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

191–200 of 262 posts

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

#191

Post by gnopgnip »

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…

The government already builds "too much" public housing in undesirable areas. For instance the San Francisco Housing Authority has had all waitlists closed for 10+ years. Many other relatively desirable areas are the same. But places like San Joaquin county have units available right now in Manteca. There are many people who have lived their whole lives in places like SF, Oakland, LA, and are illegally displaced, and would rather wait years for permanent housing under the current system.

Is it really helping them to force them to move far away?

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

#192

Post by nerdponx »

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.

I don't want to own a home. I don't want to have to sell a house/apartment when I move and I don't want to be responsible for it in the meantime.

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

#193

Post by bradleyjg »

gnopgnip wrote: post #191
bradleyjg wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The government already builds "too much" public housing in undesirable areas. For instance the San Francisco Housing Authority has had all waitlists closed for 10+ years. Many other relatively desirable areas are the same. But places like San Joaquin county have units available right now in Manteca. There are many people who have lived their whole lives in places like SF, Oakland, LA, and are illegally displaced, and…

My experience is in NYC. If you have no working class neighborhoods in your city, you have a different problem. One that is also unlikely to be solved by the standard “affordable housing” playbook.

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

#194

Post by nerdponx »

unsigner wrote: post #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…

You assume that there are good jobs (read: reliable sources of income and health coverage) in all places, and that nobody is putting down roots or attempting to invest in their local communities. Your assumptions are wrong.

Maybe the real problem is that the only way to have income is to have a job. But that's another story.

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

#195

Post by cortesoft »

chii wrote: post #164
cortesoft wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

there in lies the problem - the payment in lieu of rent in the proposal is not meant to be equity, but is treated like that. I think there's some cognitive dissonance in the proposal. The idea that you can live for free is just not possible in the modern, capitalist world. Rent is something that every entity has to pay - including owners (which is the imputed rent, or the opportunity cost of the capital placed into t…

Yeah, this would be even worse than the debacle that led to the housing bubble in 07. This is basically letting people 'invest' in housing with zero risk. You get all the upside of housing prices increasing with no risk if house prices decrease. This means there is zero downward pressure on housing prices, which is going to lead to even worse housing prices in the future.

You can't solve skyrocketing housing prices by simply increasing access to capital... that is just going to exacerbate the problem

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

#196

Post by TheCoelacanth »

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.

I like a lot of things. Most of them don't need to be legally enforced by the government. I just freely choose the things I like and people who like differently choose differently.

Why does one specific form of housing need to be legally required instead of just letting people build the type of housing that they want?

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

#197

Post by heavyset_go »

nerdponx wrote: post #192
eptcyka wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its simple - tax landlordism out of viability.

I don't want to own a home. I don't want to have to sell a house/apartment when I move and I don't want to be responsible for it in the meantime.

Cool, then let the government do it. Your "rent" can even build equity in such a scheme.

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

#198

Post by ineedasername »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #187
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…

Is it replicable in today's yield chasing world? And what level of gov't buy-in do you need? US Congress, State, County, City? Was just speaking with my dad about programs - he has a ton of ideas because our hometown area is characterized as one of generational poverty and working poor.

In order for this to truly offer some of the benefits (more freedom of movement) it would have to be a national program.

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

#200

Post by havernator »

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.

Maybe, but some don't and are only there because 99% of the school-quality/house-price/distance-to-work sweet spot is in winding-road McMansion neighborhoods, so that's basically the only option.
Post reply on HN