161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
150k is nothing for NYC
That represents like a half million tenants. “Nothing” isn’t how I would describe it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here's the issue with central planning. How does the government know which services residents will find desirable? I don't drink alcohol; why should my taxes pay for bars, which contribute to the death of >100k Americans a year? This difficulty is known as the local information problem. I didn't say that government runs the bussiness. The public hoosuing buildings have space at ground level that is rented for busin…
> I didn't say that government runs the bussiness. The public hoosuing buildings have space at ground level that is rented for businesses. I misunderstood what you meant as to who would choose which services to provide. Completely agree with you about mixed zoning, it's really beneficial to have the businesses near residents.
The ideal would be to them having everything they need in Also, maybe you can rent to bussiness at a market rate, since their clients have more disposable income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did that work for Berlin? Try moving there today and tell me how affordable it is for newcomers. Rent control is basically subsidizing existing grandfathered tenants by fleecing those new wishing to move in, without fixing the underlying housing shortage in any way. The solution is always, always, having (building) more supply than the demand, yet nobody seems to get it.
What if you literally cannot build more supply than the demand? What if there’s a feedback loop between building more supply and increased (induced) demand?
Let's not kid ourselves, real estate prices there are insane due to monetary policies, bureaucracy and NIMBYism restricting building/supply for a million reasons, and not due to the lack of real estate in that area.
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
> preferably by doing the same as Vienna have 2.25 million population before WW1 and then decline in population for almost 100 years? They still haven't recovered (1.89m). It may be an enormous mistake to read into their allocation policy because they've simply had a very easy time allocating so far. St Louis population has declined for 70 years. It is very affordable. It's just not hard to accomplish affordability l…
Also, the point of the social housing in vienna is not only the dimension of it, but how they do it. The design, the demographics, etc.
There's a clear distinction between their program and the myriad of commieblocks in other countries that become low-income guettos to sink public money.
Public housing done right is more than just building dense, putting poor people in it and be done with it. That's a recipe for disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone should have to be subjected to that type of treatment.
The alternative for many is worse - many roommates, incredibly long commute, or homelessness. Remember that Googler who lived in his car? ( https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-tru... )
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
This is why you need rent control. 100% of this price hike is going into landlord's pockets, it's not a result of inflation.
How did that work for Berlin? Try moving there today and tell me how affordable it is for newcomers. Rent control is basically subsidizing existing grandfathered tenants by fleecing those new wishing to move in, without fixing the underlying housing shortage in any way. The solution is always, always, having (building) more supply than the demand, yet nobody seems to get it.
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
> should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income This is great policy if you want to make housing unaffordable. When supply is less than demand, prices go up. Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechani…
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
We have tons of land In the US. Lots of people leave New York for cheaper places.
Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…
> should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income This is great policy if you want to make housing unaffordable. When supply is less than demand, prices go up. Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechani…
This is not reality though. Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.
The guardian today published an article showing:
>Average monthly rental payments were now 40% higher than they were 10 years ago, while typical mortgage payments for the same properties were up 13%.
Landlords and property owners are hiking the prices way beyond reasonable value, in some parts of the country rent is up by over 20% in the last year alone. By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
We do however have a situation where the average mortgage is about £900 per month, whereas the average rent has skyrocketed to £1600 per month (£1100 outside of London, £2200 in London). Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.
>My landlord takes all the risk of owning the property (prices don’t always go up after all).
Sure there is risk, but when you charge 30% more than you repay for the mortgage, while at the same time property prices rise 75% in 10 years, it's safe to say that the cash cow is being thoroughly milked for every last drop and as a result many people are suffering.
Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem. Homes are a fundamental, basic human need. Using them as an investment method, business model or means to hedge against inflation, is causing rampant speculation and quite honestly extorting people that have no other choice, exploiting vulnerable families that need a home. It should be an extremely tightly controlled market, with sufficient funding to ensure that quality & affordable housing is available for everyone.