Should all government subsidies to suburban housing be banned?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

[dead0man]

Excuse my ignorance, but what are we talking about here?  I was under the impression the rush to the suburbs was market driven, how and why are govts funding them?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Government gives subsidies to housing everywhere.

[opebo]

Excuse my ignorance, but what are we talking about here?  I was under the impression the rush to the suburbs was market driven, how and why are govts funding them?

Oh good lord man, don't you know anything about how society functions?  'The market' is a fiction!  And anyway, the suburbs were blatantly and obviously subsidized by government loans (FHA, etc.), infrastructure, etc.

[dead0man]

Government gives subsidies to housing everywhere.

What like, First Time Buyers and VA Loans and what not?  And if it's "everywhere" how does it benefit the suburbs more?

[Person Man]

Government gives subsidies to housing everywhere.

What like, First Time Buyers and VA Loans and what not?  And if it's "everywhere" how does it benefit the suburbs more?

This is a pretty stupid topic. The market is a myth. The government is usually economically inefficient. Let's get over those inconvienent truths.

However, the suburbs were started by government intervention (war, corporate welfare, severance benefits of public employess) and private innovation (personal internal combustion engine vehicles and fast-built homes) and are generally further grown by private choice in the community. So the question about whether they are a creature of state or choice is really kinda dumb. However, they exist and people live in them and it would be wrong to relocate families on welfare no matter how desirable that would be. Our communities exist, for whatever reason, and should not be regulated in an unequal manner. 

[David S]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

Government subsidies for all housing should be ended.

[Person Man]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

Government subsidies for all housing should be ended.

That would be reasonable if we knew how to cope with the consequences and since we don't, that statement is like "every soldier should leave Iraq tommorow" or "all abortions should be stopped".

[opebo]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

Government subsidies for all housing should be ended.

Really?  The government's primary role is to protect the privilege and position of command of the owners, David, thus subsidizing their exclusive mansions far more than the ticky-takcy residences of the working class.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Excuse my ignorance, but what are we talking about here?  I was under the impression the rush to the suburbs was market driven, how and why are govts funding them?

The suburbs as we know them today are the result of a mixed bag of things, good and bad.

Bad:

1) Major subsidies that favored car and air traffic, road (interstates) and airport development and policies that actively discouraged train travel/mass transit (high taxes that weren't removed after the war, heavy regulations preventing new technologies from taking hold which strangled the railway companies)

2) A huge reliance on cheap oil.  We did this to our own folly.  We were blinded by prosperity while guzzling oil and becoming every more oil dependent for every day products.  When that oil supply stagnated, our country fell into its biggest economic slowdown since the depression (in the '70s).

Good policies that resulted indirectly in bad things:

1)  The redistribution policies that placed a very high income tax rate on the richest Americans that basically eroded their wealth to very low levels compared to pre-depression times.  This resulted in a surging middle class as a higher proportion of wealth earned was spent on and by those in the middle.

2)  GI loans and other policies that benefited veterans, which kick started other parts of the economy.

The suburbs were a result of this:  A massive middle class surge to the places that most people want to live (in the country, but close to services) via affordable transportation and affordable housing.


If the free market reigned supreme, you would not have seen the surge in the middle class to sizes that are unmanageable in a free market without government intervention.  As a result, the suburbs would be much smaller and smaller housing/apartments closer to the inner city which is where the jobs were (factories were still often located in the center of the city) serviced by public transit, which was more viable since cities were denser and cars would hopelessly clog the fewer, narrower streets that weren't expanded by a government flush with money from high taxes on those rolling in the dough.

We got some of the ingredients right after WWII, but we forgot some much to our "demise" today as oil becomes unsustainable as the ultimate backbone of our way of life.

[David S]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

Government subsidies for all housing should be ended.

Really?  The government's primary role is to protect the privilege and position of command of the owners, David, thus subsidizing their exclusive mansions far more than the ticky-takcy residences of the working class.

What specifically does government do to subsidize mansions, other than perhaps the mayor's mansion or the White House?

Public housing for the poor is funded by the government, but I don't think government paid for Bill Gates' house.

[Willy Woz]

I'm against government subsidies for any housing other than projects.

[Reaganfan]

I looked up subsidies and I have to say that I am against it for suburban people. We usually have more than enough money to pay for our things even housing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

It scares me that I agree with this idiot.

[memphis]

Absolutely. The public money we spend on new infrastructure is out of control. Road, schools, sewers, etc don't come cheap. Some growth is inevitable due to population increases, but modern sprawl is ridiculous.

[Bono]

The market is a myth.

Do you also get this hidden truth from your sociology education? ROTFL

[opebo]

Yes. Ban it all, period, no exceptions. Government should not fund development in suburbs under any circumstances whatsoever.

Hey, this is one anti-suburban position I have the Libertarians will actually agree with for once!

Government subsidies for all housing should be ended.

Really?  The government's primary role is to protect the privilege and position of command of the owners, David, thus subsidizing their exclusive mansions far more than the ticky-takcy residences of the working class.

What specifically does government do to subsidize mansions, other than perhaps the mayor's mansion or the White House?

Public housing for the poor is funded by the government, but I don't think government paid for Bill Gates' house.

Of course it did, David S - it created and protects 'private property', which is a sort of ticket to utilize the power of the State.  Quite literally Gates' 'wealth' is in fact political power.  For example, Bill Gates can order thousands of people to do his bidding, and he recieves the 'income' or benefit from their actions.  If these people fail to provide him benenfits he can 'fire' them, which means to exclude them from access to money/property, and to relegate them to desperation and in extreme cases starvation.  If they attempt to interfere with Gate's relative privilege, they will be jailed or killed.

The best way for you to learn about how your society actually works, David, is to jettison the falst dichotomy between 'public' and 'private.