Should the government incentivize the construction of affordable housing?

No

Yes, housing is a basic right that should be affordable to anyone

Yes and also ban corporate and foreign investors from purchasing residential real estate

No, reform zoning laws to increase housing supply instead

Housing should already be affordable regardless. There shouldn't be special incentives just to make living affordable,

Big corporations should be regulated by rules and policies from buying and selling homes, which makes housing more expensive.

No, local governments and zoning boards should reform zoning laws to allow higher density building and to help construct more housing than there is demand

Yes, but the government should focus on renovating unused buildings that are currently wasting valuable space in our cities

No, the government should relax zoning laws to encourage increasing housing supply and stabilize rent

Yes, but they should focus first on incentivizing better wages, parental benefits, and healthcare so that more citizens can afford their rent or mortgage without the need for special housing.

Yes, the government should incentivize the construction of affordable housing to help ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable living conditions.

The government should incentivize the construction of affordable housing and additionally should build social housing.

Yes, the government should incentivize the construction of more housing in general, not just affordable housing.

No, ban corporate and foreign investors from purchasing residential real estate and capitalize the industry

Yes, but lower regulation instead of incentives or any financial assistance unless seen as necessary

No, this is too broad and these houses can still be overpriced while developers get cuts by writing these houses off as Low Income

There also needs to be addressing of underlying issues so that it doesn't impact the ability for those to sustain.

Yes but the affordable housing should be well-made! People shouldn’t have to be forced to accept sub-standard housing.

Yes, but it should only be used to get oneself on their feet. It should not be used as a permanent residence for the rest of one's life, that is until there is enough to support that.

Yes, but we shouldn’t build too much and destroy nature, build homes in designated areas, and have more protection for nature

Yes, but have better systems of accountability for landlord/tenant laws so those in lower income housing are not exploited by corrupt management or held hostage by predatory leases.

No, there is no "housing shortage." What we have in this country are barriers that prevent Americans from acquiring homes that are rightfully theirs. To free this up we must deport every illegal alien and encourage remigration for all foreign residents, freeing up millions of homes. We must also ban corporate and foreign investors from purchasing residential real estate, as well as rooting out corruption and greed within real estate. Another massive factor would be the reduction of interest rates, giving so many the opportunity to borrow with a legitimate chance to pay it back.

If there's a program like section 8 take all their money and make them work. And save all the money for 5 years get them a house worth 70 to 80,000 they don't have to pay for rent

Yes but do it in collaboration with the market (on a lower scale) and also repeal zoning laws and cut taxes for realters

Yes, but don’t take people’s homes or land to do it without their permission or without even offering them compensation.

Yes, but access to housing shouldn't be based on your income; it should be a basic right for anyone.

i think the increase in construction of affordable housing would be highly beneficial, but it boils down to what KIND of housing we're constructing, i believe Houses are typically more of a better option rather than the construction of apartments and other forms of complexes, Houses are more of a single-family one to two owner kind of situation, where it's a lot easier to manage things like, getting a hold of a single person, and not to mention, with more houses around in general, more people will buy Houses off of the sheer increase of Houses alone, so that would be more money in…  Read more taxpayer's dollars, alongsided with people who rent or mortage, etc. Houses are typically more of a better option when it comes to profiting off of the Sprawl more longterm, rather than Apartment complexes, which may be more of a shorterm to midterm profit where the complex is getting most of the money and a small percentage of that money is going to the bills.

Yes, but not just incentivize, but build and provide housing as a right, rather than injecting money into the same developers that are responsible for this crisis

Yes, but the government should be providing the housing itself, not merely incentivizing private capital to address the dehumanization of our poor it has inflicted through its own mechanisms

Yes, but prioritise rennovating abandoned buildings rather than building new houses that could destroy nature

Just don’t allow foreign buyers of residential property. Increase investment in existing infrastructure, and subsidize starter homes.

Aren’t there so much houses out there that maybe are horribly ugly as in small and nasty, it should be upkeept if permition to do so and be actually a nice house weather in a apartment or a house

Maybe there's a reason the government has to step in maybe the regulations make it not a profitable decision so its not a priority we do live in a capitalst society if it does make money it doesn't happen fund out why the moneys not there and there's your answer we have to work with what we got

Yes, but only to a certain extent as this may distrubt economic and increase population by too much in certain areas.

I lived in section 8 so what make housing affordable an give better pay for those that work hard I guess

In a manner of speaking, yes. The government can incentivize this by relaxing zoning laws to encourage increasing housing supply and stabilize rent

I believe that if the construction company is local, it should receive the incentives, since local firms usually don’t have the budget for such projects. This could create more jobs and opportunities within the community.

Yes, but there should also be incentives to reuse existing houses, structures etc to be repurposed into housing

At the local level I would support P3s to increase the supply of public housing, and loan guarantees to increase affordable housing on market housing projects

No, but corporate and foreign investors should be banned from purchasing real estate and HOAs should have restrictions.

YES... if the incentives are explicitly designed to ensure enduring affordability, structural equity, environmental sustainability, community integration, and measurable impact.

There shouldn't be new housing developments until every house that is currently vacant is occupied. As well, corporate investors shouldn't be allowed to own housing.

Yes but, Work with private construction companies and give them tax breaks for a set goal and an incentive goal for a desired set of homes to dive down the cost of rent.

Yes because everyone should be able to live, Everyone. But with that being said if they are given this house and are taking advantage and not doing what they are supposed to it is right to take it away because there are others in need.

This is better left to private companies and the free market that better allocates supply and demand, and reform zoning laws.

