I was watching the news and they reported that nationally, the median asking price for a home in the states was $353,000.

Ouch - Maybe even a double since I am in real low cost area.

With the housing market on fire and the cost of building materials spiking, this is not a good situation if you are thinking about housing affordability. When I say affordability there are two parts to it......affordable rentals and affordable homes for sale. Both parts are important in keeping the market from derailing.

SO here is an honest question: How would you make housing

more affordable ? I know there is a lot of hey look at what these folks are proposing and its wrong, what do you think is the best way to tackle the housing issue?

I think this particular housing issue has several parts to it. Mostly self inflicted and I think has more to do than just affordable housing.. #1. People are home, either scared, forced or don't want to deal with the lunatics. So they are fixing up their homes causing material shortages. PLUS, manufacturers are shut down adding to the shortages. #2. People are leaving the cities. Self explanatory, adds to housing demand especially in rural areas. Rental prices are rising as a way for landlords to protect themselves from the new hordes of moratorium bottom feeders that have been created from all this nonsense.

If I was king for a day:

I'd institute a plan to reduce federal government by 50% over a 10 year period including many welfare programs.

I'd institute plan to simplify tax code by 50% over a 10 year period, closing a ton of loopholes, deductions, lowering the corporate tax...eliminating home interest deduction...I'd jack the standard deduction to about $40,000. I wouldn't use the tax code to incentivize having more kids and the rest of us pay for the. In general, the more complicated a tax code, the more it is prone to being manipulated. I'd simplify it.

I honestly believe if you back government out slowly...the market would take care of much of the problems.

The only real way to make housing affordable is, of course, to build more housing. There is token provision for that in the President's infrastructure bill, and if he can, he will try to add vast amounts in the future.

As you know, populism has the power in American politics, and the populism is on the side of less powerful people in 2021. Donald Trump identified a need that was not fulfilled in the political spectrum in the United States, which is anti-free trade and socially conservative. This part was completely underserved, actually underserved is an understatement, was not served at all because the Democrats are too socially liberal and the Republicans can't get their act together to put forth a candidate that will actually serve their interests and still be electable.

In my little suburb in CA, the populist City Council wants to do away with single-family-housing zoning (the city has long been known for its single-family character) in order to allow homes to be demolished in favor of apartments, and young people, ignorant in the ways of politics, will vote for it to show their power to the gentrifiers who want to promote cheap housing for the poor, never mind what it does to their own back yard.

Unless the Republicans can re-cage the monsters that they and Trump released, and get themselves together to offer candidates who can take realistic positions and thus, actually be electable, we are in for huge housing expenses which will make a great change in American neighborhoods.

Back at the bottom of the Real Estate Market, 1997, I had too much liquid assets and wanted to do affordable housing. So I concentrated on run down apartment buildings that were foreclosed on by their lender and became the banks inventory, up for sale.

I found a bunch of stuff right up my alley. I am a licensed contractor, builder, owner, property manager and investor.

The first thing I did is have a discussion with all City Departments. I needed between 3 to 6 months to work on a vacant unit, transfer a tenant from the worst unit to the upgraded unit and then start the process over, while working on the exterior of he property.

The City and County Departments agreed to give me time!

Once I closed escrow, those same departments hit me with 2 years worth of violations. A BANK that foreclosed was not subject to making any repairs -- they could be slum lords and get away with it.

So after doing around 60 units the pressure became too great. No one wanted to cooperate. I could by a property for around $30,000 per unit and then fix it up for an additional $10,000. Costing $40,000 per unit. Other similar properties were going for $60,000 to $85,000 and had to charge double rents.

There is no solution.

The reason is that the people who make less money STILL want nice homes in nice places. They are too late, by scores of years.

Material and labor prices and taxes and govt interference and demands and the govt imposing so many rules and regulations on things have rendered the situation unsolveable.

People want larger and larger places in nice areas. ALL the nice places were taken long ago. Those who are not wealthy were displaced. They do not like that. They outnumber those who worked hard and built their places and now they elect people who agree with them. Problem is, just because they demand it does not make it appear. Even if the land was given to them FREE, places could not be built for a price they could afford.

They WILL NOT work together as a group to lower prices. Instead they whine, shout and demand someone else provide for them where they want to live, no matter what it costs others.

