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

To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 200 posts

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#151

Post by nektro »

hayst4ck wrote: post #144
osigurdson wrote: post #35

I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to b…

Housing can not be both an investment and affordable. This might sound like a complex or intricate statement, but it is deceptively simple. If you graph housing price over time, is the graph increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing then housing is a good investment and therefore becoming less affordable, if it's decreasing then housing is not a good investment because it is becoming cheaper and therefore more af…

housing should not be an investment. simple as that.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#152

Post by Gigachad »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #124
jalk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who are "they" in this context?

Whoever it is who decides they want to build business facilities where everyone else is building business facilities.

My city has plenty of business facilities. They all sit vacant because all the young people move to the bigger cities and all the jobs pay whatever it costs to be with them.

It’s almost like gravity, it keeps centralising.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#153

Post by ericd »

yterdy wrote: post #142
ericd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm somewhat familiar with YieldStar and other dynamic rent-setting systems. I don't think it qualifies as price fixing, in that only a small percentage of the available stock uses it. If a large percentage used it, then maybe there'd be a case for it, since I'm guessing it uses advertised rents of nearby availabilities in addition to the in-building measures, so it'd be playing off of itself. But that wasn't the cas…

I see it as a form of a stand-alone complex. There are multiple companies engaging in this behavior, independently, but resulting in what resembles a concerted effort. However, for renters (and their representatives in government), the concern isn't so much that it's an accident of spookily aligned intent/incentives as it is that 1) it's clearly pushing up rents (beyond affordability), and 2) the companies engaging i…

The percentage of landlords using it is likely too small to have the ability to engage in price fixing. They drive prices up, but only because the market clearing price in a lot of cities is higher than where they're currently priced.

Do you have a source for property managers warehousing housing inventory? It doesn't ring true, at all.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#154

Post by ianburrell »

lazypenguin wrote: post #69
epistasis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you OK with other people living in multi unit housing, or does your desire for a detached unit extend to others' way of living? I ask because it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live. It's like lifting a ban on a certain type of car; it doesn't change your car, and there…

To me it’s replacing one problem with another. Simply changing zoning from single to multi-family doesn’t actually change core root problems in my opinion. A suburb full of single family homes or a suburb of multi-family homes are just different kinds of suburban hells. I think we need to be thinking about designing entire communities more intelligently with things like local markets, shops, parks, rest areas, school…

Suburbs aren’t the problem. There are walkable neighborhoods with all that stuff. I live in pre-war streetcar suburb that doesn’t feel like post-war but is mostly single family homes. Part of increasing density is making those things you want possible. My feeling is that most of the effect of upzoning will be felt in close-in walkable neighborhoods because they are most desirable and easier to upgrade.

Also, there is a wide range of multi-family housing from giant towers, mid-height apartments, and N-plexs. Most proposals are to mix “missing middle” housing in with single family. A lot of older neighborhoods already have some. A few triplexes are not going to cause problems. Around here, they are allowing 6-story apartments along major roads. They work well because there is good public transit.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#155

Post by ericd »

runarberg wrote: post #128
ericd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, just needs to be more building. New luxury apartments will make the old stock cheaper. The fight over the number of affordable units in every single new development slows things down and exacerbates the affordability problem. Remove as many of the barriers to development as possible, and the problem will be solved.

It is a mistake to ignore the power imbalance between landlords and tenants, especially when the landlord is a business. Sure you can argue that the market is out of equilibrium which causes this inflation in rent, but to say that is the only reason is a blatant oversimplification. Rich landlords will keep overcharging for rent as long as they are able. And more buildings just gives them more opportunities to exploit…

If developers build at a faster rate than new renters want to move in, the rent will decrease, because it will again become a competition between landlords to try to reduce their vacancy rate, for the same reason they're currently increasing rent - revenue maximization. Vacancies represent a lot of lost revenue.