Although I agree that housing should be set at more affordable pricing, I do not want the government to interfere with the free market more than they have to.

No, Instead the church should do it to prove there better at supporting and supplying people what they need rather than the government.

Yes, and the current high housing prices are a result of the government's constant creation of inflation and the legal restrictions placed on capital entering the real estate market. From the perspective of capital return, it's easy to see that the housing construction market is seriously distorted. Despite the ongoing inflation, the construction cost of affordable housing is only about $100 per square foot, while the market price of houses is generally above $400 per square foot.

No because the government spends too much money, but societally we should construct affordable housing

Yes but only for the none wealthy the rich can rot and be just like the none wealthy so then everyone lives in an equal society under one people.

No, housing should be made affordable and secure. A pile of plywood that was stapled together within two months should not cost 500,000 dollars.

As someone who want's to become a housing investor some day, I believe that the housing market is considered a fair game. You, as well as anyone else can do the same things that the corporate investors are doing. With that being said, the government should incentivize new home owners to purchase property, and ditch the stigma of renting becoming the societal norm.

We need to pass laws that big agencies like Black Rock can't come in and buy all the residential properties making it difficult to buy a house.

I think that the government should instead help people homeless people get jobs, rather than giving and catering to them.

A most sustainable optional, both in environmental and financial terms, is to redistirbute hosting by taxation or expropriation

The government should incentivize construction by deregulating and making it easier to build affordable homes.

I want to add affordable housing, but reduce the amount of housing, for it is decreasing forest areas.

Yes and no, affordable housing with inflation right now would be like 8 feet wide houses so we still need quality, standards, and hard workers

No but existing houses should be incentivized to be made/kept livable in an affordable way as to not waste materials

I feel something should be done, we have slum lords charging crazy amounts but never updating or fixing or putting into the home for what you pay, then nice apartments and such being built that people have no respect for and trash them. There has to be something to teeter totter this better.

No because affordable housing may be poorly and quickly constructed just to gain the government incentive dollars.

Yes, if the houses are still made with good quality materials and made to withstand natural disasters

Yes but they need to increase the safety of section 80 government houses while still being able to keep it cheap.

No, it can effet on the way our economy works, by applying affordable housing, it can lower money for other people.

There should be more opportunities to build upon what is already built or repurpose buildings etc. people should all be able to have shelter. Or do low rent and more opportunities.

it shouldn't be fully the government, while they can support it and help others be able to build affordable housing, I don't think it is fully the government's responsibility

I think the government should support affordable housing, but need to take into account how much this will increase the taxpayers cost

Reform zoning laws so existing building can be retrofitted to support multi use properties and aid in constructions for more micro communities like corner stores and other walkable areas.

Yes and also ban ban corporate and foreign investors from purchasing residential real estate and also reform zoning laws

Yes, they should help give incentives to local real estate developers and re-enact the homestead act.

I see the word "affordable" and this leads me to believe that cheaper materials would be used and I can't help but think about how reliable these houses are going to be.

Yes, but continue to allow the housing market to be a competitive market, and ban foreign investors from purchasing residential real estate.

Yes, but only in areas that lack housing and be incredibly selective with who is chosen. Not to be used for large families or unemployed individuals. Or criminals/people with drug problems. Should be for retired folks or single people who work part time. No more than 2 people can live in an apartment. And hike up the income requirements.

No, the government should not be the one incentivizing the market. The market itself should do that.

I think there is 20 times as many empty homes as homeless people, and that homes already vacant should be prioritized

I think the government should keep building government housing at the rate that they are. But i do not think that they should increase because that is money out of our pockets for people who had the same opportunities and just did not take advantage. There is few exceptions.

Actually, no. More housing isn't the problem. There's various homes that require fixing rather than building

we shouldn't be building anything new. we need to get more effective infrastructure to fit more people and utilize abandoned buildings etc

yes but inhabitants of a city must approve of the measure to allow affordable housing in their city limits

For the most part yes but allow citizens to retain control of the markets, as this directly impacts a republic

I think everyone should have a place to live, but I do not think it should not be free. I think it should be paid back at a reasonable rate.

if it excludes large banks and corporations that buy a lot of homes and make the price what they want

I think a budget should be given and taxpayers can figure out a way where its not to costly but enough quality to last

We loose so much land due to expanding, and building more housing. Instead we could reuse old facilities or property that serves no purpose to build affordable housing.

Constructing affordable housing will likely only lead to more cheaply-built houses, which would not be the best to live in long-term and we would need to construct more houses sooner than we want to.

Housing should go through a review to determine if it even is "luxury" housing, and the government should incentivize the construction of affordable housing, and apartments should have mixed affordabilities to limit class segregation

They should try to use houses that are already constructed but abandoned or at least use the land they are built on to build new affordable houses so we aren't using more space.

Yes the government could allow it and support but just make sure the homes are safe and cheap and low quality

The housing crisis needs to be addressed, and there are multiple layers - but also plenty of solutions to the problem. We have the money, just not the right people caring.

yes by reducing tariffs and taxes on imports and purchases relating to home building materials. In short, lumber is expensive due to taxation.

Instead of contructing more affordable housing, the government should focus on what is already present instead of taking up even more space. Appreciate what is present instead of being greedy for more. Contructing more "affordable" housing is indirectly dismissing those that cannot afford to look for another home.

Yes they should it is a large net work with funding that goes untouched of funding that has gone heavily miss used .

The government should not incentivize it. If there is a demand, companies and businesses will naturally start producing them. there should be no support or hindrances for affordable housing.

Not the federal government. Any incentivizing for "affordable" housing should be a function of state and local governments.