|
Because governments don't want to be landlords. They don't want to have to orchestrate painting, drywall, gutters, electrical, plumbing, evictions, improvements, picking out tile, providing services that tenants grouped together with limited income might need like domestic abuse resolution and support, job training, food box distribution. Institutions don't want to be in this business either. My wife works for one of the largest ones in the midwest, and trust me, they value the land and developments much more than the rents. Government subsidy is AN incentive to maintain the above services at the MINIMUM viable and provable state to get their handout, but they are NOT landlords. Like McDonalds isn't a food company. They are real estate developers. And the experience of living in a 2-flat or a 4-flat is VERY different from a unit in a 500 person building. The ONLY way institutions would be willing to provide affordable housing would be a constant squeeze on tenants and government and every lever possible to try to make the margins meet that of a luxury apartment. It never will. And middle to low income families WILL SUFFER. A lot. Read this, but replace "burgers" with "rent": https://1851franchise.com/why-is-mcdonalds-considered-a-real... When given the option of direct cash payments to folks who need it, or giving that cash to an ineffectual corrupt business interest to fail to solve the problem in perpetuity... In America we always choose the later. Especially government. |
Plenty of governments do want to be landlords. If yours doesn't then perhaps you should consider electing a different one.
> They don't want to have to orchestrate painting, drywall, gutters, electrical, plumbing, evictions, improvements, picking out tile.
Why not? Governments ultimately want to serve there electorate. If there electorate wants decent quality affordable housing, then why would a government not want to provide that. Conceptually it's no different to the government running say a police force.
> providing services that tenants grouped together with limited income might need like domestic abuse resolution and support, job training, food box distribution.
Then don't group together tenants with limited income! You don't necessarily even need to group together government owned/run properties at all. There's no reason why a regular house on a regular street couldn't be government owned/run, mixed in with others that are privately owned.
Why are you assuming that government properties or tenants of government properties would be any different to privately owned properties or tenants of private landlords? That's only the case when the government only provides housing as a last resort, but if the government took a wider role in housing many of those problem would go away as the tenants would just be the general population.