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

141–150 of 262 posts

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

#141

Post by Nasrudith »

gonehome wrote: post #73
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 wish there was some way to fix the incentives so people valued growth properly. Currently the incentives are broken. If you buy in you’re incentivized to limit any future growth to capitalize your ownership of restricted supply. This takes many forms, but zoning, “neighborhood character”, “environmentalism”, noise, shadows, etc. - it’s all about supply restriction. If there was a way for everyone to get the increas…

There already is value given for not limiting growth - it is called growth and absence of pronlems. The main issue is that they don't see them.

One dumb top of the head idea is a new development "tax" to existing owners within a certain radius. It is pretty perverse in its self. Hopefully it would be offset by absense of NIMBY costs. Probably not the best concept by any means and had loads of flaws I haven't noticed but it could technically help.

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

#142

Post by andrepd »

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…

> Also, the root cause isn't X, it's Y

Unfortunately unaffordable housing is a problem with many causes, not one simple root cause that explains everything to the detriment of all other factors.

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

#143

Post by dredmorbius »

seoaeu wrote: post #133
dredmorbius wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People generally rent homes rather than just land. When zoning doesn't interfere, landowners maximize their profit by creating as many homes on each parcel of land as they believe they'll be able to find tenants for. A land tax might help, but it is silly to say that people wouldn't ever use their land productively without one.

NIMBY says otherwise.

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

#144

Post by bombcar »

lobotryas wrote: post #123
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…

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 h…

Those other locations have similar problems at lower price-levels: relative to incomes you still have to get to moderately large commute distances to get affordable housing.

One improvement would effective transportation that makes the outlying locations nearly as attractive for commuting purposes.

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

#145

Post by dredmorbius »

gewa wrote: post #84

Isn't this, what a housing cooperative are about? They are very common in Germany and seen as valuable cultural heritage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative

Co-ops address only one aspect of a three-element triad: supply, stability (co-ops here), and subsidy.

In his book, and the chapter exerpt I've linked in an earlier comment, Phillips explains why all three elements are key.

Co-ops (or similar co-housing or community-housing arrangements) cannot of and by themselves address the greater supply problem, or provide subsidies for at-risk, disabled (temporarily or permanently) individuals, children, or retirees. They're useful, but insufficient.

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

#146

Post by bombcar »

bradleyjg wrote: post #108
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…

> 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. I’ve lived in 80/20 buildings. None of the things you list make them a “joke” except the number of units. Yes, the 20% apartments aren’t as nice, don’t get to use the gym for free, and in a couple…

Working-class areas and luxury areas aren’t a problem if there’s effective transportation. As it is most of California is packed to the gills with freeways and little in the way of rail.

(Sadly rail is often opposed by the luxury areas - the Santee extension of the Trolley was campaigned against as “importing crime”.)

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

#147

Post by varispeed »

The problem is that when you are from a poor background, you will have difficult time saving money for a new house if you chose a path of working hard, getting educated and then getting a good job. All because of progressive tax, that is being sold to public as tax on the rich, but reality is that it prevents people from escaping poverty and makes sure people don't grow beyond a certain point. The rich on the other hand don't pay the same taxes as anyone else - they have money to get around any system that is put in place. I think the first step should be removing the higher tax bracket, so that people can save money quicker. For example:

If there is 0% tax up to 10k

20% up to 40k

40% from 40k

And you got a good job and want to live like your colleagues, likely your costs of living will take up all salary up to 40k. Then above that for any 1000 you make, you have to give 400 to the state. Let's say you make 60k. So 20k will be taxed at 40%. It will take you over 8 years to save 100k. If 40% bracket was removed, then it would only take you around 6 years to save. So the difference is 2 years of sacrifice. If you had that extra money, you could spend 2 years on improving your skills, starting a business etc.

For some reason I see both sides want to keep progressive tax - the left wants it, so that people keep being poor and therefore their clients. The right wants it, so that the rich amongst them can feel special - as the club is kept being small.

I think how tax affects people from poor backgrounds should be looked into.

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

#149

Post by bombcar »

Pfhreak wrote: post #102
DavidAdams wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that what this article is describing is similar at all to Eastern Europe-style public housing. The US also had a big experiment in public housing in the 20th century, that also had a lot of bad results.

The US had a history of spending capex on flashy high rise housing. Then failing to spend the opex necessary to maintain what they built. Large buildings are harder to maintain and require more specialized labor. Means testing and segregation also impacted public housing in the US. (Better not make too much money or you'll have to leave!) There are several instances of successful public housing efforts in the US and…

Part of the problem is the false dichotomy between single family suburban style dwellings and high-rises. The middle ground, medium density row houses and similar, is almost impossible to build anymore in many locations. The costs and regulations are such that either you build a single family dwelling or fight for a high-rise.

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

#150

Post by bombcar »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #31

"Spending so much on a rental feels wasteful—irresponsible, even—when you could pay a similar price on a mortgage, at a constant level for the next 30 years, while also building substantial wealth" Unless your home insurance rises every year and your monthly ownership costs double in 4 years. Many of us lost houses in the oughts to exactly that.

“Renting is insane why would anyone do it”

“Also SaaS and the cloud is the future of everything”

HN summed up but they don’t seem to see the connections.

Post reply on HN