690

Joe Biden wants more people to start living in empty offices (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by sandro_linux@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

240 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 206 points 1 year ago

The reason for high cost of living in cities was that's where the offices were...

Now we don't need offices. So convert them to apartments to lower housing costs in the short term, and telework means people won't move to cities as much in the long term.

This is actually a good idea...

But the White House initiative will make more than $35 billion available from existing federal programs in the form of grants and low-interest loans to encourage developers to convert offices into residential.

Developers will do this anyway if the offices are empty, why not use that money for a government program to guarantee down payments of first time home buyers?

The developers are doing fine, it's the average American that's struggling, stop funneling money to the people who already have a shit ton of it, trickle down doesn't fucking work

[-] ComfortablyGlum@sh.itjust.works 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if the offices are empty, why not use that money for a government program to guarantee down payments of first time home buyers?

The Biden administration is doing that also, it just doesn't make as good a headline.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/16/white-house-announces-new-actions-on-homeownership/

[-] Tak@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago

The President has also proposed a $10 billion down payment assistance program that would ensure first-time homebuyers whose parents do not own a home can access homeownership alongside a $100 million down payment assistance pilot to expand homeownership opportunities for first-generation and/or low wealth first-time homebuyers.

I don't think what they are doing is as strong as you imply.

"Sorry your parents have a home they got in 1996 for basically nothing"

[-] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's nothing wrong with favoring the people with the least generational wealth first and foremost

[-] Tak@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

That is a major assumption there is generational wealth. ESPECIALLY with trans/gay people being family-less in many situations. The down payment could easily be collected via estate tax to where everyone had the option of it but the wealthy paid more in. It can also completely ignore a lack of generational wealth like parents so wealthy they only rent multi million dollar apartments in Manhattan.

[-] tillary@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm happy for those people who will benefit. But try being a kid of parents who have the mindset of "FU I got mine". I'm not on favorable terms with my parents and won't see a penny until they've passed, if they decide to give me anything at all.

It's an odd requirement that should've been workshopped a little more.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Then why are we giving twice that to developers who own office buildings?

[-] Tak@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Just like with Covid and the PPE loans, they coulda given the money directly to the people but this is capitalism and the money has to go to your neo-feudal lord now before you can have any of it. Just wait for that trickle down. Trickle down from your boss, from your landlord, from your parents... your need for a place to live can wait.