Please, don't agitate for more rent control, it's such a bad idea.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#156

Post by osigurdson »

Gigachad wrote: post #147
hayst4ck wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing can not be both an investment and affordable. This might sound like a complex or intricate statement, but it is deceptively simple. If you graph housing price over time, is the graph increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing then housing is a good investment and therefore becoming less affordable, if it's decreasing then housing is not a good investment because it is becoming cheaper and therefore more af…

This can be solved with subdivision, sure grandmas land is now worth 3M. But we will build a mid rise apartment building on it that regular people can afford.

Why do we need to lower our expectations now? Single family homes are what most people want. Why jam people into apartments if they don’t want to live in them? All houses should be cheap imo - it is just a few cheap sticks and some plastic after all.

Some cities obviously have no room to expand so the only option is higher density. Where that is not the case, build single family homes en mass until anyone can afford one. I’m a home owner now but would rather see people be able to afford what they want than to see my own 2x4s appreciate.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#157

Post by hayst4ck »

Gigachad wrote: post #147
hayst4ck wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing can not be both an investment and affordable. This might sound like a complex or intricate statement, but it is deceptively simple. If you graph housing price over time, is the graph increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing then housing is a good investment and therefore becoming less affordable, if it's decreasing then housing is not a good investment because it is becoming cheaper and therefore more af…

This can be solved with subdivision, sure grandmas land is now worth 3M. But we will build a mid rise apartment building on it that regular people can afford.

I don't think I buy that without a bit more justification. On an individual case, or when analyzed very locally, there can be wild departures from the aggregate case, but if housing is rapidly increased compared to demand, in aggregate, how can that not plummet the price of grandma's land for the aggregate grandma?

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#158

Post by YokoZar »

hayst4ck wrote: post #144
osigurdson wrote: post #35

I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to b…

Housing can not be both an investment and affordable. This might sound like a complex or intricate statement, but it is deceptively simple. If you graph housing price over time, is the graph increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing then housing is a good investment and therefore becoming less affordable, if it's decreasing then housing is not a good investment because it is becoming cheaper and therefore more af…

> Housing can not be both an investment and affordable.

If old homes were somehow better and more desirable, they could theoretically be both. But homes aren't like comic books or magic cards: newer-built ones are generally better in quality, often dramatically so.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#159

Post by Retric »

hayst4ck wrote: post #144
osigurdson wrote: post #35

I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to b…

Housing can not be both an investment and affordable. This might sound like a complex or intricate statement, but it is deceptively simple. If you graph housing price over time, is the graph increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing then housing is a good investment and therefore becoming less affordable, if it's decreasing then housing is not a good investment because it is becoming cheaper and therefore more af…

Homes may be both affordable and an investment as long as median income increases faster than inflation.

Being a good investment is a different question and really comes down to your alternatives. You need to sleep somewhere, and renting includes many overheads. Depending on how you value your time and what skills you have managing your own home can be worthwhile or a waste. A carpenter may use their downtime between jobs to improve and flip their houses while a doctor is wasting time calling people for even the most modest repairs.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#160

Post by javanissen »

hayst4ck wrote: post #144
osigurdson wrote: post #35

I used to think that if average income cannot afford the average home, the market must necessarily correct. I’m wrong about this obviously but I still cannot understand why. I understand that wealthier people have vacation homes, but the only reason for a wealthy person to purchase an additional non-vacation home is to rent it out to someone less wealthy. Since the less wealthy person couldn’t cover the mortgage to b…

Housing can not be both an investment and affordable. This might sound like a complex or intricate statement, but it is deceptively simple. If you graph housing price over time, is the graph increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing then housing is a good investment and therefore becoming less affordable, if it's decreasing then housing is not a good investment because it is becoming cheaper and therefore more af…

> Housing can not be both an investment and affordable.

Mathematically this isn’t true, as housing (even owner-occupied housing) pays a dividend [0]. So a house whose price tracks inflation (0% real price return) that pays a 4% dividend in net operating income still has a respectable 4% real return. Juice that return way up with a fixed-rate mortgage and you still have a great investment without home prices racing past affordability for normal people.

But that’s just the theoretical perspective. I don’t know if housing can be a good investment and affordable in practice.

[0] https://earlyretirementnow.com/2017/11/15/that-house-over-th...

Post reply on HN