Well, he built a model that behaves this way. Whether that model is correct or not is another question, but the author should at least give insight as to what exactly in that model doesn't hold. The negative impact of social housing is an outcome of that model, as far as I understand.

Note: I'm pro social housing as I have anecdotal evidence for how well it works, however that's in a completely different system than the US, where urban planning puts high importance on mixing up low-, medium- and even high income areas to create opportunities for social mobility.

Demanding proof before continuing a discussion is a way to avoid discussions, not elevate people's understanding of a topic. Many people here do not have the same knowledge of the topic and may simply agree with the first theory that makes logical sense to them if no other data is presented.

Being that this is an internet forum, where people come to discuss things, there is no harm in preemptively presenting evidence to show why Forrester is wrong. There is nothing at stake here.

If he is wrong, it should be fairly trivial to find evidence showing why. I personally await this evidence because I find Forrester's model to be sound.

'If he is wrong, it should be fairly trivial to find evidence showing why. I personally await this evidence because I find Forrester's model to be sound.'

Why on earth would that be trivial? The social sciences have existed for a hundred years, yet there are few - if any - non-trivial law-like generalisations about the social world.

> Shouldn't the burden of proof should be on Forrester's model to prove that it is true?

That's not really how models work. A model is a prediction about how the world works; you can't prove them true. Even if my model of wheat harvests or global warming or city growth, or stock mark volatility works for the past 10 years in backtests, and worked this year, it doesn't mean it'll work next year.

It's like machine learning; you can't prove it's going to give you the right answers going forward; all you can do is see if it gave you the right answers so far, and hope for the best.

It's a bit like saying that math is wrong though - logically speaking, low-income housing has costs associated with it in more ways than one, not just housing but for law enforcement, education, etc, all of which will clearly have demand go up and income won't go up as much as if someone who had more money were to live in that city instead. Depressing, perhaps, but factual.

If that basic piece of math is wrong, it needs to be proven - how do low income households contribute more than their fair share of city revenue for example? Does homelessness cause law enforcement issues to increase to a greater amount than low-income housing? Do low-income households produce more future earners that add up better for the city?

We need some data here to show that the basic economics of this don't actually add up if that's the claim being made, because from a basic economics perspective the argument logically and mathematically follows.

That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Logically, areas that require low income housing are very likely to have a relatively high cost of living to begin with and economic mobility has not changed enough in the last few decades to account for the increase in the homeless population in concentrated metropolitan areas. Despite the great recession, homelessness rates have fallen by almost 20% since 2000 but anyone who has lived in LA, SF, NYC, Portland, or Seattle can tell you that on the ground, bare facts dont tell the whole story.

No doubt locating the actual sweet spot is impossibly complicated and it depends on the region but naive logic will not solve this problem, only experience and data will.

> That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community.

Not necessarily. It could cause/allow people to stay who would otherwise have left, to much the same effect.

You also have the opposite problem, because the same land could have been used for market rate housing, so you've prevented entry by new middle income people who could have brought more resources into the community.

Forester's model of public housing here is looking only in terms of cost, and not what it can provide.

A very large assumption lies here: >Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty.

and completely ignores the benefits that public housing in a city can provide.

That is, housing can provide security and meet a basic need for those who may be struggling with many basic needs (food, employment, education, health).

Having this need met allows recipients to focus energy and money normally spent on housing on other issues, potentially reducing other costs and allowing them to progress out of poverty.

I think we can see the evidence there are benefits in examples at the furthest end of poverty - homelessness. Many cities found that it is cheaper to house the homeless and provide them social services, than to ignore them and treat the effects of homelessness issues (police and jail time for crimes, from desperation or untreated mental illness, emergency medical services for treating overdoses etc).

This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents?

https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-str...

> This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents?

Can I move somewhere that is run like a business trying to maximize profit? I think I'd far prefer it to my wasteful city...

Let's say every local government in a country operated that way - all doing their best to maximize attractions for the rich (and 'profit') and limit attractions/spending for the poor.

Obviously poor people must move somewhere, so the end result is society has just conspired to make their poverty and misery government's permanent goal.

I think this attitude is fairly common in the US. Look how many people think punishments or burdens need to be attached to welfare, without any proof of fraud reduction. Things like mandatory drug testing, work requirements, restrictions to what TANF and SNAP and be spent on.

