There is a right article in the New York Times on Singapore ‘policy on cars, which makes it prohibitive to own and conduct a car. With the concept, it would be a wonderful attraction to take the article and more or less update the word “auto” in the article with the word “housing” and “Singapore” through “United States”. Reading the article with the objective of the accommodation enters the category of Hubert Humphrey advertisement by deriving the concept of Spiro Agnew as vice president that “it would be fun if it were not so serious. “
The article, Ennamed, why leading Singapore is “as dressed in a rolex, is full of probabilities of calling similarities with the way we handle the house in the United States. He begins with the name himself. Why housing in the United States is” as dressed in a rolex. “Here is an exchange of languages of the article.
“Singapore, a city-state of the island that is smaller than New York, invoices to the drivers of thousands of dollars only for the right to buy a vehicle. The value of permits, which were brought in 1990 to restrict pollutants and congestion, increase with that of a car. “
Here is my version of Lib Mad.
“New York, an island city that is larger than Singapore, invoices other people who want to accommodate thousands of dollars only for the right to buy or hire a house. The value of permits and the zoning that brought to the 1920s to restrict greed and profits, rise with a cost or an apartment. “
There is even the huge of luck, so it is not unusual in housing stories in the United States. There is the story of Joy Fang, who bought an old Hyundai 3 years ago for $ 58,000, “almost double the value before the permission of a new style of this sedan. ” Shocking. I will not even create a link to one of the thousands of stories that underline how much a user or a circle of relatives spends to hire a space or buy one.
Here are the moments of the FANG car.
“Every month, the couple will pay around $ 1,400, or more than 10% of their home budget, for the car, license and other expenses, such as road taxes, fuel and parking. To compensate for the cost, they reduced food and travel. “
Here is my version, falsified in the United States.
“Every month, the couple will pay around $ 4,400, or more than 30% of their home budget, for the house, the zoning leaves in and other expenses, such as asset taxes, other taxes and parking. To compensate for the cost, they reduce restaurants and trips. “
But this is the difference between the inconvenience of possessing and taking a car to Singapore and housing in the United States: in Singapore, there are substitutes.
Another theme from the history of the times said:
“We are sitting in traffic for two or 3 hours just to move on to work. ” The Singapore resident explains that “having an effective public shipping formula also allows Singapurenians to use a car, and he takes it when he wishes to the city center. “
There is no replacement for housing. If a public policy tax and a merchandise to the point that it is too painful to buy it and have it, but offers alternatives, then other people will probably leave the goods. In the case of Singapore, The Times Story Note,
“There are few reasons for many Singapureans to have a car. Most citizens have an expanding and shipping shipping formula that extends to the island. Even long trips charge less than $ 2. 50 Singapore, or about $ 2, and platforms that go up as collection are abundant. “
The replacement of the property of a space in the United States is the rent, but what is the rental replacement? There are none. When the poor is in a hurry because the accommodation is too expensive, they face the same challenge that Fang describes, cutting other people who must have or seeking to manage the limited money flows well.
For me, it is clear, Singapore has to force the assets and the operation of a car for political reasons (weather change, infrastructure economy, etc. , but also created a ramp outside the ramp (word game) so that other people find opportunities for the property and exploitation of a car.
Zoning and other regulations, taxes, prices and fines for housing in the United States work, as well as restrictions on cars ownership in Singapore, unless public policy here has not provided opportunities. On the other hand, if we adhere to the analogy, we create restrictions on the property and rent of a house, we restrict the offering of subsidized opportunities with even more regulation, which makes the position of low -income homes for housing (LIHTC), for example, is prohibitive. Imagine if Singapore did what he did with cars but the traffic restricted in public transport, produced very paths and has created waiting lists for a trip. Whatever we think about Singapore’s policy, applying it to housing through zoning and regulations are, at most, a ruthless punishment for other people who earn less money.