But many of them HAVE solved the problem. Just look at the streets of San Francisco, LA, Portland and Seattle. Look at the sea of tents and the slums and the human trash and excrement on the sidewalks in these cities. Look at the slums of Brazil, of Bombay, the "refugee camps" of most 3rd world countries where they live dense packed in places made of sticks and cardboard or maybe tents.

There is the future of affordable housing.

The grifters are taking over and the govt cannot take enough from the people who produce things and cannot print enough money to pay for workers to build housing for these people because of inflation.

The nation LACKS the will and the fortitude to do what is necessary. We are becoming like the other third world places. Do you REALLY think these tent cities will go away? At best, I think we will barely be able to contain them, just like other third world countries. This will be our "affordable housing", complete with free everything. Why do you think the govt is allowing millions more to pour across our borders? Where do you think these people will live? Along with the millions already here who do not want to do anything but expect others to provide whatever they want.

The biggest part of the problem is social. People think they should be able to live anywhere they want and they believe it is a Federal Government responsibility to assure they can. In fact, people are beginning to believe the Federal Government owns all problems, not just housing. When the proposal for a Federal Income Tax was proposed, the original bill limited it to a max of 6%. It was removed because such a high rate scared away votes. If we allow every problem to be owned by the Federal Government we just as well call it communism where you get an allotment to live not a paycheck.

The solution is simple.

If you want to live in a high cost area then you need to figure out how to do it on your own without subsidy, there are plenty of cheap places to live in this country so it's not a nation wide problem.

If you are running one of those high cost places then you need to look at what's driving the cost up. I would suggest you look at your own city regulations, fees, restrictions, and souped up building codes. All of which add to the cost.

No where in the solution should the Federal Government be involved. It is a local issue best addressed by each local government.

I vote for Ned for King and MikeA for Vice King.

And the current easy solution would be to actually make it illegal again to steal your way into this country. Once we have a government that actually enforces illegal entry and sends those folks back, that clears up housing for 20 to 30+ million actual Americans, relieving the housing crunch and increasing supply. Of course, that is not politically correct.

Then force everyone who refuses to work or cannot work to do something for the money/food they receive or be cut off from receiving that assistance. And mandate drug testing monthly before any assistance is paid.

Less lumber, more cinder blocks or poured concrete.

My city has a minimum size to build and number of parking spaces per bedroom. Can’t build small motel sized apts for the poor.

I was at a state RE Convention today and learned a new phrase- Workforce Housing - much better description of reasonably priced housing for people with jobs.

The term AFFORDABLE goes straight to Sec8 mentality.

A difficult question as there are many parts to the issue. Real Estate was hot before Covid but its onset, the disruption and distortions caused by it, the feds money printing, housing demand and etc, have combined to create the current conditions. Perhaps repurposing empty retail and office space would help alleviate housing shortages. There are many malls and office spaces lying fallow, but the challenge there is zoning and whether there's enough that can be repurposed to make a meaningful dent in housing supply.

I think migration to lower cost areas is already underway but that's mostly for remote workers. Many others are constrained due to job availability, family support systems and etc. that leave them less mobile. Company towns could make a comeback in response to the situation. I could see a place like Amazon doing something like that as a housing shortage tends to be disruptive to their workforce.

I don't often agree with Moshe, but I do on this one.

Brad, Workforce Housing has been a term here for a long time as you can imagine. We don't have it, but we need it.

I'd start with more ADU availability. Many areas, mine included, make ADUs difficult to impossible. So you have houses on 1 acre lots occupied by an average of 4 people.

To make housing affordable, people must go where housing is already cheap. This will lessen the demand to live in prime, high priced locations , thus pulling down the price there as well.

There is a ton of inexpensive housing located throughout the Mid-West. Whenever I forget about how fruitless it is to waste time in online chats of this sort, I get drawn into debate with people who refuse to move because "my family/home is here and I just CAN'T leave them."

Um, yes you can. Every single settler who came to America left behind family, friends, churches, institutions, ways of life, and even their native language to seek better opportunity. As a society, we're weaker today and insist on our "right" to housing right where we are. There is not right to cheap housing where a person currently is. There is simply the housing that is there, and if you can afford to build more then you get to build more. If you can't, you get to take what you can get, or move elsewhere if you can't get anything. That's how free markets work.

Not everyone can afford to live on Malibu beach. I'm one of those people. So I practice what I preach and live where I can afford, comfortably, happily, and contentedly.

