Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

builderonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#111

Post by niftich »

moultano wrote: post #40
toomuchtodo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the "character" of their neighborhood. > Somehow we've gotten into a cultural state where everyone expects the place they live to stay exactly as it is for their lifetime. I think this is just human nature. > It's totally implausible and destructive, but people fight for it anyways, even when it isn't in their financial interest. I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definite…

>I think this is just human nature. Probably, but I suspect we can trace the triumph of NIMBYism to the baby-boom reaching the "get off my lawn" age. >I disagree. Simply look at Europe or historical districts in the US. Its definitely not implausible, and only destructive to new citizens who want to live there (that don't have an existing vested interest in the area). If the area being "preserved" was limited in some…

Your points have some merit, but this:

> the reality is that new housing is simply illegal in every positive population growth city in the country

is just not true. There's plenty of greenfield building going on in the metropolitan areas of Denver, Boise, Salt Lake City, Vegas, St. George, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Raleigh, Atlanta, and South Florida. These are areas that have all shown positive population growth.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#112

Post by snrplfth »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #76
Grishnakh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's also frequently very wastefully used in agriculture. More water-efficient agricultural practices need to be mandated.

I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.

Right - people don't realize that if people had to actually pay non-subsidized rates for water, and had to pay the same rate no matter whether they were using it for irrigation or household use, then most of these wasteful agricultural applications would end pretty sharpish.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#113

Post by chiph »

fencepost wrote: post #96
StillBored wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, its probably less than 10%, which is less than the sales taxes on most other things being purchased. We could just as well complain about the profit the builder is making, which is likely a lot more given how much most sub contractors are making. Its sounds like a big number until you consider the final cost, aka everything is relative, it would be a much bigger deal if the houses were selling for $100k beca…

> So what, its probably less than 10%, If $50k is 10%, that means it's a half million dollar house. That may not be much by comparison to housing stock in California, but there are very few places where that's considered "entry level."

In some states, that $50k is the home price. Or (mandatory Detroit joke) the entire block.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#115

Post by linkregister »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19
xrange wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

The problem is, when you move somewhere else, and you buy your home, you become the person that wants their home value maintained/protected. Are you going to vote against your own interests? If so, I applaud you. Otherwise, you're just distributing the problem across the country, as tech money flows through workers in secondary cities (inflating property prices in Austin, Denver, Boulder, Nashville, Portland, Seattle…

It is actually counter to house owners' interests to block further development.

1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they become adults (unless they get lucky with a high-income job).

2. If they ever want to down-size and move into a smaller house or apartment after retirement, it won't be economically viable since the smaller place will still be expensive. The only way to adjust to a fixed income is to relocate.

Most communities don't do this. It's endemic to California due to the legislation noted in the article. It's rational for Mountain View to restrict housing and promote office space because it's the only way it can afford to keep tax revenue high enough to provide public services.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#116

Post by thaumasiotes »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #87
thaumasiotes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level You don't see any problems with this statement?

Not at all. Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. "Correct" is just short-hand for getting what we as a society want out of our water distribution system. Like, we don't want to use so much water that a river runs dry and kills all the fish in it, even if it means selling a few million dollars more worth of water.

A market-based solution means the quantity of water sold is determined by the market. There's no other way to know what the "correct" quantity is; that is the entire purpose of the market.

What you're describing is a centrally-planned solution, not a market one.

I lost all my respect for carbon tax advocates after realizing that their definition of the appropriate tax was "high enough that people stop doing things I don't like". That's not a market system. It will be a market system if you set a price on the thing you don't like, and people respond to that price. Tweaking your price until you get the outcome you originally wanted is a way to claim the rhetoric of "market policies" without any of the substance.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#117

Post by fooker »

Grishnakh wrote: post #67
Waterluvian wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live near Waterloo, Canada. It feels very good for us as we have always struggled to convince people to come live in the snowy abyss rather than cozy California.

From everything I've read, it's not that easy for Americans to emigrate to Canada.

Compared to what? Do you know how difficult immigration is when you are not an American?

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#118

Post by ThrustVectoring »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #116
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. "Correct" is just short-hand for getting what we as a society want out of our water distribution system. Like, we don't want to use so much water that a river runs dry and kills all the fish in it, even if it means selling a few million dollars more worth of water.

A market-based solution means the quantity of water sold is determined by the market. There's no other way to know what the "correct" quantity is; that is the entire purpose of the market. What you're describing is a centrally-planned solution, not a market one. I lost all my respect for carbon tax advocates after realizing that their definition of the appropriate tax was "high enough that people stop doing things I…

Uhm, not really? Like, I'd describe the system that auctions off frequency spectrum as "market-based", even though the quantity of spectrum sold is fixed. The frequency spectrum auction is a market designed and created by a central planner, sure, but it's still a market.

If you wanted to be really clever, you could separate out the environmental concerns as a separate entity and give them a budget to buy and leave unused the water rights that best support their mission. That seems a bit weird to me, though - I'd rather just figure out how much water we can distribute safely, and then auction off the right to receive that distribution at fair market prices.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#119

Post by toomuchtodo »

linkregister wrote: post #115
toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, when you move somewhere else, and you buy your home, you become the person that wants their home value maintained/protected. Are you going to vote against your own interests? If so, I applaud you. Otherwise, you're just distributing the problem across the country, as tech money flows through workers in secondary cities (inflating property prices in Austin, Denver, Boulder, Nashville, Portland, Seattle…

It is actually counter to house owners' interests to block further development. 1. Their children won't be able to continue to live in the area once they become adults (unless they get lucky with a high-income job). 2. If they ever want to down-size and move into a smaller house or apartment after retirement, it won't be economically viable since the smaller place will still be expensive. The only way to adjust to a…

I'm unsure which Boomers you've interacted with, but anecdotally, the ones I've talked to a) don't care if their kids can live where they grew up and b) they plan on selling their home for as much as they can get for it and then move to a low tax, low cost of living area when they retire/downsize (some to Florida, some to Central America [either Panama or Belize], one person to Thailand).

This is to be expected when you have no defined benefit/pension plans in the US anymore, very few people saved enough for retirement on their own, your social security benefit is anemic, and your home is your most valuable asset. One might argue everyone should save more (they should!), but that's of course going to drag GDP down (can't win).

YMMV. Frankly, I feel like we've brought this on as a country ourselves. Dog eat dog catches up.

Re: How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

#120

Post by ScottBurson »

jacalata wrote: post #57
jvm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that reassessment is capped so when the market goes crazy people aren't driven out of their homes By definition, the people who would be "driven out" have seen their home values wildly appreciate and they have by that token become substantially wealthy. This is like saying that if someone is on food stamps but then becomes a millionaire, it's unfair to take away their foodstamps or raise their tax rate.

No, it's like saying that when someone has an illiquid asset theoretically worth $1 million but not actually capable of being traded for cash, it is unfair to take away their food stamps and leave them with no way to buy food. The general idea is that it is impossible to trade in the value of your house for any replacement for 'spend my retirement in the area I spent my working life in', because the other houses that…

This is what home equity loans are for.
Post reply on HN