Perhaps "profit" isn't the best way to put it, but "wellbeing per dollar" in some way - ultimately a measurable optimization factor of some sort needs to be decided on and used.

Instead we see cities without any sort of optimization, repeatedly trying failed ideas, flushing tax dollars down the toilet. "This clearly isn't working, let's just keep doing it" ought to be the slogan for many midsize cities.

We already optimize for wellbeing per dollar.

You're joking, right? Broken transit systems, barely maintained roads, large backlogs of intersections that need lights leading to safety incidents even deaths, planners that accept everything a developer or NIMBY can say... No, we don't optimize for shit except perhaps councilors pocketbooks and re-election.

We wish these systems were optimized, but they're not. If they were, we'd at least see pushes to get people to live closer to work, the rejection of NIMBYs in favor of multiunit developers in central areas while in distant areas we'd see rejection of developers in favor of improved transit.

Many areas in my city have terrible access by car or public transit because the city has kept pushing back road and transit improvements while allowing developers to keep going. It's gotten so bad a few developers were offering to do road widening for the city on an interest free loan as their property values were taking a hit due to a reputation for long commutes - unfortunately that fell through even, it's a mess, a completely unoptimized mess.

Do you believe that people out of work should be left to die, or people suffering from debilitating diseases, or those in excess to the demands of capital? You do realise that, even if you're an egotistical sociopath who values only your own interests, that a functional society that works - to some extent - for everyone, is probably also best for you. Do you want to live amongst misery? In a degenerating society?

> A very large assumption lies here: >Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty.

What he's referring to here is the poverty trap created by means tested assistance programs. You give someone housing provided they don't have hardly any income, but now they're stuck. Even if they now have more time to look for a job, they can't actually accept it or as soon as they do they're no longer eligible to live there and it causes them to become homeless again. And just because the job pays enough to disqualify them from the assistance program doesn't mean it pays enough to afford market rate housing there.

Especially when the job comes with costs -- you have transportation costs to get there and back every day, if you have kids you now have to pay for childcare because you're working instead of taking care of your kids yourself, you may lose eligibility for other government programs like food assistance at the same time, etc.

At best it means taking a $10/hour job would in practice net them something like $2/hour, which isn't much incentive to give up half your waking life commuting and working. At worst it actually costs more to take the job than it pays. So they don't take the job, never get any experience or contacts that could get them a better one, and are stuck in poverty indefinitely.

To get rid of that you have to get rid of the means testing, but giving everyone money exclusively for housing would only inflate housing costs for everyone. So what you need is for it to be unconditional all around, i.e. a UBI.

> I think we can see the evidence there are benefits in examples at the furthest end of poverty - homelessness. Many cities found that it is cheaper to house the homeless and provide them social services, than to ignore them and treat the effects of homelessness issues (police and jail time for crimes, from desperation or untreated mental illness, emergency medical services for treating overdoses etc).

It's important to distinguish between poverty and mental illness. If you have someone who is incurably mentally ill and has no family to care for them, it can make sense for the state to put a roof over their head rather than have them assaulting random people in the street all the time, because their situation isn't likely to change. What to do with people who can't ever be productive members of society is a hard problem.

People who are in poverty only because they're unskilled or unemployed is a completely different situation. What they need is economic opportunities, not assistance that gets cut out from under them as soon as they clear the first rung of the ladder.

And government housing is especially nefarious because it raises the price of market rate housing, so when you lose eligibility you're dumped into a market you can afford even less.

> This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents?

There is a case to be made for people living where they can afford to live. If you require government housing in Manhattan, it makes housing in Manhattan more expensive for everyone else, which prices out middle income people. It's also a crap use of government resources, because they're paying Manhattan housing costs to house lower income people that the people paying the taxes to fund them can't even afford themselves. And what's so wrong about having the people who can't afford to live in Manhattan just live in New Jersey? If that's what people at the 30th percentile income have to do, why shouldn't people at the 3rd percentile as well?

"from a basic economics perspective the argument logically and mathematically follows."

I'm sorry but that's arrant nonsense. Nothing follows from anything else independent of complex empirical assumptions about what people are doing and why they are doing it, and how to conceptualise the economy and social relations in the first place. It is not given by the ether of pure logic.

