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

201–210 of 262 posts

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

#201

Post by visarga »

ctdonath wrote: post #68
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,…

At what point can we acknowledge the harsh reality of “adapt, move, or perish”? If your choices and circumstances can’t add up to a positive cash flow, there is no obligation for others to sacrifice their net productive choices so others can enjoy their net unproductive choices. We don’t live in a post scarcity Utopia; why do some strive so hard to cancel this truth?

> why do some strive so hard to cancel this truth?

to equalize the outcomes based on group identities, based on the concept that identity is all that matters and choices, hard work and circumstances don't

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

#202

Post by mmmeff »

cortesoft wrote: post #195
chii wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Case in point: Student loans

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

#203

Post by colinmhayes »

seoaeu wrote: post #41
aeternum wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land. A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value…

Land values are already captured in property taxes. There's certainly places where property taxes are too low and not doing enough to encourage better usage of the land, but that's straightforward to solve (though admittedly often not that easy politically)

Property tax has horrid incentives. We want people to build more on expensive land, not less. LVT forces multi unit housing on prime spots.

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

#204

Post by visarga »

seoaeu wrote: post #37
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…

> What on earth does not equitable mean in terms of distributing losses? That is literally explained in your quote. An inequitable distribution is one where a higher percentage of individuals in specific minority groups suffer losses compared to society as a whole.

> An inequitable distribution is one where a higher percentage of individuals in specific minority groups suffer losses compared to society as a whole.

I think this would lead to regression to the mean irrespective of the level of personal effort involved. Anything that deviates in outcome needs to be force-equalized.

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

#205

Post by asveikau »

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 feel like you could justify all sorts of weird stuff this way. Smoking was popular. Obesity is popular and its popularity is increasing over time. Destroying the planet with fossil fuels is something everybody wants to do. These are ideals everybody is striving for.

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

#206

Post by JamesBarney »

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…

I think it's closer to a

1) You take a bunch of public funds and buy houses.

2) You rent those houses out at market rents

3) You pay off all expenses with the rent

4) You take what's left over (the profit) and use that to increase the renters ownership share, and pay a dividend to other people who have the ownership share

It's just a super weird inefficient way to give renters money. Instead you should just give them money...

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

#207

Post by chii »

imtringued wrote: post #126
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.

> If housing pressure is too high, tax corporations more.

It's always "tax more to solve problem X, as long as the target of that tax isn't me".

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

#208

Post by why_Mr_Anderson »

andrepd wrote: post #140
thesz wrote: post #106

This is an introduction of a discussion about removal of ownership of means of production, basically. This is a step towards socialism.

Yes, and that's great.

Sure, because it worked so well in every country that tried it...

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

#209

Post by sologoub »

Normally, I wouldn’t hold up SF as any kind of functional example of city managed, BUT they do have one program that I think strikes an interesting balance between public interest in affordable housing and building wealth for underprivileged - BMR (below market rate ownership program): https://sfmohcd.org/bmr-ownership

In exchange for deed-restricting certain units to BMR, developers receive over concessions and density bonuses. BMR units are restricted to sale only to individuals or families that make under certain amount (indexes to inflation and area incomes). They get financing from preferred lenders under good terms. Equity is built up from principle payments and some appreciation. The catch is that when they sell, they need to sell to another BMR-approved person, which caps appreciation.

It’s not a goldmine, but better than renting (usually).

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

#210

Post by imgabe »

lcpriest wrote: post #159
refurb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Every town, including big cities where the above situation would occur.

Which would imply that big cities have to pay more for those professions to compensate for the cost of living there, since they have the option to live somewhere cheaper.

And indeed, they do pay more.

Post reply on HN