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

91–100 of 262 posts

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

#91

Post by 6510 »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #76
eptcyka wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its simple - tax landlordism out of viability.

How do people who can't afford to buy then survive? I'm in NZ and we've just seen laws introduced that makes being a landlord more expensive and unsurprisingly it's seen rental increases as a result.

Spend the money on new houses without asking anyone for permission. (Specially not home owners who financially benefit from homelessness.)

You could even do a construction project and bill the land lords for that directly. In an even crazier universe they would get something in return for the [forced] investment.

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

#92

Post by dredmorbius »

seoaeu wrote: post #82
ssalazar wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit motive drives your rent up.

And competition drives it down.

In the case of land, no, competition drives attempts to curtail supply, in which case the value goes up further.

Which is why something that works the way a Georgian land value tax is designed is ultimately necessary.

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

#93

Post by MomoXenosaga »

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,…

Yeah you can buy your dream house in the middle of nowhere for 200k but if you're a teacher, nurse or electrician job opportunities are likely scarce. People don't just live in cities for the opera.

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

#94

Post by haram_masala »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #89
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…

The housing market is FUBAR because the people who already have a house absolutely 100% need prices to go up indefinitely to fund their lifestyle. The government can't do anything either besides tell banks to lend starters more $ because the system cannot be allowed to collapse.

Doesn’t this depend on whether those homeowners have borrowed against their (rising) equity? I wonder what fraction of homeowners actually do so. Personally I wouldn’t dream of it, so rising prices don’t really affect my lifestyle at all.

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

#95

Post by Spivak »

vineyardmike wrote: post #90
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, and zoning regulations. Trying to mimic 1960s TV neighborhoods thru single use zoning regs has not served our country well.

I’m pretty sure a lot of people enjoy living in those neighborhoods. Surely if no one actually liked living in those neighborhoods it wouldn’t still be the ideal people strive for.

Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of people in the burbs living an idilic life of winding roads and manicured lawns just the same as the people who enjoy rural, small town, or city life but there’s a huge group of people who are forced via their life circumstances to go to where there’s work and where they can afford.

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

#96

Post by lurquer »

whimsicalism wrote: post #58
dragonwriter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I think there is some level of societal interest in preventing displacement,

Why?

‘Historic populations’ is a euphemism for Black in most cases.

In most large cities I’ve lived in, there is typically a section of town plagued by bad schools, high crime, bad infrastructure, and crumbling residences, and it is usually monoethnic.

Why is this a good thing?

It seems that whites in the more affluent areas and suburbs are willing to throw a lot of money at these ‘historic’ populations so that the residents won’t move to their side of town.

Kinda perverse.

‘Ethnic’ neighborhoods in large cities are quaint. Sometimes they become tourist attractions. But, in large part, many are simply ghettos and the faster the ethnicity is integrated into the larger housing market, the better for everyone.

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

#97

Post by 6510 »

Land tax is a must but I have an even funnier idea. Tax corporations per employee and adjust the amount to the housing shortage. Make the tax truly terrifying if there is a big shortage.

If you really must run your shop in that ultra expensive location you just pay for it. If you cant afford it you simply do not have what it takes, the area is not for you and you should leave. Make room for a business that belongs OR turn the building into housing.

You would still have home owners who want to continue to ride the housing ponzi but they would be directly opposed by corporations.

The revenue should be reserved for subsidies on constructive construction. Free money for anyone who [partially] solves the problem.

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

#98

Post by sudosysgen »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #76
eptcyka wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its simple - tax landlordism out of viability.

How do people who can't afford to buy then survive? I'm in NZ and we've just seen laws introduced that makes being a landlord more expensive and unsurprisingly it's seen rental increases as a result.

You don't make landlordism more expensive. You make it more difficult and less profitable.

House prices will go down, and more people will be able to buy. For others, there is public-ownership rental and even public housing (that would be of much higher quality than today)

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

#99

Post by cortesoft »

eulenteufel wrote: post #80
don-code wrote: post #63

I didn't quite glean a thorough understanding of the model from the article. It sounds like it's: 1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent. 2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months. 3) Eventually, I own en…

Thinking about the principles laid down in the article: a) Do not require significant initial funds for buying b) Do not have other people profit of the housing A simple solution congruent with these principles could be: Selling the house should be restricted to yield the amount of money you put in. This excludes money spend on repairs, etc., and is to be adjusted for inflation. You can keep living in the house as lo…

> Once you are dead, you lose the house and the inheritance will be the same money you would get from selling the house/apartment under the regulated terms.

Where would this money come from, though? You only make money on the property when you sell it to someone else, so who is buying it? Not the next renter, because they are supposed to be buying into equity, not paying someone else's profit.

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

#100

Post by tahoemph999 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #87
don-code wrote: post #63

I didn't quite glean a thorough understanding of the model from the article. It sounds like it's: 1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent. 2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months. 3) Eventually, I own en…

The author's proposal is laid out in his book, The Affordable City . Unlike many policy books, the table of contents, available at the publisher's site, is both detailed and descriptive, and does convey the outline of his proposals: https://islandpress.org/books/affordable-city The ebook is a $5 download, which I'd strongly encourage for the curious.

$3.82 for the ebook on Amazon.
Post reply on HN