Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html
648 comments
As a Parisian, who is generally angry at the city’s housing policy (build taller!), I find the public housing of the past few years to be a great achievement. In general, public housing sits on the outer edges of Paris, but the city has been agressive in reconverting buildings in posher neighborhoods. It doesn’t really lead to reduced rent (because no additional supply), but it decreases social segregation. That alone is critical to keep a city alive.
Unfortunately it means it's extremely hard to live in Paris if you're middle class.
If you're upper middle class/rich, you can rent/buy. If you're poor, you get a chance to get public housing. If you're middle class, too bad for you.
If you're upper middle class/rich, you can rent/buy. If you're poor, you get a chance to get public housing. If you're middle class, too bad for you.
This measure, as most welfare measures, punishes the middle class - the ones that pay, out of their own pocket the taxes that fund the welfare state.
It’s the same story all over Europe: the middle class sees close to 50% of their income taken away in taxes and contributions, and then is left paying for most of their expenses out of their own pocket.
Meanwhile rich people only pay a fraction of what they earn in taxes, and “poor” people get most stuff for “free”.
The saying is really correct: if you take half of someone’s wage to distribute for two people that didn’t do the same effort, you loose a vote, but you gain two.
It’s the same story all over Europe: the middle class sees close to 50% of their income taken away in taxes and contributions, and then is left paying for most of their expenses out of their own pocket.
Meanwhile rich people only pay a fraction of what they earn in taxes, and “poor” people get most stuff for “free”.
The saying is really correct: if you take half of someone’s wage to distribute for two people that didn’t do the same effort, you loose a vote, but you gain two.
> The program has allowed Mr. Chaillou and his wife to raise their two boys in the city. But he knows that the future of social housing will always face at least one big challenge: “The problem is that once you get in, you never want to leave.”
I think this is the reason so many in the U.S. are skeptical of/resistant to such plans. Why work your butt off for 10 years to get to a place where you can afford a nice dwelling if you can also wait 10 years, working but not pushing yourself, and someone else will pay for it for you? And then once you have it, there's even less incentive to try to "move up" from there, because there's now a cliff in front of you. You have to make the whole jump in one go, because if you only take incremental steps, you lose eligibility for your subsidies.
American culture doesn't like to think about how much of "success" is down to luck. As often as possible, we want to think it's earned. The idea of trying to make up for some of the luck factor by taking some from those with more and giving it to those with less is almost instinctively repugnant, even if it might lead to higher quality of life for everyone involved.
I think this is the reason so many in the U.S. are skeptical of/resistant to such plans. Why work your butt off for 10 years to get to a place where you can afford a nice dwelling if you can also wait 10 years, working but not pushing yourself, and someone else will pay for it for you? And then once you have it, there's even less incentive to try to "move up" from there, because there's now a cliff in front of you. You have to make the whole jump in one go, because if you only take incremental steps, you lose eligibility for your subsidies.
American culture doesn't like to think about how much of "success" is down to luck. As often as possible, we want to think it's earned. The idea of trying to make up for some of the luck factor by taking some from those with more and giving it to those with less is almost instinctively repugnant, even if it might lead to higher quality of life for everyone involved.
My understanding is that excise taxation is generally agreed upon as the preferred method for governments to manipulate the market, both because it incurs fewer deadweight losses and because it tends to actually work better.
So, what if we get rid of all these complicated rent control and rent freezes and affordable housing schemes, and instead just implement a rent tax, to be paid by the landlord, and make it progressive? I don't know exactly how it should scale; you wouldn't want it to be just by rent because that would have a regressive impact on families who have kids, because they need more space and more space naturally costs more. Maybe price per square foot?
At least in my city this would probably also reduce real estate prices in general, because a huge source of demand for houses is actually real estate speculators who buy up houses and then put them on the market as rental units. I gather, based on one conversation with an acquaintance who had been a realtor but was looking to pivot into this line of business, is that a lot of what's fueling that is, in effect, not-exactly-loopholes in US and local housing, lending and tax laws - many of which are ostensibly aimed at making housing more affordable - that allow people with sufficient resources to financially engineer together a speculative source of income while externalizing all the risk onto everyone but themselves.
So, what if we get rid of all these complicated rent control and rent freezes and affordable housing schemes, and instead just implement a rent tax, to be paid by the landlord, and make it progressive? I don't know exactly how it should scale; you wouldn't want it to be just by rent because that would have a regressive impact on families who have kids, because they need more space and more space naturally costs more. Maybe price per square foot?
At least in my city this would probably also reduce real estate prices in general, because a huge source of demand for houses is actually real estate speculators who buy up houses and then put them on the market as rental units. I gather, based on one conversation with an acquaintance who had been a realtor but was looking to pivot into this line of business, is that a lot of what's fueling that is, in effect, not-exactly-loopholes in US and local housing, lending and tax laws - many of which are ostensibly aimed at making housing more affordable - that allow people with sufficient resources to financially engineer together a speculative source of income while externalizing all the risk onto everyone but themselves.
