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

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

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

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.

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, because there is already enough housing to house each American several times over, instead that housing should be directly provided to citizens.

I think that the hobos that are stinky should be locked up for the next week and the hobos that look like normal people should be allowed to stay at a park or something but not set up a home.

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.

Yes, as long as it makes sense within the specific demand. It can be a waste of money to build, say, 90 percent affordable housing where there isnt a need

Yes, but not in the place of open land an farmland. It should replace old and rundown buildings that have no use.

Tearing down old family ran businesses limits the activities in ones city. section 8'-ing things and sweeping them under the rug only makes matters worse.

yes because like I said its hard to make a living now a days so doing this would only help the people out more.

This definitely needs context. Inflation cost, materials involved and many other issues. Auditing and open to the public of what actually goes into these claimed "affordable" can be dictated or manipulated. The biggest understanding is folks claim we are a democracy as meaning supposed to be a democracy which is completely inaccurate and will not be found in the declaration of independence. A Constitutional Republic is what we are supposed to be. This I find important as you are letting a government dictate and decide such actions with wordings and titles. Like Patriot Act, Save America Act & many other bogus titles that manipulate the purpose and meaning of certain actions like "affordable housing".

Yes, but they can't get the funding for it through taxation or it will just be making the poor in middle class. Pay for housing for the poor and middle class

Yes but also in those same areas education funding and more jobs to pay for said houses, paying off the housing should result in better credit to then move out of affordable housing after they can get on their feet.

I think the government should incentivize companies to lower rent so that housing that already exists can be put to use before building new housing. The gov should incentivize affordable housing in low income areas.

The government should stop the construction of more housing in areas that cannot sustain more houses

Open the Free Market to compete so contractors can adequately build housing rather than by federal mandate

The government should establish dedicated shantytown zones for residents to build a new life from scratch. The shantytown should be responsible for it's own policing and should given a modest budget to provide for it's internal affairs. Crime within the region should be only monitored at the border of the area. With a sharp and well observed divide.

Yes, but encourage less construction of high end neighborhoods, we don’t need 20 neighborhoods next to eachother.

No, If it was accessible by those who need it most, the system would be abused. If it had enough strings attached to limit exploitation, people wouldn't be able to qualify.

It should be regulated to a point to where it doesnt interfere with the housing market or become costly for tax payers.

It will be a good thing for people that can't afford it ,but also a bad thing for the workers that's building it because they aren't making enough money for themselves.

Yes, as for the cost on taxpayers, the issue is WHO is paying taxes. As previously asked, if the tax system was not rigged for the elite class and we correctly allocated funding, this would not be an issue for a country with a GDP per capita of $87,081.

yes but with strict standards on how the homes are constructed, which in turn makes them more expensive. This is a hard topic to answer

Yes, but also tear down old unused buildings and control where the housing is being built so it doesn't tear down fields and forests

Only if it is sustainable, provides basic amenities, and doesn’t detrimentally impact the environment

Housing is a human right. If you cannot afford a house or apartment, or do not wish to pay private renters or citizens for housing, the government should provide you somewhere to live.

It would be good if they lowered costs or give breaks to the low and middle income families but this might cause conflict with the high income families.