271–280 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it weren't legal, we'd instead just see deals like this go to friends/family of the owner, or the payment would be under-the-table instead of an upfront broker's fee.
You could make the same argument about any law. Why don't we just make murder and rape also legal to better track it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you despise that thinking, then we need to regulate the housing market to discourage seeing housing as an investment as we see it today. Everyone expects, more or less, for real estate to climb in value but nobody wants to square that with these other emotional ideas attached to housing. It either is an asset or it’s a commodity as far as the market goes. If you want generational housing and for housing to be gene…
It's fine to be an investment. It can climb in value. But it doesn't need to be such a need to force the liquidity. Your example of "under utilized asset" and downsizing must then translate down to some metric of square-footage per resident. How exactly to you propose to regulate the housing market with this in mind, in a reasonable manner. Because, to me I think of the 2 sides. Growing households and shrinking ones.…
No, housing is a cost, not an productive investment.
What we actually want, as a society, is for housing prices to go down so people can live places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What value do they provide, other than having a bunch of money upfront? Providing capital is useful! You can't just ignore that.
Yes, but that's what banks and mortgages are for already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people are extremely bad at coordinating/advocating for their interests, ie. to get more housing built. it's learned helplessness, and crazy memes (like conservation of neighborhood character)
What examples of coordination do you have? That have resulted in eg 1,000-100,000 dwellings being built? Honestly confused what it is you’re suggesting
And that they also won't organize to try and fix the issues with the housing in the HCOL area.
I agree with the sentiment personally, it's why I always tell people to move.
I was watching a youtube video earlier this week about a couple who did exactly that. They lived in portland oregan. they bought a rundown old trailer that no one wanted, put the elbow grease in to clean it up and rented out a space for it.
They then realized that with their income it was going to take many more years than they wanted to become financially independent. So they moved out of state and w/i 2 years had paid off a 2 bedroom home (they had savings and sold the trailer) and were living in it and considered themselves financially independent (they no longer had to work to live).
They talked about how their family shunned them when they moved away and they've learned not to talk to friends about it because it just causes friction.
some people do it, it's just most won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in Texas, a state with pretty high property tax. We've also seen a ton of appreciation in recent years. Booming economy, transplants from other states, then the COVID factor. We also have a near free market on rent; I've been a landlord and not aware of any limitations. There are a couple limits on property taxes (namely a cap of 10% increase per year on "homesteads", and an Agriculture exemption for rural proper…
Yeah, that could be adjustated with lower fees for the first/main property/residence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. Everyone has different needs and wants, and it’s just a useless flamewar. It’s the same as the discussion of whether the cities should stop subsidizing suburbs and other areas. Absolutely useless as everyone have their preferences and we have to find some sort of compromise.
> Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. I don't think this word means what you think it means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Land Value Tax: Make it financially unfeasible to speculate, to withhold units from the market, and to withhold unused land from the market. Let prices freely fluctuate with the market. Increases in rent derived from externalities (i.e. Amazon HQ2 setting up shop nearby or a new subway station) go back into public coffers, while increases in rent derived from landlord actions (i.e. renovations, building bigger, bette…
I'm in Texas, a state with pretty high property tax. We've also seen a ton of appreciation in recent years. Booming economy, transplants from other states, then the COVID factor. We also have a near free market on rent; I've been a landlord and not aware of any limitations. There are a couple limits on property taxes (namely a cap of 10% increase per year on "homesteads", and an Agriculture exemption for rural proper…
Our rates are 23 mil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. Everyone has different needs and wants, and it’s just a useless flamewar. It’s the same as the discussion of whether the cities should stop subsidizing suburbs and other areas. Absolutely useless as everyone have their preferences and we have to find some sort of compromise.
> Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. I don't think this word means what you think it means.
I was born and raised in a city with >2M population, and surely my needs are extremely different than someone who is accustomed to a rural life. Even small things like, sleeping in an extremely quiet rural town has been a torture for me every time I tried it. And I am sure, opposite is true for people who are used to hearing absolutely no sounds at night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason why low cost of living areas are low cost of living, and it's not because they're self-sustaining futuristic arcologies. It's because people who can afford otherwise generally don't want to live there. I want to walk, not drive, out my front door, and be within 15 minutes, on foot, from entertainment and dining and friends and shopping and groceries and pharmacies and salons and cafes. And I want tho…
People with different preferences than you are "antisocial"? (Isn't that a bit ironic?) The GP has a different point of view; there's nothing special about yours or about NYC that makes yours better. The two of you deserve each other.
Well there is something special about the higher cost places.
That thing special, is that they are more desirable by a much larger amount of people.
Otherwise prices wouldn't be so high.
So yes, the more in demand places are better to a much larger amount of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. Everyone has different needs and wants, and it’s just a useless flamewar. It’s the same as the discussion of whether the cities should stop subsidizing suburbs and other areas. Absolutely useless as everyone have their preferences and we have to find some sort of compromise.
> Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. I don't think this word means what you think it means.
For instance… I am medically… complicated. Living somewhere rural where I’m more than 10 or 15 minutes from an ER isn’t really viable for me. Well, I mean, it would be, right up until it isn’t.