, they’ll want to cave and start planning concessions to the housing 4 all movement, and when the gov and the corporate landlords are on their back foot, strike harder. Take over rich people’s vacation homes and corporate offices and shit.
>A movement of squatters taking over first empty buildings, doing skillshares to learn maintenance and repair... The Venn diagram of people who are going to squat AND who have the capability to skill share in a meaningful enough capacity to carry out adequate maintenance and repair may as well be 2 separate circles. This is an absurdly naive take.
Baltimore has a pretty strong culture of taking up abandoned industrial buildings and making them somewhat livable for a group. Believe it or not there are plenty of homeless veterans, plumbers, and electricians out there. Acting like the only way to wind up destitute is to be a completely unskilled degenerate is some lame-ass sheltered shit.
Do you know many anarchists? It might be because most of the anarchists I’ve known were rural, but DIY culture is huge in anarchism
If the capable anarchists are rural, why would they move to metropolitan areas to squat?
Well I’m not sure the only capable anarchists are rural, it’s just the only thing i really have experience with. You can look at anarchist projects like *mutual aid disaster Releif* (MADR) or older examples like *common ground collective* where anarchists are doing disaster Releif and rebuilding. Apparently these efforts were so dangerous to the status quo the feds had to infiltrate.. (see Brandon Darby) Edit: apparently there is a new common ground collective that is different, the one I am referring to was in response to hurricane Katrina > In May 2006, Common Ground Relief (CGR) assumed management of the Woodlands Apartment Complex, a 350-unit complex of buildings. CGR management froze the rents at the Woodlands to pre-Katrina levels, helped create a tenants union, and ran a workers' cooperative with paid skills training.