Direct cash payment is always better than subsidies. Subsidized housing simply transfers money to property owners.

> Direct cash payment is always better than subsidies.

Because you say so?

Direct cash benefits have one effect, rent regulation has another. It depends on what you are trying to achieve.

I am always perplexed when people talk about NYC housing policy and how it's self-apparently and obviously being done wrong, they invariably fail to note that it's the most desirable and culturally important city in the Western Hemisphere.

I think a better measure of whether housing policy has succeeded in New York is a measure of the cost of housing. In that case, New York's housing policy has not stopped housing prices from increasing. You could argue that the situation would be worse without it though.

> Because you say so?

I'm not the commenter, but I think cash is better precisely because I don't know what would be better for the recipient. It's pretty arrogant to assume that you know what is right for someone. To say that a $4,000 transfer should be used on housing and housing alone is an insult to the person receiving the benefit, as though that person cannot think or make decisions for themselves.

> I think a better measure of whether housing policy has succeeded in New York is a measure of the cost of housing.

Thus, we can conclude that by the same metric that the most successful civic and urban policies are employed in rural Nebraska and West Texas.

Perhaps that's actually not the best way to measure the success of a city?

> I'm not the commenter, but I think cash is better precisely because I don't know what would be better for the recipient. It's pretty arrogant to assume that you know what is right for someone.

Perhaps. But what if, instead of making a decision based on what's better for some arbitrary recipient, you wanted to make decisions that would increase the likelihood of having a vibrant and diverse urban environment with people that have various economic and cultural roles to play interwoven into the fabric of the city's housing stock. What if you placed stability and continuity as higher values in your trade off calculations than maximizing economic efficiency?

Again, my argument is a plea for empiricism. New York is a staggeringly successful city, one of the world's most desirable and influential places, with an incredible culture of residents. I always wonder if people have actually paused to notice that when they start evaluating housing policy.

Perhaps effectiveness of housing policy could be measured by the price changes as population grows. Texas for instance has very loose zoning regulations, with high population growth and below median home prices. Also, Texas didn't have the huge run-up in housing appreciation as did many other states, and hence virtually no subsequent crash [0]. During that time Texas has grown in population substantially. To be fair, New York didn't have much of a crash either but the housing market is very expensive.

I love NY. I choose to live here. I don't like high rent though.

I'm just a little weary of allowing political bodies to determine the right "urban environment" as these same bodies have used their powers for segregation. Sure, diversity sounds good, but it sometimes leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For instance, ~70% of Stuyvesant High School is Asian and admission is based solely on a test. Should Asian's be prevented from attending?

[0] http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2015/5/11/sauploa... [1] http://seekingalpha.com/article/3167336-houston-wavers-but-t...

The high rent is deliberate policy. You are kinda missing the point. The reason NYC is safe now whereas it was a war-zone in the 80s is all the criminals had to move away because of higher rent. The government deliberately got rid of most of the section 8 housing and constricted the supply of cheap apartments. They want to price people out.

There are still a lot of housing projects throughout Manhattan, sometimes adjacent to very expensive housing. An example is the largest projects in Manhattan, Baruch Houses, 17 buildings, 27 acres. This is right across the street from The Ludlow which most recently rented a one-bedroom for $4,485 a month.

Well you have to factor in population change. If 1 million people are paying stable rent, and population is growing so 0.5 million new residents pay more, that's not a net failure.

London is leagues ahead of New York in global importance.

Yes we have heard of it. I have high hopes for the place, my understanding is that they have even learned to speak a passable version of English over there.

In a sellers market, cash transfers areeffectively subsidies -- the landlord consumes all the renter's ability to pay.