NY is a mess of policy failure and rampant corruption in the implementation of these policies, policies which have for decades been championed by the NY Times, frequently by naive portrayals of policies in Western European countries like this one. Once imported at 5 times the cost and half the quality these become irrevocable subsidies for well connected landlords and administrators. The city needs to get basic things like sewage, security, and transit working before plowing any more money into subsidized housing.
> Every Thursday, Jacques Baudrier, the Paris city councilor in charge of housing, scrolls through the list of properties being exchanged by sellers and buyers on the private market. With some exceptions, the city has the legal right to pre-empt the sale of a building, buy the property and convert it to public housing.
What are the mechanics of how this works? If I agree to buy a property for a million dollars, does the city get a chance to match that price?
What are the mechanics of how this works? If I agree to buy a property for a million dollars, does the city get a chance to match that price?
Why was this headline changed in such an editorializing way?
“Mixed society” is a loaded term not present in the original headline.
Hong Kong has some is highest skyscrapers next to housing that rents cages for people to sleep in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedspace_apartment
People live in the same neighborhood and there is a cruelty factor of understanding and accepting that in your city poor people live in cages. And people in the US live in tents. At least nobody profits from that.
The problem with charging below market prices for anything is that it necessarily leads to a mismatch of supply and demand. So the question is how do you allocate that supply?
One way is to have hidden costs. This could range from straight up bribes, to paid consultants to fill out a lot of forms or talk to the right people, to just knowing someone
Another way is a lottery which benefits a tiny percentage of people. Sure it's "fair" but the incentive to rig it is huge
But even with a lottery it's still inefficient. If you give someone an apartment with a market rent of 4k for only 1k you're effectively giving them a 3k apartment subsidy. But if you handed them 3k, maybe they would spend 1k dollars on extra apartment and 2k for something else.
There are other distortions. Overall these are the worst kinds of policies because it's all hidden costs. If we realized that with a system like this we're giving 1 out of 1k eligible people the equivalent of a 30k a year transfer, we'd likely realize it's a ridiculous policy. But instead we just say how nice it is so and so is paying only 600 Euros to live in the center of Paris
One way is to have hidden costs. This could range from straight up bribes, to paid consultants to fill out a lot of forms or talk to the right people, to just knowing someone
Another way is a lottery which benefits a tiny percentage of people. Sure it's "fair" but the incentive to rig it is huge
But even with a lottery it's still inefficient. If you give someone an apartment with a market rent of 4k for only 1k you're effectively giving them a 3k apartment subsidy. But if you handed them 3k, maybe they would spend 1k dollars on extra apartment and 2k for something else.
There are other distortions. Overall these are the worst kinds of policies because it's all hidden costs. If we realized that with a system like this we're giving 1 out of 1k eligible people the equivalent of a 30k a year transfer, we'd likely realize it's a ridiculous policy. But instead we just say how nice it is so and so is paying only 600 Euros to live in the center of Paris
I can't pass the paywall but does it mention Paris is losing people? I was living in the 15th arrondissement and this family area turned into a violent zone in a couple of years as they put public housing everywhere. Drug dealers, violence at my kid school, theft... My street became a spot for druggies and I had to pass them with my kids. 15 minutes from the Eiffel tower...
I left this city 3 years ago and found safer land. All my friends did the same. There is no sane reason to stay in an area with so much violence. Parisians will deny this but will just say "you have to avoid this and that, have a pepper spray, do not wear a skirt, do not go there at night..."
I left this city 3 years ago and found safer land. All my friends did the same. There is no sane reason to stay in an area with so much violence. Parisians will deny this but will just say "you have to avoid this and that, have a pepper spray, do not wear a skirt, do not go there at night..."
Is Paris considered a great place to live? I've been there a couple times in the last few years, and it just seemed like every other big western city. (except for the police walking around with assault weapons.)
I wonder how many of those poor immigrants who live in this public housing to serve wealthy Parisians would prefer to live in something like an American suburb if they could get jobs there.
The reality of this housing policies is that it is currently bankrupting the city of Paris with a skyrocketing debt and growing local taxes. They spent enormous sum of money to buy old buildings at the historical peak of their price, buildings ill-fitted to house poor wide families and sometimes in very expansive neighborhood where they have to travel far to get access to cheaper groceries.
Also the delta between the low rent and the theoretical market rate for the housing is insane, this is equivalent to several thousand euros in untaxed shadow income, all from randomness or special favor. All with the goal to transform 40% of the housing in socialised ones, this is a power grab of the mayor to assure them votes for the future and has always been the strategy of the communist towns surrounding Paris.
This article reminded me of a thought I’ve often had: that the USA is a great place to live for the upper middle class and above, but it’s one of the worst wealthy countries to live in when you’re poor.
From the context of the USA it seems downright amazing to see a society where public housing isn’t automatically assumed to be a number of bad things: taxpayer waste, crime haven, and antiquated disrepair.
The benefits of the tenant management system also seems like it’s good for everyone in society. Our daily surroundings really shouldn’t be a race to the highest bidder for high-rent tenants like McDonald’s to come in, underpay employees, and poison local residents with junk food. The approach to the city as a public landlord being selective and building a neighborhood through balancing available goods and services seems incredibly desirable.
