This is an interesting article from the New York Times about a test of an annual income in Stockton California. I believe some form of a guaranteed income is the way to go. Too much of the funding of traditional housing programs goes to third parties and does not benefit the recipient. Written by Paul Dribin
County Executive Steve Stenger has said he will probably not approve another $500000 of county money for the loop trolley project. I consider this project a boondoggle. Good decision
I am repeating an idea I have expressed in previous blogs because I believe it is so important. The idea is that low income people would be significantly better served by a guaranteed income rather than construction of affordable housing. I am writing this for the following reasons:
1. Too much of the money spent on affordable housing is siphoned off to third party people and does not directly benefit the low income resident.
2. Construction is just too hard to get right. Studies have shown that very little affordable housing is build outside areas of concentration of poverty. Research again shows that low income people concentrated in poverty stricken areas have much less chance to improve their lives.
3. Income supplements largely eliminate the stigma attached to affordable housing. People could rent where they liked, use funds for a downpayment on a house, or make the normal market choices that other people do.
4. Desegregation would be easier.
5. The program would benefit more people than a construction program.
6. The program would provide benefits to more landlords and developers. Why? Because if implemented on a full scale the funds generated would provide tremendous demand for an increased number of apartment units. Apartment developers could feel confident there units could be leased.
I have a couple qualifiers to go along with the positive points:
1. These funds should not discourage employment. I would see them as a supplement to low wage jobs and not a substitute for employment. Someone who worked would actually be better off.
2. There still need to be construction programs to target special needs populations-persons with disabilities,elderly, and homeless people.
3. There needs to be a strong mortgage program in place to support the increased housing development. The FHA multifamily programs are potentially excellent, they need to be streamlined and simplified.
I am not confident that my concept will be enacted any time soon. I do think it is one of those rare ideas that can unite progressives and conservatives.
The St Louis Contrarian 