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

231–240 of 262 posts

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

#231

Post by vineyardmike »

mastax wrote: post #158
vineyardmike wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fine, people can like what they like. One of the best parts of my life was living in a duplex built in the 1930s close to downtown. It's hard and increasingly expensive to live in those around here because they have been illegal to build in most of the city for almost a century . We do not have to ban single family homes. We do have to stop banning everything else .

Yes but people like living in certain neighborhoods not just certain homes.

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

#232

Post by vineyardmike »

asveikau wrote: post #205
vineyardmike wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Playing with puppies is popular, getting an A in class is popular. These are all ideals everybody is striving for.

I don't think that this argument really addresses the point that vilifying something might be hurting the problem more.

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

#233

Post by vineyardmike »

imtringued wrote: post #124
vineyardmike wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Turni…

To quote what all of them are saying...

>Turning one city into an "ugly" 10 million metropolis could have spared a dozen other cities.

"Great, turn one city like that and spare the rest... just not in my city.

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

#234

Post by vineyardmike »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #196
vineyardmike wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The difference is that people don't care about one form of housing... they care about one form of neighborhood which necessarily includes many houses.

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

#235

Post by paulus_magnus2 »

build more cities. and move jobs there.

housing is only expensive where land is expensive - city centres. The Government is able to take long enough view to do this. Any commercial actor will be against this due to rent seeking / market cornering.

What is doable in near / short term is to move government agencies out of big cities into smaller ones and start drawing people by creation of stable employment. Right now everyone is more and more forced into the same 1-5 cities per country if you want to have a well paying job. And you have to have one to pay for college / medical insurance.

I think my point is clear also not very groundbreaking. It's only that people who could do this are 50+/old and have a conflict of interest - they want to prop up their house value.

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

#237

Post by andrepd »

kortilla wrote: post #153
andrepd wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

Are you seriously asking for a citation that shows every city needs electricians and teachers?

I'm asking for a citation that there is more demand for plumbers in small towns than in big cities, which is your assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

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

#238

Post by varispeed »

HWR_14 wrote: post #156
varispeed wrote: post #147

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 h…

You're not arguing that progressive taxation is bad - you're arguing that taxes are not progressive enough . The point behind progressive taxation is that the rich can pay more (both practically they have more money and they miss the money less). If you are concerned, advocate to move the brackets up. 0% to 40k, 10% 40-80k, up to 50% 200k+ (these numbers were done to make my straight line math example easier, I don't…

But the rich bypass income tax altogether. It does not apply to them.

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

#239

Post by CryptoPunk »

Simpler solutions are better. Private funding for new housing stock obviates the need for complex government-run bureaucracies that create their own set of problems with rent-seeking behavior like cronyism.

So if there were a good way to overcome the political power of homeowners in maintaining regulatory restrictions that prevent the expansion of housing supply, so that the private sector could respond to market forces and expand housing supply, that would be preferrable.

According to one analysis, it would only take de-regulating three US cities' housing markets: New York, San Francisco and San Jose, to boost US economic growth on the order of over one third over a span of 45 years:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20170388

So here's one potential solution: federalize control over these three cities' zoning rules, in order to remove all of their zoning restrictions on building density, while investing resources into speeding up their permit approval process.

This is similar to Japan's housing laws, where the national government decides zoning rules in all cities, including in major economic clusters / key job markets like Tokyo.

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

#240

Post by prestigious »

ksherlock wrote: post #83

There's a second third option (or first third, as it already exists) -- community land trusts. The basic idea is that you own the house but the land under the house is owned by a non-profit. https://slate.com/business/2016/01/bernie-sanders-made-burli...

This is the reason why First Nations reserves are universally terrible places to live.
Post reply on HN