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

Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 262 posts

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#11

Post by zhdc1 »

seibelj wrote: post #4

If this is such a good idea, why don’t they raise private funds from various charities and rich people to fund an experiment? Why am I as a taxpayer constantly asked to fund ever more schemes? This one has the all markings of a non-profit, and if you involve the government and associated bureaucracy it will become an entrenched quagmire like the huge housing projects that have been torn down in many cities. I don’t s…

Expanding on this, there are already similar schemes out there, and they've done nothing to stop property price inflation.

Abstracting away ownership from the property to a collective legal entity ignores the main reason why people 'own' property in the first place - property needs to be actively maintained, and when it's not, those affected need to be able to identify and movitiate a responsible party.

Even when you own stock in a cooperative, you're responsible for the part you live in. Once you tie in financing, insurance, and utilities, you're left with something that looks an awfully lot like property ownership, except with a slightly different fee structure.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#12

Post by bennysomething »

seibelj wrote: post #4

If this is such a good idea, why don’t they raise private funds from various charities and rich people to fund an experiment? Why am I as a taxpayer constantly asked to fund ever more schemes? This one has the all markings of a non-profit, and if you involve the government and associated bureaucracy it will become an entrenched quagmire like the huge housing projects that have been torn down in many cities. I don’t s…

I agree. Also how does this system change the cost of housing over all. I don't see how it changes anything. The simple reason rents are high in some areas is supply and demand. Will this increase supply? Or reduce demand in those areas. Doubt it.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#13

Post by zhdc1 »

nemo44x wrote: post #9
zhdc1 wrote: post #5

How is this any different from owning shares in a housing cooperative? Aside from the risk being - possibly - divided across multiple properties, I don't see how this would solve the main issues driving appreciating housing prices any better than attacking their root causes (build more housing supply, limit housing speculation, and prevent overleveraging).

That’s what I was thinking. However, there are some co-Ops in NYC that allow you to buy shares at a really cheap price VS what the market would pay. But when you sell, the co-op sells the shares so although you profit, you won’t be as much as if it were sold at market value. But you paid below market so it works out. However, these aren’t just open to anyone. You need to know people to get in. It’s a self policing co…

A lot of older condominiums in the states were originally housing cooperatives because the legal structure at the time didn't have an easy way to handle communal living (e.g., apartments).

There are even more of them in Europe, although you're generally expected to pay a significantly higher amount up front and actively participate in common area maintenance and (in some cases) participate in social activities and the like.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#14

Post by berdario »

bennysomething wrote: post #6

"those losses aren’t equitably distributed, either: Nearly 2 million mortgages are underwater in the U.S., and they’re disproportionately concentrated in Black and Latino communities. Tenants in coastal cities, meanwhile, know the pain of forking over more and more rent every year, unable to save for a down payment and living at the mercy of sometimes unscrupulous landlords." What on earth does not equitable mean in…

People cannot actually choose the location, without giving up their work.

"You can only find work in a big metropolitan center that demands 60% of your salary in rent? Though luck..."

Let's say that you work in London... if you are 1h away from your work, you're still likely in zone 3 or 4, which is pretty expensive.

Your choices then are: a 1h30/2h commute (each way) or giving up on having a place only for yourself, and start flatsharing

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#15

Post by nemo44x »

Renting is underrated but owning is nice too if you want to root. However I think a lot of renters or people that complain they can’t afford a house also forget about the costs of property tax and maintenance. Those are 2 costs that never end and don’t remain fixed (in most places) over time.

For instance, anywhere reasonably commutable to NYC and close to a train line is going to probably have 10’s of thousands a year in property taxes...

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#16

Post by berdario »

fallingknife wrote: post #7

> A third option is necessary: a way to rent without making someone else rich. I care how much I pay. I don't give a shit who gets it.

If buy-to-let is profitable, people will do it as a business...

If people do it as a business, it'll drive the price of housing up even more, and since businesses have more capital than workers, the latter will be priced out (if lucky, they'll be able to afford a 90% LTV which will take decades to repay, but most workers cannot afford it on their own)

If you care how much you pay, you care about who is extracting money out of you

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#18

Post by larsiusprime »

How does this contrast with more old-school approaches to the housing crisis, like say, Georgism & Land Value Tax?

There was a big review on Progress & Poverty over at Astral Codex Ten recently on the subject: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...

This proposal seems to address the same problem, but the mechanism is pretty different, and I'm wondering if it improves upon what the Georgists have already proposed, or if it is less efficient by being different.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#19

Post by aeternum »

berdario wrote: post #14
bennysomething wrote: post #6

"those losses aren’t equitably distributed, either: Nearly 2 million mortgages are underwater in the U.S., and they’re disproportionately concentrated in Black and Latino communities. Tenants in coastal cities, meanwhile, know the pain of forking over more and more rent every year, unable to save for a down payment and living at the mercy of sometimes unscrupulous landlords." What on earth does not equitable mean in…

People cannot actually choose the location, without giving up their work. "You can only find work in a big metropolitan center that demands 60% of your salary in rent? Though luck..." Let's say that you work in London... if you are 1h away from your work, you're still likely in zone 3 or 4, which is pretty expensive. Your choices then are: a 1h30/2h commute (each way) or giving up on having a place only for yourself,…

Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land.

A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value is depriving the city of a lot of potential utility and should be taxed in proportion to that.

Re: Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house

#20

Post by jkbbwr »

1996 wrote: post #8

Anyone who has seen how public owned goods turn out would realize how much of a bad idea it is: for a budget similar to the DoD, you may get wait lines like in a DMV, with as much administrative fiddling as the NASA, with a quality of service as good as the DHS. If you are lucky, you may get as many choices as their are public transportation option in the midwest. Thanks but no thanks.

Care to provide some evidence to back up your claim or are you just on the red scare train.
Post reply on HN