Live data from Hacker News

MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

ocw.mit.edu

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sick of rent control being vilified Not vilifying it. Saying that tracking who is the legal owner and beneficiary of a property is tough. Given the present market state, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a tax measure increased rents.

> Saying that tracking who is the legal owner and beneficiary of a property is tough. That doesn’t pass the sniff test - the legal owner has to pay property taxes so why can’t they track it that way? If it’s a trust then it’s the beneficiaries that are the owners. In the absence of rent control i can see landlords just forwarding the cost of taxes, but that’s where I’m a huge proponent of it. Discourage investing in…

> the legal owner has to pay property taxes so why can’t they track it that way

...the legal owner would pay the property tax. The beneficial owner/controller would reimburse them.

> In the absence of rent control i can see landlords just forwarding the cost of taxes, but that’s where I’m a huge proponent of it. Discourage investing in homes unless you really have the capital

This reminds me of the effect of squatters' rights on rents. It discourages property owners becoming landlords.

You're increasing the cost of owning rental property while lowering its yield. What do you think will happen? Why not offer a tax deduction for landlords voluntarily submitting their properties to rent control, similar to conservation easements?

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#103

Singapore has a very sustainable housing plan. Affordable homes are owned by the govt and let out on 99 year lease. Problem solved.

What happens when it gets to the last few years and the occupants stop doing any upkeep?

It’s called Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing policy. First of all.. it’s not a freehold model but it’s sold to Singaporean citizens only.

They are highly subsidized and based on their income. Singapore also has CPF or central provident fund.. payments go from there but there has to be a 10-20% down payment.

These are highly subsidized. As are the maintaining costs and repairs etc. the state takes care of it. sometimes the owners do it. There is a central savings account too. They can choose how to pay for it.

But the key point is that it’s always a 99 year lease. They can only own it for 99 years. As everyone is going to be in some sort of workforce or is eligible for govt monies, no one needs to be without housing. It goes directly from their CPF or OA account.

The kind of housing is dependent on income level. And another condition is that it’s for families only.

Single people have a different scheme. And there are also ways to apply for Joint singles HBD flats.

They have to be at least 35 years old and anyone younger than 35 can buy under a public scheme but with their family. There are separate schemes for orphans and single unwed citizens, divorcées and the widowed.

Basically there is a scheme for everyone so no one is left behind. But they can’t own it after 99 years. Because it can be beyond a normal lifespan(they start at age 35.. so even after they are gone, the family will be housed until they themselves reach age 35 to qualify with CPF/OA for a HBD unit.

The flats can be resold but again only for the remaining period of the 99 years. Never for speculative purposes and only for residential.

Singapore is a high trust society and can be called as a benevolent dictatorship. They don’t look kindly at any kind of shenanigans.

There are very strict rules. It has to be a mixed ethnic development and it can’t be rented out etc..and if it is to be rented, there is a process for that too.

All HDB estates are meticulously planned. From schools to parks to shops and public transpirt, these are planned communities.

The idea is to give the people housing stability and housing security. The state takes care of its people but expects them to be responsible and accountable. The result is a highly ordered and high trust society that is stable.

Having said that, Singapore is not for everyone. It’s super ordered and appeals to many Asian mindsets and especially for those who would rather spend time raising their families instead of worrying about crime or housing or food security.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#104

Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important), apply the same rules we do for pass-through taxation to mitigate loopholes, and automatically charge this elevated rate for properties owned by non-natural persons? I think this would just price in the externa…

Because if we limit each individual to have only one home it could cause traffic issues in certain cities.

Something like 60% of the homes in my area don't have people living in them and the traffic can be as bad as 25 minutes for 1 mile of driving. This would have to be a state/city level decision.

Personally it seems like the decision of an officer for how many homes a single person can manage. IE if you are getting hired for a specific salary they already know how many homes you are going to own over your lifetime.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is everyone (ok, fine, mostly economics & tech people) convinced this is such a wildly viable slam dunk of an idea? Have y'all ever opened up a wall before and seen the electrical, plumbing, etc mechanical bits that make up a home? Any idea of what it'd cost to chop up that office space and feed every individual piece the necessary bits? It's outrageous that we're even talking about this idea still. It'd require…

Houses are like a million dollars. Some plumbing is maybe 10k?

Are you joking? Regular houses are nowhere near a million dollars in most of the country.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's trivially easy to monitor or seize real property Anyone who owns property should be horrified at the notion of making it “trivially easy” to seize real property. That turns this into electoral toast. Its only utility is in distracting from zoning reform. Also, the homeownership rate is 65% [1]. Second homeowners aren’t the problem. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

> (Also, homeownership is 65% [1]. Second homeowners aren’t the problem.) Is there a breakdown on what portion of this 65% own multiple homes? Personally, I’m not a fan of anyone who has more than 2 homes. One primary and one vacation or rental. Why does anyone need more than that?

The great thing about this country is that people can (mostly) do whatever they want without having to justify a "need".

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#108
post #2

We need to stop treating real restate--especially residential real estate--as a mechanism for creating wealth. there are enough homeowners that they vote for politicians and policies that will increase the value of their "investments". All this does is simply steal money from the next generation. Our entire economic system is designed to transfer wealth from the young and poor and the old and wealthy. There is a dist…

No political remedy will work until there's a culture shift, and that's probably still a generation or two away. The baseline that people seek isn't just a reliable place to sleep, eat, and clean themselves. They want the television-depicted life: a home which they only (at most) share with a partner and some pre-adult children, where everyone has their own bedroom, and there's probably at least one more bedroom to e…

Actually most families with a decent income can afford that "television-depicted" house in most of the country. It's only in a handful of high-cost metro areas where that has become unrealistic. Spend some time driving around the Midwest and you'll see that reality. We shouldn't impose a political "remedy" on the whole country just because San Francisco and Los Angeles are badly governed and haven't allowed much housing construction.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the equity is locked away on the home until they sell. Some people get reverse mortgages so they can spend some of the equity of the home while they still live in it: https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/...

This is the same tax trick that the obscenely wealthy use with their stock portfolios. It's a "fantastic" way of accessing accrued wealth without paying taxes on it. I think I would prefer that we investigate this more thoroughly, as well, to reduce some of these tricks that further stratify the haves and the have-nots.

What do you propose we "investigate" exactly? There are no tricks here. Everyone with a basic understanding of finance knows exactly how it works. People have always been allowed to borrow money and use their assets as collateral.

Re: MIT 11.350: Sustainable Real Estate

#110
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses are like a million dollars. Some plumbing is maybe 10k?

Are you joking? Regular houses are nowhere near a million dollars in most of the country.

But where do you need to live? 237 cities does not mean "very special places".

See (hours fresh article):

> A Thursday report from Zillow indicates that a typical starter home is now worth $1 million or more in 237 cities, up from 84 cities in 2019, underscoring America’s ongoing home affordability crisis

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/more-starter-hom...

Post reply on HN