In the US this is all inverted the wrong way: the wealthy neighborhoods are the only ones that can keep chains like McDonald’s and Walmart out, walkability and positive urban fabric is a luxury amenity for the few (e.g., NYC, Miami, and Chicago’s best neighborhoods), and the wealthy are the ones that are subsidized instead of those who are low income or middle class.
From the context of the USA it seems downright amazing to see a society where public housing isn’t automatically assumed to be a number of bad things: taxpayer waste, crime haven, and antiquated disrepair.
The benefits of the tenant management system also seems like it’s good for everyone in society. Our daily surroundings really shouldn’t be a race to the highest bidder for high-rent tenants like McDonald’s to come in, underpay employees, and poison local residents with junk food. The approach to the city as a public landlord being selective and building a neighborhood through balancing available goods and services seems incredibly desirable.
In the US this is all inverted the wrong way: the wealthy neighborhoods are the only ones that can keep chains like McDonald’s and Walmart out, walkability and positive urban fabric is a luxury amenity for the few (e.g., NYC, Miami, and Chicago’s best neighborhoods), and the wealthy are the ones that are subsidized instead of those who are low income or middle class.
being a broke outsider in the city, it has been very difficult to exercise my rights especially in terms of housing.
from my limited experience it seems that while in richer neighbourhoods there might be some diversity, it is not the case everywhere. there has been a move to grow the city outwards and move newer social housing further out. but the historically poorer neighbourhoods more or less seem to remain in their older state.
however you rationalize it, one ends up questioning whether it is worth living in the city given the challenges in finding a place.
from my limited experience it seems that while in richer neighbourhoods there might be some diversity, it is not the case everywhere. there has been a move to grow the city outwards and move newer social housing further out. but the historically poorer neighbourhoods more or less seem to remain in their older state.
however you rationalize it, one ends up questioning whether it is worth living in the city given the challenges in finding a place.
The article is quite... disappointing for a french Parisian.
Let's make things clear: so called "mixed society" is actually a mix of "friends of the Mayor and allies" and poor-enough people that will vote for the so-called socialist Mayor. It's not about having a philosophical or idealogical view of society, only a practical view of election (a kind of "gerrymanding" if this concept is more understandable for US).
There has been frequent scandals with ministers still using "low income" housing for themselves or families. The article starts with the interview of some Ms Vallery-Radot, and that uncommon name prompted me to look on internet and wonder if she is related to the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallery-Radot which was until the 2000 ... State Advisor.
So please... do not think that Paris is some kind of wonderful place where intelligent and humanistic leaders are working for the good of the french society as an example to the world. It's just usual political shady business, nepotism (and you'll see by yourself that the results will be bad during the Olympics for example)
Let's make things clear: so called "mixed society" is actually a mix of "friends of the Mayor and allies" and poor-enough people that will vote for the so-called socialist Mayor. It's not about having a philosophical or idealogical view of society, only a practical view of election (a kind of "gerrymanding" if this concept is more understandable for US).
There has been frequent scandals with ministers still using "low income" housing for themselves or families. The article starts with the interview of some Ms Vallery-Radot, and that uncommon name prompted me to look on internet and wonder if she is related to the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallery-Radot which was until the 2000 ... State Advisor.
So please... do not think that Paris is some kind of wonderful place where intelligent and humanistic leaders are working for the good of the french society as an example to the world. It's just usual political shady business, nepotism (and you'll see by yourself that the results will be bad during the Olympics for example)
"A city, if it’s only made up of poor people, is a disaster," said Mr. Apparu, who now works for a property developer. "And if it’s only made up of rich people, it’s not much better."
From a human+social position, I strongly agree with this. The value of social benevolence isn't limited to the direct beneficiaries and has positive impacts beyond the economics.
From a human+social position, I strongly agree with this. The value of social benevolence isn't limited to the direct beneficiaries and has positive impacts beyond the economics.
Diversity needs the precondition of liberal democratic welfare support? Therefore, eliminate public goods like public housing to destroy diversity. Since diversity positively correlates to large populations and the tragedy of the commons.
If the USA didn't endlessly fund war then maybe they could invest in their cities & infrastructure more. Probably not going to happen anytime soon by the looks of things.
Singapore? 80% of public housing? true?
But it hasn't stayed Paris, it's overrun with North African "migrants". Why put a bald faced lie on it?
Who is paying for all this?
> One quarter of residents in the French capital now live in government-owned housing, part of an aggressive effort to keep lower-income Parisians — and their businesses — in the city.
I think they meant "...and their votes"
I think they meant "...and their votes"
The Mayor of Paris has bigger balls any other Mayor except maybe Barcelona
...and they're both women! The confidence to make radical, meaningful changes for the better of the people and tell the opposition to get stuffed... I wish all politicians had that.
...and they're both women! The confidence to make radical, meaningful changes for the better of the people and tell the opposition to get stuffed... I wish all politicians had that.