Affordable Housing

[ysabetwordsmith]

Cities Must Fix Inspections

Think permitting and inspections reform don't matter? Listen to this hellish account.


In many cities, permitting and inspection is routinely abusive. This kills affordable housing. So if your city wants affordable housing, and you've already fixed your zoning problems but still don't see the builds you want, check your permitting and inspection processes next.


States could require cities to publish clear, finite checklists for each inspection stage, and once an item is approved, it cannot be reopened by the next inspector, absent a demonstrable life-safety concern.

State reform would be nice and is worth working toward. However, any municipality that desires affordable housing could do it themselves locally.


States could impose reasonable response deadlines: two business days for communications, five to ten days for final inspections, with automatic approval if deadlines are missed.

Great idea in theory, but very expensive in practice. First, you need people to do the work, and they must be trained so you can't grab random fills from an employment office. Those people cost money. Their work takes time. And I will bet you the current ones are dealing with workloads 2-10 times the feasible amount, much like social workers. On the bright side, streamlining the inspection process would safe enormous amounts of time, and therefore money.

Automatic approval would be nice for builders, but potentially hazardous not only for tenants but for other people in the area if a major issue is missed. Consider we also have serious problems with slumlords.

States could require proportionality: a certificate of occupancy should not be withheld for minor defects in city-owned infrastructure.

A landlord should never have obligations to city-owned anything. That is the city's responsibility, not private citizens.

Furthermore, minor defects could be disclosed to occupants and people allowed to move in with a guarantee of those things being fixed by a certain date. This would open up housing faster while discouraging slumlords. And make sure any penalties apply to the holdup, not just the developer, contractor, or tenant -- if the city drags its feet, it should have a penalty for that.


>> And they could allow third-party private inspectors—licensed, audited, insured, and competitive—whose sign-offs cities must accept.<<

Third-party inspectors who aren't paid off by anyone should be the standard.


Cities that embrace inspections reform will see more local building, more market competition, and more incremental, lower-cost units. Most importantly, they will reestablish trust. They will foster trust in government. And they will rejuvenate faith in systems.

I suggest that any city interested in affordable housing follow the engineer problem-solving method, which includes ongoing analysis and improvement. That way, once you've fixed the obvious barriers, you have a route for developers to tell you when they encounter obstacles farther along, so that you can fix those.
 

Comments

Article

[dialecticdreamer]

The article cites CITY PROBLEMS, CITY responsibilities (like a minor crack in a sewer line UNDER the public street, and therefore the CITY'S responsibility-- and the repair costs being foisted off ON THE PRIVATE PARTY.

Well, here's another kick in the pants: lead pipes weren't outlawed until the mid-80's. Which means that if you're on a quaint residential street developed in the 1940s to the 1970s, THEY CAN HAVE LEAD PIPES still under the streets.

The cities are holding private citizens to standards that they are VIOLATING DAILY. Standards which prevent NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE to every citizen drinking from those pipes. Or even, "only" bathing in the water from them.

Re: Article

[ysabetwordsmith]

It's quite common. That's why I said that city problems should be the city's responsibility.

As infrastructure ages, cities who can't afford to fix it themselves are increasingly trying to fob off the costs to individual homeowners as "improvements" -- like a $10,000 bill for replacing a water or sewer line on a block. People who can afford to hire a lawyer typically win their court case, but that doesn't stop cities from doing the same thing. People who can't afford to hire a lawyer usually move.

And that's the beginning for one of several scenarios I've described as possible outcomes of the overbuilt problem: people who can't afford to stay will move somewhere else and abandon the old, overbuilt, unaffordable cities.

Re: Article

[dialecticdreamer]

Here's another problem: RENTING.

I live in a poor zip code of almost entirely single family homes. No duplexes or apartments for blocks. AT LEAST twice a week I get calls offering cash on the barrelhead, sight unseen, for my house.

Sure, it might get flipped, sold on to some new person or family, BUT increasingly, they're being held by property management and rented out.

So what happens if the city "improves" a city block that's more than half rentals, and the property management company doesn't want the extra cost? Renters get outsted, property gets sold either to another developer or to individuals, and the problem gets compounded.

Re: Article

[ysabetwordsmith]

Plus the problem of absentee slumlords and, increasingly, owners from other countries that deliberately use predatory practices to abuse renters and jack up rents. Israeli companies are especially prone to this. A shonda for the goyim. Like people needed another reason to hate Jews. >_

Re: Article

[dialecticdreamer]

When I was renting an apartment, it never occurred to me that the property company could be owned in whole or part by Israeli citizens. I doubt that most twentysomethings would think of it, either.

Which makes it even harder to stamp out predation.

Re: Article

[ysabetwordsmith]

Yes, exactly. Human needs should be supplied locally, not controlled by foreign interests.

https://placeacre.com/news/foreign-real-estate-evictions

Re: Article

[dialecticdreamer]

There have been foreign real estate speculators and investors in America since before the Civil War.

The problem is that their ethics have changed; money, money, money.

Re: Article

[ysabetwordsmith]

That's true. However, I see a big difference between them buying a hotel or a restaurant, vs. buying people's homes. Housing creates a much deeper vulnerability.

Re: Article

[dialecticdreamer]

True. Housing investment was seen as separate, and very different from, investing in commercial business property, or the businesses themselves. Now... Not so much> Now, it's just another hustle and the goal is to grab the cash NOW.

Re: Article

[ysabetwordsmith]

Increasingly over the last several decades, human needs in general have been commercialized to the point it's about making money rather than meeting needs. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. have all fallen prey to predatory practices. The result is people going without needs, which leads to bad problems that quickly spread through society.