Sid, I think today's issues for SOME are somewhere in-between "I refuse to move!" and "I can't move." There are simply more JOBS in the more expensive areas of the country and/or different types of jobs. You have to move where the JOBS are as well as housing.

And while it's easy to say "Just Move!" (which is personally what I always did, having moved some 17 times up and down the East Coast between leaving home and turning 30, and DH having moved around the world as well) for some it really is difficult.

For instance, we could not leave the DC area when we really wanted to: aging FIL needed us. He was already a 3-hour drive away, we couldn't add another 5 hours to that trip.

So while I agree MOVING is what built America, and it turns out people are just NOT moving as much these days, for some it's harder. Although - to contradict myself - since Covid people are starting to move again! In droves.

A 3/2 home is outdated and we keep building them?? And...they keep selling!

Three is plenty of affordable housing in this country. Just not In NYC, Seattle, Los Angeles, and other highly desirable location.

Too much low-level thinking.

The affordable housing problem CAN and Will be solved, or at least ameliorated. But it will cost. Because the political cost is too great. One of the legitimate functions of government is to see that the people have housing, adequate and affordable. In todays environment of infrastructure renewal, housing really belongs at the top of the list.

Watch & see. There will be government support for housing building projects, smaller but with better facilities. Better managed cities will include planning for traffic patterns, rapid transit, walking and cycling and neighborhood shopping and recreation centers. Who will pay? We all will. Along with provisions to administratively support rent controls to prevent rents from being subjected to market forces, Fair Housing enforcement to achieve the right to choose the housing that’s best for one's needs without restriction, and enforcement of housing maintenance.

The reason why I am asking this question is some candidates for have been pushing this and they are willing to meet with a group of about 20 of us investors.

I would like to pick each of your minds so that the exchange is productive.

The best way to make housing affordable is to lower expectations. Most of the housing in my town is 3000+ sq ft colonials with living room, family room, dining room, dinette, and master baths that are bigger than some of my rental bedrooms.

My 1950s-era rentals are a good model. Small eat-in kitchens, 3 small bedrooms, 1 bathroom. Maybe add a half-bath in the basement because sometimes it's nice to have that extra toilet! No garage, small lot. Eliminate the unnecessary regulation that adds costs.

That's for people who work for a living. Can't work or don't want to? Apartments, small ones. And I'm sorry if you're disabled or elderly, but life is not fair and I don't know a single person on the planet who has the discernment to make it that way. Even with an unlimited budget.

" Since when is it the job of the government to see that people have affordable housing? "

What do you THINK that the job of the government is?

The constitution says, to promote the general welfare. People need to be fed, housed, medically cared for, educated and employed. Thats what governments do.

If citizens don't have enough to eat, isn't that a government problem to try to solve? If they can't afford housing? If there are no jobs, hospital beds, or schools?

...Workforce Housing -...

I didn't google to see if this was some new type 'thing' . What jumps into my mind with this phrase is one of two things.

1. small cinder block units attached perhaps 6-10 in a row for migrant workers. They are VERY basic and fill a need.

2. back in the late 1800s, the cities in my region were very industrial. There were tiny row houses built on the streets and in the alleys that served the needs for the factory workers. I'd guess many of these <600 foot homes housed 6+ family members. A lot of them are still standing today with 'additions' making them now 1200 square feet on two or three floors.

"Small eat-in kitchens, 3 small bedrooms, 1 bathroom. Maybe add a half-bath in the basement because sometimes it's nice to have that extra toilet! No garage, small lot."

In my area I think the taxes is a biggest problem to have an affordable housing. Give me a tax break for the building and I will be able to give cheaper rent. We have no owner occupied taxes pricier than owner occupied.

The other expense is utilities. Someone’s “brilliant” idea was to have a gradual scale for water price. You know, to motivate not to waste water. The more you use the pricier every gallon. So it’s cheaper to have 5 single family houses than one five family. Because it will be only one meter and the tenants will pay premium price.

Moshe, did you ever see the "Projects" of the 70's in Boston, in New York? Government housing at its finest.

Quickly crumbling concrete towers of crime and despair. For a bit of whimsey, one center near me had brightly colored doors for each unit - you could see them from the highway. While the rest of the complex was full of trash, gangs and drug dealers. In NYC, police wouldn't enter certain neighborhoods of projects. It would be worse today.

GKARL is right in his last post.

I have heard my aunts and uncles talk about 12 kids and the parents living in a small 500sqft home when they were kids and Immigrants do it now.

