"...basic amenities..."

I would need to know what, exactly, is meant by this term. Indoor plumbing, as opposed to digging a cathole out in the woods?

Hot water? I believe that's a requirement in homes where children are present, otherwise, CPS is coming to take the kids away (ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha!).

"Stepping-stone housing" or "stepping-stone jobs"

This is a concept that seems to escape the minds of leftists who always claim to be in favour of helping others.

They seem to think that once poor or working class, then always poor or working class. They cannot conceive of someone making their own lives better by working harder or saving money themselves.

I guess when you have everything (college tuition, down payment on a house) handed to you by your parents you don't understand that others have to work for those and are willing to do without certain "standards" for now in order to have a better future.

Many of my friends from high school did live in "less than ideal" housing in order to save money for a down payment. Had they been forced to live at a certain standard they never, NEVER, would have been able to buy their own home.

A government assisted living apartment existed near my home for years and it became drug haven and a crime center.

After experiencing numerous break-ins and attempts plus arson attempts I started gathering the means to leave. Most of the neighbors had already done so. (A guy on drugs breaking in your front door tends to initiate that action.)

Gangs took over the complex and ruled it. They no fear and little concern about going to prison.

The young people in these neighborhoods are represented by #BLM and their desired lifestyle does not coincide w/a normal person's desire for a quiet crime-reduced home.

The single Moms w/unruly teenagers are a nightmare for a neighborhood.

Don't worry, Obama is on the case.

Those who can pay more for housing will, so that low income individuals can buy the same home at a subsidized price.

There's this well-intentioned cabbageheadedness... demanding high-quality housing for people short on money.

Nothing well-intentioned about this ploy. It's one element in an orchestrated attack aimed at breaking down settled white neighborhoods by inserting the Democratic Party's underclass constituents.

The problem is that "affordable housing" advocates today want luxury apartments and houses set aside for the poor. That is, the same apartment building or housing development that middle class families live in but at a lower rental rate.

What that means in practical terms is that the middle class families living in the development/building must pay higher rates so the developer can cover the costs.

That causes those middle class families to look elsewhere for cheaper places to live and abandon the city. Once the building/development has no middle class families wanting to live there at the asking price, the owner/manager is going to let some repairs and maintenance slide and the place begins to decay.

The migration of families to the lower-cost suburbs means these cities are losing the property tax and sales tax revenue that having families brings in. While young people are moving to the cities, they are moving out when they get married and start families.

San Francisco and Seattle now have more dogs than children.

> My post offended some people who don't think that
> reforming quality standards is a necessary part
> of affordable housing policy. On Twitter
> @AlJavieera said that my suggestion that people
> should have the option to live in housing lacking
> basic amenities is "horribly conservative."

I guess it depends on what social circles you travel in. In mine, "horribly conservative" would be a compliment, not a statement of offense.

...said that my suggestion that people should have the option to live in housing lacking basic amenities is "horribly conservative."

To progressive types, "conservative" is an insult, akin to "ignorant" - and not a competing, but equally valid, philosophy of government's role in individual lives.

Of course, the Michelle Bachmans, Rick Santorums, and Sarah Palins of the world don't help sell the idea that conservative is not a synonym for theocratic wacko. Where are the modern-day William F. Buckleys, Barry Goldwaters, and George Wills to sell an intelligent non-religious version of Conservative politics?

A big type of stepping-stone house is mobile homes (trailers), which are big in the South. My friends bought one right out of school, moved up to a small house, then to a big house. Problem? It is pure snobbery to hate trailers. And if crime is the problem, eliminating affordable housing is certainly not the solution. In places like NYC or San Fran, the restrictions on building housing are so onerous that housing gets bid up to absurd levels. The idea seems to be that if you make it illegal to build or own low-income housing, then you have solved the problem of all those icky poor people. A big part of the homeless problem was caused by demolishing SRO hotels because the winos lived there, and tenements because poor people lived there. So they end up on the street. Great solution (not).
In college my 2 friends and I rented an old house for $110/month. It had wood floors with gaps that the wind would come through. It was up on pillars and I could just sweep the dirt between the cracks and gone! We had to buy our own appliances. It was ugly. But what was the harm?

The issue is NOT "affordability" - in quotes because people argue about what that means.

