0 Followers
0 Following
6 Posts
use of crampons inside is strictly forbidden
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup
The question is not if, but who and how.
This is a government literally putting their money in private companies instead of using it themselves (for idk schools or infrastructure for their people instead of giving it to nvidia and tesla). It's the most literal illustration of "private" beats "public" investment. Not sure what point you tried to make.

Hello https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/abstract.asp?index=1...

UK public housing is widely known for being shit. Unsafe, puts all the poor people together in a block. There's bunch of crime, and your kids will be likely to stay stuck there or go to jail due to bad influences.

Social housing should be sprinkled around it has been found. So nice example of what I was saying.

Gangs of London and public housing

Novel spatial data on London street gangs between 1990 and 2015 are combined with local housing characteristics to produce a newly constructed data source that shows how social housing and its architectural design relates to gang presence and neighbourhood crime. High-rise public housing estates built in the post-World War II era are much more likely to host gangs than areas without social housing. To address concerns that social housing was built in already high-crime areas, localised high-rise construction is shown to be predicted from spatial patterns of WWII bomb damage that occurred in the 1940-41 Blitz. Bomb-induced high-rise construction significantly raises gang presence and criminality, with there being especially high juvenile crime rates in gang areas.

CEP

Yes and that reason is not because they are better at doing it profitably it's because they are commons that are wildly unprofitable to do well. If you let private industry build roads you'd have nice roads in cities and dirt in the rest of the country.

In this case what people want is the reverse. They want the government to build in Austin.

The government should be involved when market forces won't solve an issue, ie no market will make it profitable to send an ambulance to a town 3h away in the mountains. You don't need affordable housing in the center of Austin just because it's trendy though.

Do you have example of another area the government has higher profit margins than private industry? I can't. And if I was going to think a government would build housing, it would be in places that are cheap and I could mass house a bunch of people, not in hip expensive cities which is what people want when they talk about this.

But surely soviet style huge blocks of tiny t0 apartments all stuck together is a dream...

You think the government knows better how to identify land that is profitable than private builders? Why? Or is this one of those opinions based on "is OK for the state to pay for it because there's infinite money for my pet project"?