What gets me though is, why do people keep having kids knowing they can't afford them or afford housing there selves and yet they keep having them. How would you solve that problem? Wouldn't that help fix the affordable housing situation?

Most people in this country are spoiled and think they need to live in a mansion and have several vehicles and several kids.

How do you stop people from having several kids and living above there means?

If people would stop paying these ridiculous prices for things and learn to live without them then the price would come down. That applies to housing as well.

As time goes by each generation gets bigger and greedier and thinks that there 50 kids deserve to have better and more people loose sight of what needs are vs. wants.

Maybe if we want to solve affordable housing problems then we need to fix our way of thinking.

Just a thought.

never happen to government works with landlords ,not against,combination of what everbody said.tax breaks to landlord,taxbreaks to live in certain area,factory planted builds,and a change in tenants minds to want to change in what they consider home.alot us landlords will be happy to live in 3br,2bth,home without frills.they still want big backyards,3 car garages,furnished basements,etc.it is like the stimulas money.was intended for food and housing,but most of what i seen,it went to amazon for bigger tvs and other stuff.

never happen to government works with landlords ,not against,combination of what everbody said.tax breaks to landlord,taxbreaks to live in certain area,factory planted builds,and a change in tenants minds to want to change in what they consider home.alot us landlords will be happy to live in 3br,2bth,home without frills.they still want big backyards,3 car garages,furnished basements,etc.it is like the stimulas money.was intended for food and housing,but most of what i seen,it went to amazon for bigger tvs and other stuff.

WMH, et.al. ,

Yes, government often doesn't solve problems very well, but they are tasked with the responsibility and have the money.

Watch what is happening. The focus on renewing the American infrastructure is going to include affordable housing. The cost will be huge and government policy won't necessarily be the best policy, but it is going to happen. Watch and see.

In the depression of the 1930s, the government used its mandate of the general welfare and instituted soup kitchens, recognition of monetary policy as the prime driver of jobs, and Social Security, unemployment insurance and the National Reconstruction Act. The end of the war brought huge changes in housing policy, which actually WERE effective, and brought about the enormous change in how Americans are housed (and at enormous cost).

We are now facing another major upheaval in the national infrastructure renewal effort. Enormous amounts of money will be spent, and it will include affordable housing and another great change in how Americans live.

In 1982 I needed a place to live because my roomie was moving. I rented from a landlord who knew my parents. No app, no written lease, no credit check, $150 per month.

Of course the infrastructure plan will happen. Because of, well, pork. You know as well as I do that they aren't going to solve a dam thing that would make their base more self reliant. Never happen, never will.

They destroy everything they touch, but at least it's done with a smile.

So the infrastructure plan is merely pork?

There is no problem of crumbling infrastructure, including the fact that a housing shortage has made housing (not to mention home ownership) out of reach for too many Americans?

What do you suppose a government policy which would raise vacancy rates would do for race relations, unemployment and ultimately for an economic growth boom on the level of the post-WWII boom. How many changes in American life resulted from that boom?

NE,

How about the COVID-19 stimulus payments?

Huge cost, but genuine contribution (not yet complete) to a very serious problem: cash-in-pocket for a large number of people genuinely desperate for cash, stimulus for an economy badly in need, early boosting recovery from recession, reducing possibility of possible revolution.

You say that " I think you are operating under the assumption that government policy still sovles [sic] problems. It's not like that anymore. " NONSENSE. That still CAN be true. In fact, many problems are now SO LARGE that ONLY government can solve them.

I just want to pushback on this idea that if folks want affordable housing they should move the the middle of the country.

All areas need affordable housing because...to put it bluntly who is going to work at 7-11 or all the other necessary put low paying jobs. Lots of necessary places need low paid worker....7-ll needs workers, retail stores need workers, folks who pick up the trash, etc...low paying jobs. No one is going to commute hours to a minimum wage job (or close to it). They need affordable housing close to their jobs.

Value your life more than settling for a career at 7-11. You reap what you sow. I have efficiency units that 7-11 people can afford.

Really, Ken?

1. There are no problems so large that only govt can solve them.

2. Stimulas payments were totally rediculous,if they didnt shut anything down there would have been limited problems,let people make up there own mind whether to go to work or stay home.

What if your employer shuts down? Or if everyone got sick and/or died?

3. The infrastructure plan is only 5% infrastructure,the rest has made up names like human infrastructure just to make the left think it is actually helpful.