The issue is whether this housing is earned. As Section 8 and other schemes prove daily, people who are given things cannot understand at all that property is earned. Why should they not steal what is yours, since you obviously did not have to earn it?

And there IS "affordable" housing all over the country. You're not entitled to live where you wish.

"Where are the modern-day William F. Buckleys, Barry Goldwaters, and George Wills to sell an intelligent non-religious version of Conservative politics?"

Most Conservatives where I come from don't have a problem with religion. Most of us don't have a problem with the non-religious either. We just prefer you to be conservative if you call yourself such. Buckley was both intelligent and fiercely religious which I am sure that you remember, Conan.

Buckley was both intelligent and fiercely religious....

Yes, but Buckley was able to defend conservative principles without relying on "because God said so" as his only argument.

Will has admitted he's an atheist, agnostic at best, and Goldwater, like Buckley, could frame his argument in non-religious terms.

Today's conservative standard bearers are inflexible social conservatives who come wrapped in a Bible flag and have no non-religious arguments on matters of Big Government, abortion, bathroom access, death penalty, et al.

San Francisco and Seattle now have more dogs than children.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Team Fido here.

Amy, this post reads like it came out of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," which sees the protagonist, an architect, design affordable housing only to be told it has to have a gymnasium, etc, which renders it unaffordable and/or structurally unsound (it's been a long time since I read it, so details are sketchy).

I grew up upper middle class. My dad was the first of his ilk to even go to vollege, much less law school and successful law career. My mom made sure to show us kids, as we each looked at UT, the Rio Motel on I-35 where she and dad stayed when they were uound, till married student housing opened up at UT. UT married housing was quonset huts, and they were luxury compared to the Rio.people should start out poor. It builds character.

Fellow central Texans may know the Rio, though I think it may have recently closed down. Yeah, it was really bad.

"Where are the modern-day William F. Buckleys, Barry Goldwaters, and George Wills to sell an intelligent non-religious version of Conservative politics?"

Well, there's Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker, to name three. Some good thinkers not running for office: Walter Williams (economics), Richard Fernandez (defense and foreign policy), and Victor Davis Hansen (immigration and social issues).

"'...basic amenities...' I would need to know what, exactly, is meant by this term."

Good question: Let's try to put some specifics to it. What would a modern "tenement" (I hate using that word, but I can't think of a better word) include?

* Studio apartment, big enough for two twin beds
* Doors and windows are tight; roof doesn't leak
* Basic electric wiring
* Wiring provision for phone and Internet
* Some reasonably safe form of heat
* Hot and cold running water
* On-premises shared kitchen; food storage in each unit
* Water closet
* On-premises shared showers
* At least one openable window
* Laundry room on premises

Cousin Dave, what you describe sounds a lot like a typical large college dorm built between the 60's and 80's...before the luxury dorms took off around the 90's. And isn't it interesting that this type of housing was fine 30 years ago, but somehow now it's not?

I live in Huntington Beach - aka Surf City USA. It is not a cheap place to live. Fortunately, I've been in the same place for years with only 2 small rent increases in that time, and my rent is pretty low based on what a 3 bedroom in town is going for these days. There's been a fight brewing for quite a while in town regarding how much "low income" housing has to be built. A few years ago the city adopted a new housing plan - with a whole lot of high-density housing. Residents are up in arms because as it is, traffic is horrible in the city and the residents are tired of seeing these high density projects popping up all over town (they're garish, I hate them). I can't afford to live in Beverly Hills, so I don't. There are always alternatives in surrounding communities, and if you look hard enough there's always someone who is charging below market on a rental because they just want to fill the vacancy. I don't want to subsidize housing, sorry.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/housing-707271-city-units.html

I would venture these types of housing aren't "acceptable" now because they can't charge more for them.

Sorta defeats the point, doesn't it?

Remember that the property value is in part a function of the rent, and it is also what determines taxes... so there is an incentive for cities to NOT have "affordable" housing that is actually affordable.

Well, there's Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker, to name three. Some good thinkers not running for office: Walter Williams (economics), Richard Fernandez (defense and foreign policy), and Victor Davis Hansen (immigration and social issues). ~ Cousin Dave at May 23, 2016 7:47 AM

Ted Cruz is selling a Christianity-based version of social conservative doctrine. I have a hard time seeing him as a true fiscal conservative, despite his stated reasons for opposition to Obamacare. Like Santorum and GW Bush, he's a big government Republican.

