Live data from Hacker News

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

theatlantic.com

21–30 of 262 posts

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

#21
"Think of a woman who buys a home in one part of town, takes a new job in another area a few years later, and is then stuck with a 90-minute commute, or of a man who turns down the better job because he doesn’t want to sell his home or be saddled with a long commute. Now multiply that by millions of households across the country. Homeownership locks people in place, in large part because of the high transaction costs of buying and selling property."

This assumes that you exist first and foremost to work jobs, and anything that impedes this is bad and needs to be optimized away. This is very American, very contemporary - don't accept it as universal.

Move a little to the side in time and in space and people are "from somewhere", live there, and optimize their life to improve them living there - possibly by taking jobs in the vicinity.

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

#22
post #20
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.

Evidence is the cleanliness of public transportation, the derelict public bikes and other 2 wheel battery assisted devices, the derelict laptops in school that provide them to student...

Maybe it's just a big anti communist plot, or maybe it's just human nature to not take care about things you do not own.

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

#23

"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,…

Name one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities.

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

#25
I'm a distributist, so I would prefer to see this type of system operated as a private cooperative, 100% owned by participants, rather than a government-run program. Why? Because then the people who get to make the decisions are the co-op participants themselves -- the people with the most skin in the game -- and the government can instead focus on areas where the participants actually need help, e.g. at the regulatory level, to make sure these arrangements are not unjustly disadvantaged.

* If you are not familiar with distributism, see this primer: https://shaungallagher.pressbin.com/blog/distributism-for-ki...

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

#26
post #22
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Evidence is the cleanliness of public transportation, the derelict public bikes and other 2 wheel battery assisted devices, the derelict laptops in school that provide them to student... Maybe it's just a big anti communist plot, or maybe it's just human nature to not take care about things you do not own.

I live in a new york. Our subway is clean and regular, the bike share docks in my neighborhood are stocked and well-maintained. The busses, though sometimes crowded, run on time.

Public transport works well when your city prioritizes it. I spent my youth living in places that don't and I literally cannot imagine going back.

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

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of property and would not take kindly to new taxes on it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets

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

#28
I don't know why they're not talking about cooperative ownership too! Limited-equity cooperative ownership seems to me seems the real third option. (Full-equity cooperatives like say NYC's market-rate alternative to condos is not what i'm talking about, and is just a form of ownership rather than another option).

https://shelterforce.org/2017/04/25/will-limited-equity-co-o...

To make it accessible to all necessary income levels, it may need government subsidy, and has sometimes had it in the past (just as obviously government-owned housing would be assumed to get subsidy). But tenant-controlled cooperatives seem preferable in all ways to straight-out government ownership (which yeah, isn't that just public housing), and limited-equity tenant-controlled cooperative ownership has a pretty successful track record in the US and other places.

https://nationalcooperativelawcenter.com/co-ops-are-better-a...

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

#29
post #3

This is "the rest of the story" on a recent HN submission which was not as it turns out the "rent vs. buy" polemic much of the discussion seemed to expect (not without some basis given the headline and structure of the article), but actually a fairly radical, and intersting, housing policy proposal. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824383 The article's author has in fact written a book on the subject, a chapter…

You're right that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824383 was completely derailed by its title, which often happens with sensational titles, especially about universal topics like housing, food, health, transportation. But I don't think https://www.planetizen.com/features/110948-affordable-city-o... (the URL you submitted here) is a very good alternative—it seems kind of boring (mostly platitudes and cheerleadi…

Yeah, it's kind of a hard dig.

The Atlantic piece at least eventually gets around to describing the proposal. It manages to completely avoid any mention of the author's book (which I'd submitted as an addition), which is ... several shades of perplexing. The chapter extract also isn't the best though at least it points to the larger work. The two items in tandem ... kind of help get the message through?

(I'm doing some further digging on the initiative, proposal, Lewis Center, and Phillips in parallel with the discussion here. In a world of pretty tired and unimaginative suggestions regarding housing, this at least has some novel and possibly even likely elements, though it probably needs to be combined with other initiatives, most especially those discouraging idle land and real estate asset inflation. Phillips could use some coaching on persuasive writing and outreach as well....)

This is good for now.

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

#30

Isn't this what terrible public housing is already? Could it be less terrible or would it always devolve into a housing caste system because middle-/upper-classes would never use it? Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. Also, the root…

The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, orchestrated via zoning regulations. Wikipedia spells this out in detail for San Francisco [1].

> Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments. Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth. At the same time, there has been rapid economic growth of the high tech industry in San Francisco and nearby Silicon Valley, which has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

(Supply Price goes up.

If we're to solve the housing affordability crisis, city councils simply need to drop onerous zoning regulations and permit construction such that supply can meet demand.

Anything short of this is just a beat-around-the-bush bandaid that hasn't and won't achieve anything. For instance, rent control. What a regressive concept, with tons of unintended consequences.

[edit] for real do you think there'd be a housing shortage or affordability crisis if the entire southern and western 3/4 of San Francisco was allowed to build up from 4 stories to 6? Basically everything other than districts 3 and 6. [2] That'd easily add 50% more housing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage

[2] https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/san-francisco’s-superv...

Post reply on HN