4. As Reagan said the most dangerous words are I am from the govt and i am here to help and it holds true today. But it doesn't hold true today (Monday, April 19, 2021).

The government paid for vaccine research, managed safety review, organized distribution and application. No one else DID it.

We are standing before the possibility of a growth boom comparable to that of the post WWII era, which has the potential to drastic change American life, and for the better. I wasn't happy to see a Democratic victory last November, because it will cost me money from additional taxes. But the stimulus package and SOLID investment in infrastructure can put us in place for a HUGE economic boom, with participation of more Americans than ever before. Too bad you're not aware of it.

Ronald Reagan wasn't wrong, at least in his time. But today's problems are drastically different. I wonder how he would have approached them.

NE...that is not the point. Having a local 7-11 adds value to everyone in the neighborhood. To have a 7-11, someone needs to work in the 7-11. The person working in the 7-11 is not going to commute a long distances to a 7-11 job. Therefore "affordable" local housing is necessary for the 7-11 job folks.

We need to properly define the affordable hous No issue before we go and try to solve the housing issue. The affordable housing issue being discussed by Ray IS NOT a lack of housing. It's an envy and greed issue. It's an "I want what I want" problem. I could very easily come to Moshe's or Laura's area and build a 20-30 unit building with 400 sq ft efficiencies and 600 sq ft mini 2 bedrooms and make it affordable housing. But I probably can't. Government restriction would probably prevent it. Those minimum wage people most likely won't want the units because the arent HGTV or Kardashian enough. Then to top it off, will they pass screening?

So who's solving the "affordable housing" issue? No one. It's mostly political. They're living somewhere now, let them keep living there.

I doubt the majority of the tent city dwellers are hard working honest people who get up everyday and try to better their lives. This is without factoring in drugs and crime!!!

We need to properly define the affordable hous No issue before we go and try to solve the housing issue. The affordable housing issue being discussed by Ray IS NOT a lack of housing. It's an envy and greed issue. It's an "I want what I want" problem. I could very easily come to Moshe's or Laura's area and build a 20-30 unit building with 400 sq ft efficiencies and 600 sq ft mini 2 bedrooms and make it affordable housing. But I probably can't. Government restriction would probably prevent it. Those minimum wage people most likely won't want the units because the arent HGTV or Kardashian enough. Then to top it off, will they pass screening?

So who's solving the "affordable housing" issue? No one. It's mostly political. They're living somewhere now, let them keep living there.

I doubt the majority of the tent city dwellers are hard working honest people who get up everyday and try to better their lives. This is without factoring in drugs and crime!!!

The "Affordable Housing problem" is nothing more than an excuse to squeeze the working taxpayer even more while giving a free ride to anyone who won't work.

Random thought of things that have changed in my working lifetime:

*) The Licensing of everything: I drove a fork-lift in a warehouse back in the day. No licensing required, no training except by the company. Turns out I had aptitude for it and did a good job. First woman to do it, they were happy to be able to say that. I guess it was early-80's.

*) Computers. Computers were new. No one had a degree in computer science. I got my first job using a computer by lying about knowing how to use a computer - the boss had no idea about them either. Turns out I had an aptitude for it and did a good job.

*) Software. Learn it on your own. Turns out I had aptitude for it and was able to get a really good job selling software back when you could make real money selling software.

*) Landlording: no training, no license required (at least where we live) but we go for training anyway, because I think licensing of Housing Providers, like an RE broker's license, is coming.

I am not WMH, but I can answer.

It will raise the cost of doing business.

I was forced to open a permit to put a Sheetrock over an existing plaster walls. My municipality requested me to provide a stamped architectural drawings for this job. After they will need to come, check it and give me a new certificate of occupancy. It is taking time and money and this apartment will not getting more affordable after all this dancing.

WMH,

Is your Dentist licensed? I grew up where it wasn't required. Neither was Dental School, or even having studied in a university. I wasn't happy with that way.

Curiously, as I was typing this, I got an e-mail from the Center for Near Eastern Studies at UCLA, about a seminar by someone from the University in Berkeley titled "Caring for the Poor: Islamic Benevolence and the End of Neoliberalism".

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is a terminology used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with economic liberalism and free-market capitalism. It is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.

Libi, how did you get forced to pull a permit to hang drywall? Did you ask permission instead of just doing it or did some Karen narc on you to code enforcement?