This is basic price curves - make more affordable housing for the underemployed, people come to you for it or stay for it. Just like most anyone I know prefers buying the cheapest tolerable toilet paper or dropping the price on a fast food meal attracts more customers or buying certain meats and veggies at the grocery store because they're cheaper that week.

I don't see why this wouldn't also apply to low-income housing demand in this case - it's a fairly well proven economic model and if you want to say it's false in this case, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a semblance of evidence.

Given that this model demonstrates the issue as well as the lower tax contributions based on property taxes and higher demand for social services in low income areas, well, it seems like a reasonable model.

You seem to have forgotten what the original statement to which you responded was. Let me remind you.

"To Forrester, low-income housing was an especially egregious example of a “counterproductive” urban program. According to the model, these programs increased the local tax burden, attracted underemployed people into the city, and occupied land which might otherwise have been put to more economically healthy uses. Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty."

This involves six claims.

The creation of affordable housing would, per the quote:

1. Increase the local tax burden 2. Attract underemployed people 3. Foreclose a more profitable use of the land 4. Increase unemployment 5. Reduce social mobility 6. Condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty.

You seem to be focused on only one of them, the least contentious and consequential - (2).

That would do nothing to support the claims you made in your last post, about the entire model following - "logically and mathematically" - from basic economics.

Those mainly follow from attracting underemployed people - I don't think it's particularly contentious to say that a low-income person paying less in property tax means that a higher income person must pay more in tax to offer the same level of services - this answers number 1. Number 3 I also feel is straightforward - the city could make more profit and charge lower taxes by having higher income people there, often on the same land. If you admit 2 is true then 4 is likely to be true at least within the bounds of the city - again, I don't feel it's particularly contentious to suggest that low income people are more likely to experience long term unemployment issues.

As for 5 and 6, yes, I agree those absolutely would demand more evidence, but it also seems like they're tertiary to the usefulness of the model here.

I'm not intending to defend it so much as I'd like to see why it should be struck down. As someone else pointed out here, some cities in higher tax areas attract more people than cities in lower tax areas - factors like that are what I'd like to have seen more of in the original post.

Let's just take your first claim (I don't have all day). Hopefully that's enough to indicate that nothing that you're talking about is the obvious or natural result of basic economic logic, as you seem to think it is.

Point 1: Increase the local tax burden

Your response: "I don't think it's particularly contentious to say that a low-income person paying less in property tax means that a higher income person must pay more in tax to offer the same level of services".

This depends on the assumption that there is a zero-sum competition between rich and poor people. Every X number of poor people in a city, represents a subtraction of an equivalent number of rich people. Because rich people are presumably in a higher tax bracket, they pay more per person that do poor people. But there's no reason to think that there is a zero-sum competition between rich and poor people. That depends on complex empirical questions like the division of labour in the city, the availability of land and housing, if low-skill labour will attract businesses, and so on. And the fact that a poor person might not pay as much in taxes as a rich person does not make them a tax "burden" in any sensible use of that term - they may be net contributors.

I hear what you're saying, but if someone's not paying for the services they're using in taxes, they're a burden being carried by other tax payers. No need to consider land or housing issues or view the whole thing as a zero-sum competition at all. You're bringing in a lot of things that don't really factor into the cost of property taxes at the end of the day.

> Every X number of poor people in a city, represents a subtraction of an equivalent number of rich people

No such logic like this is required - the more people who live in a city but don't contribute their share of taxes, the higher the taxes are for everyone who does. I'm talking strictly about people who are not net contributors - I think you'd be hard pressed to find people in low-income housing projects who are, the housing alone has significant cost and upkeep of it often falls on the city.

That's not to say it has no benefits of course, bringing people out of poverty can be powerful and useful economically, but if I were to state the opposite is true - that we should be decreasing taxes by building more low income housing, you'd look at me like I'm crazy unless I presented some seriously compelling evidence.

You are making your point by definitional fiat, i.e. poor people are people who pay less in taxes than they take (which is not the implication of the statement in your previous post). But it's not at all clear that most people on low incomes do that. You would have to show it.

On the tax front it is empirically wrong. See eg California and New York, which have growing economies despite high taxes to Kansas and Nevada, which have low or no taxes.

See - that seems like it has some validity - that's exactly the kind of data I'm talking about - why couldn't the author have brought this kind of thing up in the original post?

Instead they seemed to critique it with no data...

That's not at all obvious. I think first you'd have to prove that all those extra costs "logically follow"...