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

The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

granolashotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#131

Post by walkhour »

bosie wrote: post #122
VRay wrote: post #84

People are fighting the wrong fight when they attack this guy (or attack the people attacking this guy, for that matter) It isn't SF Bay Bros'/foreigners'/companies' fault that houses are too expensive. It's because of strict zoning laws and a lack of building enough housing to match supply with demand[1]. Demand keeps going up way faster than supply, nationwide, and we're all feeling the squeeze [1]: A great example…

Increasing housing increases demand on alot of other resources (medical, kindergarten, streets, public transport, schools,...). how do you orchestrate such a rise in demand in a densely populated city like san francisco quickly (dense in the sense of non-used land, not by population)?

> kindergartens, schools and medical offices.

Where exactly do you think schooling and medical practices happen or children are taken care of?

>Public transport

How hard is to coordinate to double the number of trains or buses?

> Streets

I don't know what you mean by the demand of streets increases.

Most times solving the housing problem is a lack of will or coordination, and the solution is muddled/deleted/delayed indefinitely by arguments like this.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#132

Post by BirdieNZ »

refurb wrote: post #105
plankers wrote: post #55

>I lived in an illegal rental to save up for a home, then decided to buy out-of-state properties and drive up the rent. I'm aware of how this will be perceived, but I want to feel good about myself despite knowing how what I'm doing hurts others. lol

Drive up the rent? “We are renting to willing tenants at the fair market price.” Landlord’s cant “drive up the rent” any more than employees can be unfairly paid too much.

Land rent works very differently than most other markets because land is of limited supply. "Fair market price" is determined by what people who live in an area can afford to pay, rather than primarily supply and demand. Add to that restrictive zoning laws and you end up with a situation where most landlords are extracting significant economic rents from their tenants without needing to provide any extra service or quality of good to earn that rent.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#133

Post by edmcnulty101 »

walkhour wrote: post #131
bosie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing housing increases demand on alot of other resources (medical, kindergarten, streets, public transport, schools,...). how do you orchestrate such a rise in demand in a densely populated city like san francisco quickly (dense in the sense of non-used land, not by population)?

> kindergartens, schools and medical offices. Where exactly do you think schooling and medical practices happen or children are taken care of? >Public transport How hard is to coordinate to double the number of trains or buses? > Streets I don't know what you mean by the demand of streets increases. Most times solving the housing problem is a lack of will or coordination, and the solution is muddled/deleted/delayed i…

And alot of times, especially with mass transit, there are economies if scale.

So it's even more efficient with higher population.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#134

Post by codingdave »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #23
endisneigh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people have this silly take. Land in desirable areas is scarce. Why shouldn't it appreciate it? Housing is nothing like a car.

The frontier has been settled since 1890, but housing prices have been stable from 1950 to 1980, then they started creeping up, with a big burst around 2000 and another beginning 2018. Desirable can't be the answer.

Housing prices in the US in 1980 were almost 7x what they were in 1950. Where are you getting the idea that they were stagnant for those decades?

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#135

Post by dr_dshiv »

suction wrote: post #108
djbebs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

Quoted post unavailable.

The European approach (eg Netherlands) involves the city buying the land. Amsterdam is doing this now to drive out the tourist shops they don’t like.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#136

Post by rocqua »

borski wrote: post #52
HarryHirsch wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did that on the backs of those trying to get into the housing market now.

What’s the alternative? Nobody renting, ever?

People should be able to rent houses, at least for a little while. It's just that landlords are inherently evil and should be done away with.

So the solution is to keep house renting but to get rid of landlords! It's really quite simple.

/sarcasm

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#137

Post by dr_dshiv »

yholio wrote: post #119
djbebs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

> buy the land in question. NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a…

How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors.

https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-...

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#138

Post by wheybags »

rekabis wrote: post #10
fideloper wrote: post #5

> 5) You don’t need as much house as you’ve been lead to believe. Instead of trading up for a larger fancier house with more debt as you age, consider living simply and buying additional homes for diversified income. IMO (in the process of doing this myself), this is the most important point

> 5) You don’t need as much house as you’ve been lead to believe. For living arrangements, you are mostly correct. I can exist very comfortably in about 1,000ft². Heck, even 800ft² would be comfy and cosy. My problem involves my hobbies and domestic activities: I need a 200ft² cool room for the enormous amounts of fruits and vegetables I harvest every year, canning all that shit needs a 150ft² summer kitchen so I don…

240m2 is a compromise... Consider the possibility that you're out of touch.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#139

Post by yholio »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #137
yholio wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> buy the land in question. NIMBYs will argue that, in a certain sense, they did: they bought the land their houses stand on decades or centuries ago, when the area was farm land, and then promoted a city charter for a certain type of community, together with every other citizen in the area. They paid taxes for local infrastructure, schools, time and effort to organize and solve community issues, inconvenience when a…

How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors. https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-...

The value of land increases with density, but the utility of existing properties decreases.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#140

Post by onion2k »

strken wrote: post #127
onion2k wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who thinks the privacy to sleep in your own bedroom and the luxury to have a second kitchen to use for canning fruit because it'd make using your first kitchen a little harder are two points on the same scale is just plain wrong. They aren't. One is a point on the scale of "things you need for basic human dignity", and the other is a point on the scale of "amusing shit deluded rich people think is normal." Tho…

It seems like you're creating a scale of things you believe everyone ought to have and calling it "needs". If you're defining need in such a subjective way, then telling someone else to divide their life up by what they need vs what they want is telling them to live their life with only the luxuries they're unwilling to compromise on. That's a great way to live and I approve of it, but I remain steadfastly convinced…

I remain steadfastly convinced that it's good for humans to have some unnecessary luxuries.

It'd be amazing if everyone had things they don't need. I'd love to live in a world where everyone had what they need and more. That's a no brainer.

The problem is that you're saying "the luxuries they're unwilling to compromise on" should be considered needs because some entitled rich idiot isn't able to accept that they could actually live with just one kitchen. That's stupid. They're still luxuries, and absolutely not equivalent to actual needs.

Needs and wants are not the same things. Arguing that they are, and that they're just two things on a scale of wants, or that they're two things on a scale of needs, ignores that there are things people actually need and things that people can live without.

I'm not arguing that rekabis shouldn't have their second kitchen. I'm only saying that they could live without it, and that they would probably give it up before giving up the privacy of their bedroom. Maybe that's wrong. Perhaps they could put a bed in it and sleep there. I don't know.

Post reply on HN