Moshe, some professions require education, skill and licensing.

NE, a neighbor called an inspector when my licensed contractor Saturday morning was bringing Sheetrock inside. Inspector put a hold on all work, charge twice for the permit because we started the job without the permit. When contractor was trying to tell him that we are not changing any existing structure, inspector told that now we need to provide a stamped drawing and was “reviewing” them as long as legally was possible. Denied for something like “missing information about maximum occupancy”. Architect was really surprised because he never was showing this for an apartment. After refilling we was waiting again as long as legally was possible, and finally got a permit.

This post is supposed to educational for me - picking all your brains so I can help steer local government. I am inclined that each of you have local government where you are at.........and it would probably be a good idea to have to help steer them also.

So redirecting this back to the issue at hand. How do we make housing more affordable. I know this sounds like a crazy question as we are in the profit business, but what if your investments in the communities were subsidized?

Build more housing, so as to remove the housing market from market forces.

Both landlords and tenants will benefit from a stable, predictable market where housing prices will be determined by cost + profit.

Ray wrote, "What if a new home buyer program existed for quality tenants...."

I heard that in NYC new buildings get tax break for the certain time. My taxes for one bedroom $600 per month.

It can be a nice cut in rent in the beginning. Now imagine what will happen when this break ended. I think that NYC get rent control program after something similar in the past. (Not sure)

The other idea is to separate utilities. In the paper rent will be lower.

One more idea is to make houses more energy efficient. If I will have a grant to insulate a building, install new windows and geothermal system, it will be cheaper to operate and saving can be passed to the tenants.

It sounds like what you are leaning towards already exist.

Isn't Habitat For Humanity along those lines?

It seems like there's two groups here.

1. Government can fix it.

2. Government makes it worse.

One of the few things I can say our government is good at is winning wars. We're 2-0 in world wars, let's hope there's no more of them.

Government has a place, but their interference, like David Krulac said, drives up costs, which have to go somewhere - ultimately, to the end user in nearly all cases.

In our town, it's said there's few low cost, affordable units. Then, our city welcomes the sierra club with open arms, accepts their ideas, which drive up building costs by 20-30% on new homes. Then our wonderful officials will decry the housing issue, which they have made worse.

If you're a government fan, you think, the added costs are free and eaten by the builder.

If you're able to think, you realize that those costs have to flow through, or the builder goes out of business.

They are trying to punish landlords for conditions landlords did not create--as already mentioned, too many people moving into popular areas, and NIMBY laws that prevent the building of new housing. Landlords are convenient scapegoats.

People who know the realities will not want to become landlords. And the same with the police -- and that is a more complicated subject and the police do have a lot to answer for -- but who would want to join the police at this point since it's a thankless job at this point?

Moshe, I am really surprised you believe those that have been saying for decades they could solve the problem if only they had the money to spend.

Since LBJ and his Great Society Program from the 60's, the U.S. has spent massive amounts of money and the poverty rate has remained the same or gotten worse in some areas.

When asked what was their response, an honest celebrity-type liberal said: "Well, at least it felt good to spend over a trillion dollars".

Some very politically expedient people realized that they could lock up several voting blocks with a lot of sweet promises but if they ever delivered on those promises, those votes would be lost.

Spending other people's money makes massively guilt ridden people feel good, but that same guilt prevents rational judgment. Good, decent, kind, very smart people incapable of rational judgment because of guilt, a very powerful and destructive emotion.

The goal of advocates for housing the poor has never been to house them. The goal is to alleviate the psychological pain those advocates feel. You point to history but ignore the horrible destruction government programs have brought to our inner cities, always controlled by the do-gooders.

Government didn't spend the stimulus checks, people spent the stimulus checks. If the government controlled the spending of those checks, oh, would we have seen fraud on a scale never witnessed.

Just as you pointed out how times have changed, so it has with the manner in which government operates TODAY. Government exists today for the benefit of those ready to cash in for themselves. Would you care to hazard a guess of the cost per unit if government does it. At least a million dollars per unit would be my guess. And when it's exposed and the money runs out and is cut off, how many of your government built units will exist?????

Starting to see the picture???

Expecting the government to pull this off is like believing the sun is not really hot.

...are instituted as it is felt that oh its free, because it costs the developer and builder more money. But they seem to be blind to the fact that all the costs are just passed on to the end user...

They (the ones involved) create the problems

and then benefit from the solutions.