Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 768 posts

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#401

Post by nivenkos »

paisawalla wrote: post #390
turtledove wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy electricity from a monopoly provider in my area, run the government. Is that a market? I buy sewer and garbage service likewise. There are some commodities we choose to operate as natural monopolies because competition and profit seeking leads to bad outcomes for society. My argument is fundamentally that housing is the same.

How will you be deciding who gets to have a view of the ocean, and who gets to sleep next to the overpass? First come first serve? Birthright?

Pricing? You can have the government / housing co-ops sell properties and just forbid private renting out in absentia.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#402

Post by merrywhether »

turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

Isn’t there tension between what I’m assuming is land-value tax to push developers to create more housing and keeping people in the home they’ve lived in for 20 years? That home has probably become inefficient from a public value standpoint and would better contribute if it was a multi-unit dwelling. I’m with you that people should be able to continue to afford to live in the same neighborhood even (with a shift in the type of building most likely), but attempting to protect their exact house just creates the equivalent of a public subsidy to exempt them from keeping pace with local land efficiency demands.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#403

Post by chrisseaton »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #334
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t know how it is in most of Europe, but I think that, in the UK, you don’t actually own the land your house sits on; Lord Such-and-Such owns it, and collects rent from you. In the US, we own the land, and that is usually the real value. I’m the proud owner of a 0.125-acre New York postage stamp. It’s in a fairly affluent area, so is fairly valuable. In Wyoming, they’d laugh at it. I think Japan is similar.

> but I think that, in the UK, you don’t actually own the land your house sits on; Lord Such-and-Such owns it, and collects rent from you. I've never heard this before. Is this actually true? Is this some background technical legal truth that isn't noticed in practice?

Called a leasehold. Not all property is like this though.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#404

Post by andi999 »

turtledove wrote: post #373
anm89 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance. Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result. Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment comple…

The singapore housing system is a great policy. I dont see it how it fits with your ideas. First landlord is protected over tenant (rents are through the roof in singapore as well).

The hdb scheme is worth look into: government build apartments sold to people with medium income and racial quotas.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#405

Post by b112 »

turtledove wrote: post #373
anm89 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance. Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result. Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment comple…

Washington State is considering removing single family zoning.

No, no they are not.

Washington state has more than Seattle in it. It has rural areas, and mountainous regions, and no, every house in a rural area is not on agriculturally zoned land.

Nor does it make sense to have multidwelling houses, miles apart from each other.

I think, as others in this thread have stated, you are mistaking musings, ponderings, and "feelz good" ideas for serious discourse.

I support public housing, but that has zero bearing on changing the housing market. Which, I may add, is in a tiny, temporary inflated bubble. A decade ago, it was still recovering from the largest crash in modern history.

In terms of public housing, as land value increases, so do property taxes.

Thus, municipalities then have more funds to... build and maintain public housing! Which means that housing costs do not change the percentage of a city's budgetary costs, to build and maintain public housing.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#406

Post by jokethrowaway »

me_me_mu_mu wrote: post #351
turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

Cut down home ownership to max 3 homes per household. Otherwise rent from someone else. And yes it’s possible to be capitalist and agree with sensible regulations. I’d rather we focus on building amazing companies and utilizing labor effectively.

Capitalism does imply the absence of regulations imposed by a bunch of goons with guns that claim to be "a legit government representing the people".

Mixed economies are not capitalism.

You can say you're a bit capitalist - that's an easy one, we have plenty of data to show that positive economic effect for everyone are linked to free markets - but still believe fairy tales about the government being moral and caring about something which is not being re-elected and stealing money from people.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#407

Post by qeternity »

turtledove wrote: post #373
anm89 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance. Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result. Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment comple…

Oh my, clearly you’ve never lived in these places. I used to live in Singapore: it’s one of the most overheated housing markets in the world.

All of the things you mention exist in the US to much larger degrees (do you know how much the US spends on social housing??) You are slinging insults to other commenters but you are really out of your depth here and have picked a couple of things and hailed them as solutions. You know not what you speak of.

Source: American expat currently living in London, previously Singapore.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#408

Post by turtledove »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #389
turtledove wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government would pay to do it. Or there would be taxes or rents paid to developers in accordance to the number of people housed x the quality of the housing. Or people like me would rent units because housing is important, and rent their space at cost. We can choose to pay for housing for everyone, we just have to adjust the formulas we use to decide who benefits.

So basically everybody should live in a Khrushchyovka. Real central planning communist slum type housing.

There's a meme that shows "leftist housing", and it depicts concrete tenements. It shows "capitalist housing", and it depicts tents under a bridge.

Haha.

But memes aside, no, there are many, many examples of public and social housing that are not concrete slums. Look at Singapore, Paris, the Marxhof in Vienna. Quayside Village in Vancouver.

If you'd like, I can provide links to many examples from many countries around the world of successful public housing that isn't Soviet bloc housing.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#409

Post by notch656a »

turtledove wrote: post #393
notch656a wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government would pay to do it. That's just a loopback to where you started. When government pays, you pay.

Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.

>Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive,

Great, so the shit-show we have now, except without any incentive to efficiently spend. Sure that will go over swimmingly. Everyone knows that government construction projects are known for coming on-time and on-budget, and for the best value.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#410

Post by andi999 »

turtledove wrote: post #380
pj_mukh wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think most of the solution is in the first part of your plan. There’s no need to micromanage tenant-landlord relationships or setup governmental panels on who historically deserves to live where, if the government can just make sure there is an oversupply of decent housing at all affordability levels. The rest really takes care of itself at that point.

Hundred percent. I have a personal ethos that believes profit from rent is amoral, but we could probably address housing concerns without meeting my personal ethics standards, which I freely admit are more extreme than most.

Housing in gdr was great wasnt it. In 2000 you could still see bullet holes in the outside walls from the second world war.
Post reply on HN