Rand Paul is probably as close to Goldwater in Libertarian thought as we'll get today, but he lacks the intellectual impact of the Arizona senator. He doesn't have the gravitas of a Buckley or Will. He has pretense to intellectual gravitas, but he's still comes across as the Alfred E. Neuman of conservative philosophers.

Scott Walker, does not carry the intellectual heft of Goldwater or Buckley, being inclined more toward doing things than talking about them. That's what made him a good governor, but what killed him on the campaign trail.

Walter Williams isn't bad. Your mention of him reminds me, I should add Thomas Sowell to my list of intellectual conservatives.

And Roger Scruton, although Scruton is a difficult slog for an audience weaned on the pablum dispensed in our public schools today.

Hansen is fantastic. Being an amateur military historian, I always enjoy reading his books on military history. And the personal anecdotes of living and farming in California's Central Valley he shares in his columns mirror the experiences of my own visits to the area. Thanks for reminding me about him.

Theodore Dalrymple is another conservative author worth reading. His personal experience working in Britain's prisons and public hospitals as well as his experience doctoring in Africa give him a first-hand on-the-ground perspective in his criticism of state-sponsored welfare.

Okay, to your point, there are conservative authors and philosophers who are worthy successors to Will, Buckley, and Goldwater.

So, why does the Republican Party, which claims the mantle of Conservatives, insist on running windsock politicians like McCain, Bush, or Romney. Or fundamentalist fussbudgets like Cruz, Bachman, or Santorum. Where are the Republican politicians who've read a book and formed a coherent philosophy of government?

I think the problem stems from the Republican Party's roots as a Northeastern liberal party. The party of Lincoln was in favor of a powerful and invasive federal government. The party old guard never fully made the switch to a conservative philosophy and looks with disdain upon its membership.

Not that the Democrats are any better. Their politicians stopped reading after someone spoon-fed them the Cliff's Notes versions of Das Kapital, Silent Spring, and The Feminine Mystique.

They've abandoned the working class that made them and are so beholden to special interest groups that they've neglected to form a coherent philosophy in favor of legislating giveaways to their interest groups.

Two of what are possibly the least-educated morons ever to run for president are going to be our choices for president in November. And both were graduated from highly-regarded colleges.

It's a sad day for the republic.

"So, why does the Republican Party, which claims the mantle of Conservatives, insist on running windsock politicians like McCain, Bush, or Romney. "

Well, see, in a weird sort of way, that's what Trump is all about. It's the party base saying, "What you're doing is not working! Try something else!" And the two nearest contenders, Cruz and Rubio, got a lot of their backing from the same sentiment. The nearest thing to an "establishment" candidate who was serious was Kasich, and he ended up a distant fourth.

Your diagnosis of the GOP is spot on. I recall from my youth that back in the '60s and '70s, it was regarded as the party of "Eastern bankers". A lot of its Reagan-era success came from conservative Democrats who got kicked out of their tent, and simply needed some place to go. (Goldwater's main problem was that he came along a few years too soon.) But the last group of shaker-uppers was the Gingrich group in the mid-1990s. Those guys all term-limited themselves, as they promised they would. But when they departed, it left the party to the country-club Republicans who had been there all along. GW Bush was sort of an attempt to compromise between the two factions, and it worked for a while, but ultimately the Establishment rejected all of the Reagan-era changes and went back to what they were doing. And now we have Trump.

@Conan the Grammarian:"Of course, the Michelle Bachmans, Rick Santorums, and Sarah Palins of the world don't help sell the idea that conservative is not a synonym for theocratic wacko. Where are the modern-day William F. Buckleys, Barry Goldwaters, and George Wills to sell an intelligent non-religious version of Conservative politics?"

In their day, liberals treated Goldwater and Buckley the way Sarah Palin is today. According to most of the press, Goldwater was the nutcase who would start a nuclear war and get everyone killed, and his nomination destroyed the Republican party forever (actually 4 years). They couldn't call William F. Buckley stupid, but there was plenty of ridicule. For instance, Lily Tomlin as Ernestine the telephone operator calling "William Fuhbuckley".