Public-ownership rental as a third option to renting or owning a house • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by throwawayboise » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

ahoy wrote: post #26

1996 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Public transport works well when your city prioritizes it.

And when there is critical mass. Public transit works in dense urban centers, because it's less worse than driving and parking. It doesn't work in smaller towns. There, it just becomes something that everybody pays for but a tiny minority of people ever use.

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

#52

Post by ssalazar » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #32

ahoy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount you pay is set by the people who get it.

It's set mostly by supply and demand across the market. The owner and the renter can get together and negotiate a small deviation based on the property's idiosyncracies, but it's the market that's primarily driving it.

Not really. Housing resembles nothing like a free market. Supply and demand is driven a lot by political forces (regulation, political favoritism) that effectively limit supply. Large land-owning political entities or blocs have outsized influence on these factors.

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

#53

Post by whimsicalism » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

ffggvv wrote: post #49

airhead969 wrote: post #10

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…

it’s not terrible because the middle upper classes don’t use it. the middle/upper classes don’t use it because it’s terrible because of the people who live in it and do terrible things. sorry it’s not PC but it’s true

Also because you can't qualify for section 8 housing?

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

#54

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #40

arcticbull wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think there is still a place for government action to help prevent historic populations of a community from getting displaced. But those programs should be implemented as subsidies , not price controls! The only reason we're so reliant on the latter is it is more easy politically to put the costs on suppliers and hope the electorate doesn't notice that you're actually exacerbating the problem.

> But those programs should be implemented as subsidies, not price controls!

Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords, and an accelerant to runaway general unaffordability. You could probably split the difference with weaker rent controls and subsidies that make it look like stronger rent control from the renters side, which might mitigate the worst problems of either policies (albeit, at thr cost of combining thr problems of both.)

What would probably be better is to find a way to lean into displacement, or at least accept it, while giving displaced residents a stake in the unleashed value.

Strong rent control but with a buyout option where the the bought-out renter gets some share of the excess (compared to what they could have been charged with rent control) rent over a specified period with some floor might be an option.

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

#55

Post by prox » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #38

prox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This falls in line with the old economic school of how value is created, which fell in disfavor because it didn’t sit right with the upper classes, for clear reasons.

If you're referencing the LTV, no it doesn't

No, I am referencing the Value Of Everything by M.Mazzucato.

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

#56

Post by dsr_ » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

ffggvv wrote: post #49

airhead969 wrote: post #10

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…

it’s not terrible because the middle upper classes don’t use it. the middle/upper classes don’t use it because it’s terrible because of the people who live in it and do terrible things. sorry it’s not PC but it’s true

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

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

#57

Post by throwawayboise » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #45

fighterpilot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's set mostly by supply and demand across the market. The owner and the renter can get together and negotiate a small deviation based on the property's idiosyncracies, but it's the market that's primarily driving it.

The term for an opportunistic escalation in pricing (of a critical commodity) due to a rapid-onset shortage is price gouging. Like many US markets, local rental prices have ~doubled in the last two years. As in every case of price gouging, sufficient supply would have prevented the opportunism that is presently causing broad harm. Huzzah for supply and demand, I guess.

The alternative to "price gouging" is imposing some form of price controls. Since housing cannot be created out of thin air, that means some people will get lucky and everyone else will have to do without. I'm not sure that's any less a harm.

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

#58

Post by whimsicalism » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #54

whimsicalism wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is still a place for government action to help prevent historic populations of a community from getting displaced. But those programs should be implemented as subsidies , not price controls! The only reason we're so reliant on the latter is it is more easy politically to put the costs on suppliers and hope the electorate doesn't notice that you're actually exacerbating the problem.

> But those programs should be implemented as subsidies, not price controls! Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords, and an accelerant to runaway general unaffordability. You could probably split the difference with weaker rent controls and subsidies that make it look like stronger rent control from the renters side, which might mitigate the worst problems of eithe…

> Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords

How is it a windfall for landlords? If the rent prices are going up, they will be making the money regardless of whether the renter is paying for it or the government is paying for some of it.

If your point is that a subsidy will shift demand and increase the price, that is exactly what we want! A price signal to the market to build more housing to accommodate everyone who wants to live there including displaced communities!

> lean into displacement

What does this mean? I think there is some level of societal interest in preventing displacement, there are negative externalities from displacement that the market can't properly price in.

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

#59

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #44

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Name one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities. Suggesting that there are careers that only exist in the largest cities seems like an odd thing for you to introduce into the conversation.

I think the point is that paying 60% of income in rent is unviable. You need to find a different job, a cheaper apartment, or move somewhere else. Maybe all of the above.

> paying 60% of income in rent is unviable. You need to find a different job

I think you mean you need to dedicate career-level resources to locating a job that pays a meaningful amount more than the one you have - then beating out the hundreds of other job applicants while assisting your kids thru 4 hours of evening homework, battling a chronic health condition, performing routine household upkeep and cleaning, spending 8 hours a week trying to turn health insurance into usable appointments and the several other hours of mandatory obligations.

This assumes we are considering the sort of scenarios faced by typically, struggling folks - and we aren't treating challenges as if they exist in isolation.

> a cheaper apartment,

After looking you find an absurdly small number and their condition is substandard at best. The roaches, noise and maladjusted neighbors guarantee you won't get more than 5 hours sleep most nights. Moving into one of them would cost $4k out of pocket after all of the various expenses and deposits are totaled up.

> or move somewhere else.

Folks who have enough $$$$$$.$$ to wholly fund a move to another city probably aren't struggling to the point where they need to move.

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

#60

Post by igorstellar » Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

ahoy wrote: post #26

1996 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Our subway is clean and regular

I've noticed it got cleaner after COVID happened. Before COVID... It was world's most disgusting subway I ever been to: filthy, sketchy and leaks rust on your head.