Why not deal with the problem by manipulating the supply side of the equation?
Remove the majority of zoning, and the free market will solve the housing problem quite quickly.
Sure houses will be up next to each other, and they'll be smaller, and the yards will cost even more than they do now, but housing will be affordable.
Sure, factories with toxic waste in residential neighborhoods are a great idea!
> Sure houses will be up next to each other
And we learned nothing from the massive urban fires othe 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries apparently.
All these onerous regulations you whinge about exist because thousands of people DIED from the conditions they outlaw.
Remove set backs, get rid of minimum yard requirements, loosen height restrictions.
The rest of the world has houses right next to each other, as do America's most prosperous cities.
Manhattan, the dense parts of SF, Boston, Chicago, etc.
The regulations about minimum grass and 4 foot of set back and no more than 1 or 2 stories, have nothing to do with fire regs and everything to do with long disproven ideas about suburban design that hark back to 1950s ideals.
Visit a modern dense city, Tokyo and London don't have massive fire outbreaks (sprinklers and modern fire codes still work even at density), but they do have an insane about of economic activity in the dense neighborhoods.
Want to solve the housing crisis and get people off the streets? Dump 50% more houses on to the market, heck have cities subsidize their construction if need be, and watch housing prices plummet. Watch mass transit become the life blood of a city, and watch entire new types of jobs become available. (People in NYC may be annoyed at bike messengers, but it is a job created by density!)
In this context, would you agree that rent control seems counterproductive unless we were to switch to a socialized economy overall?
> There is no capitalist solution to this problem.
I'm curious if others here would agree with this; I don't have a strong opinion yet.
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3...
For one, who is going to build these properties for low-income people only? Costs will be almost the same, profits will be way less. So why would a developer bother?
In fact, the recent change to require a higher percentage of low income units in new structures has killed the pipeline for new building starts.
Even if it seems counterproductive to the goal of helping low income people, historically new building starts have always been aspirational. Which makes sense - everyone wants a new car, but if you have little money you are better off getting a reliable used car. It is exactly the same for housing. When someone moves into a new condo that opens up a unit (and lowers the price incrementally) for someone who has less to spend.
Would it make sense to force carmakers to build cheap cars that only low-income people are eligible to buy?