Post

Conversation

More supply is an annoyingly long-term solution to housing costs and people reasonably doubt any given change will benefit them directly. A potential solution from

@SearchlightInst

— cash payments to residents of communities that embrace more building. searchlightinstitute.org/research/the-s

Abstract illustration features three blue keys hanging from a gold ring against a yellow background with subtle gold accents. Text overlay from Searchlight Institute describes a federal incentive program for housing, explaining cash rebates to households in communities meeting production targets to lower costs and support pro-housing policies.

10:06 AM · Nov 7, 2025

70K

Views

Post your reply

The other day

pointed to Mamdani’s synthesis as a potential response to the same dilemma. This worked great politically, but his “rent freeze” won’t actually freeze rent for most renters which is a big implementation problem. open.substack.com/pub/bharatrama

“Cash for supply side reform” could give immediate relief to *everyone* while supporting needed long-term change. searchlightinstitute.org/research/the-s

has anyone tried implementing TIF districts but using them to make cash payments to incumbent residents instead of indirectly rewarding them with whatever parks the alderman decides he wants to build?

4.9K

This Post violated the X Rules. Learn more

Sam Pooley

@spooleyhi

20h

Honestly, curious. How isn’t that potential solution also long-term, since they still have to build more housing?

tax relief for home owners is the only viable way to break the general equilibrium problem of buying property bc you perceive that closure will drive up wealth

We should allow people to literally buy votes in more situations.

Coase Theorem ftw!

Tired of guessing what’s going on with your body? Hume Body Pod tells you straight up—what’s fat, what’s muscle, and what’s water. Finally, a scale that makes sense.

0:39

Meet the World's First Body Scan

Tax allocation districts! Promise residents a share of increased property tax revenue!

I get it, but it’s a tough sell for immediate future homeowners. Rich getting richer sort of stuff.

Not in Austin. It only took a couple years.

Could this just drive up rents around new projects because landlords know all their tenants just got a big check from the city.

Dumbest thing I ever heard.

People have to recognize TODAY'S suffering is the long-term consequence of long-since-forgotten short-term oriented politicking of yesteryear. We'll commit ourselves to a short-termist doom loop unless voters become educated on this point.

much opposition to upzoning existing neighborhoods would melt away it the current homeowners knew that all new housing units would be market rate

You need to make sure it is clear to people the money is being paid by the developers. People really really hate developers (decent heuristic, many are super sleazy and engaged in public corruption).

trip1ex

@triponeex

20h

Pay people to move. Maybe the community they move to will pitch in some cash as well.

JonIsStingy2

@CutBackDavis69

18h

Does more supply of rental housing increases occupant ownership lol you abundance people purposely ignore this fact people wanting cheaper hosues to own is not the same as increasing supply of smaller homes they never own lol

Rich&KarenWeitz

@BIPOCrates

16h

How about we just get the Democrats out of city councils and planning boards? This is solely a problem of blue cities. Zoning is how they solicit bribes and kickbacks.

Fyckbluemaga

@fyckbluemaga

20h

Just tax the landlords out of existence, exponential tax per property

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question markView keyboard shortcuts

Post

Conversation

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark
View keyboard shortcuts