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

121–130 of 262 posts

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

#121

Post by imtringued »

eptcyka wrote: post #74
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…

Its simple - tax landlordism out of viability.

That doesn't make sense. You only need to tax the appreciation of the land value via land value taxes. Building housing and renting them out is economically productive, we want more of that but property taxes are paid on the productive part. This makes land value appreciation a far more reliable way of earning money even though you are doing absolutely nothing that is economically productive.

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

#123

Post by lobotryas »

arcticbull wrote: post #30
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 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…

The real root cause is that everyone wants to live (for obvious reasons) in places where housing supply is constrained like SF, LA, or NYC. Home ownership is easy in places like Detroit or Oklahoma boonies, but unsurprisingly no one wants to go there.

Instead of cramming more people onto the same set of square mikes, how about we develop more (non coastal) places for people to aspire moving to instead?

Not everyone has to or should move to California.

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

#124

Post by imtringued »

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.

This doesn't make any sense, if people like those neighborhoods, why would they pay for housing whose value is based around what its potential rent income would be if zoning was not restricted.

The fact that you can (eventually) build a 2 story apartment building on that plot of land is already priced in.

If you like it this way then enjoy the needless suffering and economic inefficiency, it can only get worse. Turning one city into an "ugly" 10 million metropolis could have spared a dozen other cities.

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

#125

Post by bradleyjg »

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.

With interest rates having nowhere to go but up, look for the government to introduce the fifty year mortgage in order to keep the party going.

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

#126

Post by imtringued »

6510 wrote: post #97

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…

Your proposed tax could be based on a "housing pressure index", basically squarefeet of livable space per person or people per squarefoot. This index would measure if there are lots of families living in cramped conditions or people living with room mates.

If housing pressure is too high, tax corporations more.

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

#127

Post by toomuchtodo »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #104
Spooky23 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad administered a similar program for getting historically disadvantaged people owning multi family homes. Basically, folks would sign up for home ownership education, do a bunch of stuff related to maintenance, etc and shop for a two family. The housing authority (through a grant) would essentially provide a loan for 20-30% of the purchase price for down payment and some repairs. The loan would be forgiven in 5…

Habitat For Humanity[1] works in a similar way. At least in my town, families help to build or renovate the home they move into, and their mortgage payments are capped at a reasonable percentage of their income (I think 30%). 1: https://www.habitat.org/about/faq#homeownership

HfH typically provides the mortgage with a 0% interest rate also. They are a tremendous program that should be scaled up.

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

#128

Post by refurb »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #93
berdario wrote: post #14

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,…

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.

You listed 3 occupations where opportunities aren’t that scarce and every town needs those people.

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

#129

Post by refurb »

jawns wrote: post #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 regulato…

Sounds like an HOA

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

#130

Post by dredmorbius »

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

This is specifically addressed in the introduction to The Affordable City, and is why "Supply, Stability, and Subsidy" are a three-point policy.

Without supply, yes, subsidies are swallowed up by landlords, and stability (tenants' rights measures) benefit a small minority. Without subsidy, those temporarily or permanently disadvantaged still lack housing or assurance of it. And without stability, tenants remain at risk of being abused by landlords.

(If this sounds like "please read the book", it's because it is. I'm not yet sold, but the proposals seem far-better fledged than most I've seen.)

Post reply on HN