31–40 of 262 posts
Unless your home insurance rises every year and your monthly ownership costs double in 4 years.
Many of us lost houses in the oughts to exactly that.
> A third option is necessary: a way to rent without making someone else rich. I care how much I pay. I don't give a shit who gets it.
The amount you pay is set by the people who get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good, especially in cities. The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby: jobs, shops, parks, emergency services. The majority of tax should be based on the land value, independent of the cost of structures built on that land. A single-family home (whether it be a shack or a million dollar mansion) in a city center with high land value…
You might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of pro…
Isn't this what terrible public housing is already? Could it be less terrible or would it always devolve into a housing caste system because middle-/upper-classes would never use it? Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. Also, the root…
The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, orchestrated via zoning regulations. Wikipedia spells this out in detail for San Francisco [1]. > Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to…
Trying to mimic 1960s TV neighborhoods thru single use zoning regs has not served our country well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, orchestrated via zoning regulations. Wikipedia spells this out in detail for San Francisco [1]. > Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to…
> The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, and zoning regulations. Trying to mimic 1960s TV neighborhoods thru single use zoning regs has not served our country well.
Isn't this what terrible public housing is already? Could it be less terrible or would it always devolve into a housing caste system because middle-/upper-classes would never use it? Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. Also, the root…
The Shane Phillips / Lewis Centre proposal specifically addresses equity rights in addition, which is at the very least rare, if not novel.
(There are some co-housing / co-op structures which have some similarities, these are largely smaller scale.)
"those losses aren’t equitably distributed, either: Nearly 2 million mortgages are underwater in the U.S., and they’re disproportionately concentrated in Black and Latino communities. Tenants in coastal cities, meanwhile, know the pain of forking over more and more rent every year, unable to save for a down payment and living at the mercy of sometimes unscrupulous landlords." What on earth does not equitable mean in…
That is literally explained in your quote. An inequitable distribution is one where a higher percentage of individuals in specific minority groups suffer losses compared to society as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might find Georgism [0] interesting. Its tenets include a (steep) land value tax that proponents believe would sort out the 'best use' of land in city centers. It's a compelling idea, but unfortunately the driving force behind American government seems to be once you have something (property, a business, etc...) nobody can do anything that adversely affects it. And Americans (over age 40) already own a LOT of pro…
This falls in line with the old economic school of how value is created, which fell in disfavor because it didn’t sit right with the upper classes, for clear reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People cannot actually choose the location, without giving up their work. "You can only find work in a big metropolitan center that demands 60% of your salary in rent? Though luck..." Let's say that you work in London... if you are 1h away from your work, you're still likely in zone 3 or 4, which is pretty expensive. Your choices then are: a 1h30/2h commute (each way) or giving up on having a place only for yourself,…
Name one career where rent is 60% of the income yet only exists in the largest cities.
Suggesting that there are careers that only exist in the largest cities seems like an odd thing for you to introduce into the conversation.
Isn't this what terrible public housing is already? Could it be less terrible or would it always devolve into a housing caste system because middle-/upper-classes would never use it? Set-asides for "affordable housing" in new developments are an absolute joke because there are very few units, they often have separate "servant-like" entrances, and may not be treated equally compared to other residents. Also, the root…
The root cause is way too little development relative to demand, orchestrated via zoning regulations. Wikipedia spells this out in detail for San Francisco [1]. > Since the 1960s, San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations. Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to…
But those programs should be implemented as subsidies, not price controls! The only reason we're so reliant on the latter is it is more easy politically to put the costs on suppliers and hope the electorate doesn't notice that you're actually exacerbating the problem.