31–40 of 78 posts
I personally tried to build more housing, I tried to buy 5 acres and build 5 homes on them. 5 acres could have easily held 5 large homes with big yards. The city zoning board denied me, saying that that 5-acre plot had been zoned for ONE house and an ADU of no larger than 300 sqft. That was when I realized why housing is so expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see the issue with this? Consider the incentives the government has created here. You can't build new housing, or it's extremely expensive because it's limited to specific lots and then you have to buy out whatever happens to be there even if they don't want to sell, and destroy a 5 story building in order to build a 10 story building, doubling costs while halving the increase in housing. Housing is thereby…
Taxing people who own multiple homes and taxing people who own apartment complexes are two completely different things and shouldn't be conflated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by taxing / fining people for having a second home. I don't see the issue with this? The profits in Canadian real estate are not on the back of some new found resource. It's entirely an effective wealth redistribution from have-nots to haves. If you have property, the vast amount of value in it is strictly from the fact that it is artificially scarce. To get into the "haves" you have to pay an artificial tax in the…
> I don't see the issue with this? Consider the incentives the government has created here. You can't build new housing, or it's extremely expensive because it's limited to specific lots and then you have to buy out whatever happens to be there even if they don't want to sell, and destroy a 5 story building in order to build a 10 story building, doubling costs while halving the increase in housing. Housing is thereby…
Every time I go looking for statistics to back this argument, I come away underwhelmed. In most cases I see little change in the ratio of dwellings to households over the past few decades.
Take a look at the first figure (HM1.1.1) in the following document - particularly those for the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ (all countries with prominent housing issues).
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-cons...
On the other hand, I think there is a strong argument to be made for increasing underutilisation of housing (more second homes, short term rentals, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxing people who own multiple homes and taxing people who own apartment complexes are two completely different things and shouldn't be conflated.
You do realize that if someone can avoid the tax by renting it out then they'll just rent it out to a friend for a nominal amount to avoid the tax?
If they rent it for a nominal amount, they're effectively losing money on the property and gambling on appreciation. If someone wants to do that, good luck to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see the issue with this? Consider the incentives the government has created here. You can't build new housing, or it's extremely expensive because it's limited to specific lots and then you have to buy out whatever happens to be there even if they don't want to sell, and destroy a 5 story building in order to build a 10 story building, doubling costs while halving the increase in housing. Housing is thereby…
> This an undersupply problem. Every time I go looking for statistics to back this argument, I come away underwhelmed. In most cases I see little change in the ratio of dwellings to households over the past few decades. Take a look at the first figure (HM1.1.1) in the following document - particularly those for the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ (all countries with prominent housing issues). https://www.oecd.org/els/f…
These are country-wide numbers. The obvious problem is that there is existing housing in Detroit but demand for housing in San Francisco.
It's also somewhat self-defining. If millennials are forced to live with their parents because they can't afford their own home then this is counted as one "household" when there is demand for two.
> On the other hand, I think there is a strong argument to be made for increasing underutilisation of housing (more second homes, short term rentals, etc).
There isn't anything inherently wrong with short-term rentals or second homes, they're just another type of housing demand that requires supply to increase to compensate. Until it isn't allowed to.
I personally tried to build more housing, I tried to buy 5 acres and build 5 homes on them. 5 acres could have easily held 5 large homes with big yards. The city zoning board denied me, saying that that 5-acre plot had been zoned for ONE house and an ADU of no larger than 300 sqft. That was when I realized why housing is so expensive.
Yeah usually they want you to build one house on one plot. Not build a compound. If you want to build 5 houses, you subdivide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your opinion on the recent SCOTUS decisions declaring that forcing developers to pay for community improvements qualifies as a taking? Do you see this having a material effect on housing development?
Do you have a link to a summary? I missed it, if it ever made the front page news. IANAdeveloper… if a developer is otherwise within code/zoning, SCOTUS is probably correct. If they’re asking for zoning changes, there should be room for negotiation on nearby improvements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah usually they want you to build one house on one plot. Not build a compound. If you want to build 5 houses, you subdivide.
I'm not a real estate developer, and even I assumed OP was subdividing (and mentions that in another comment). Why would you assume otherwise? I also assumed that the zoning authority said, "nope, minimum 5 acre lot size", which is common. There is, after all, the possibility that someone actually knows what they're doing when they go before the zoning board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that if someone can avoid the tax by renting it out then they'll just rent it out to a friend for a nominal amount to avoid the tax?
I'm pretty sure you lose a lot of tax advantages on rental properties (mortgage interest deduction, depreciation etc.) if you don't rent them at market rate. If they rent it for a nominal amount, they're effectively losing money on the property and gambling on appreciation. If someone wants to do that, good luck to them.
If they're buying multiple homes to rent out at market rates to the general public then they're just an ordinary landlord -- the thing that wouldn't be paying a tax on "second homes" by design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure you lose a lot of tax advantages on rental properties (mortgage interest deduction, depreciation etc.) if you don't rent them at market rate. If they rent it for a nominal amount, they're effectively losing money on the property and gambling on appreciation. If someone wants to do that, good luck to them.
You can't deduct depreciation on an owner-occupied house to begin with. The premise is that you're trying to distinguish between landlords and people who have a second home for themselves. But they can just rent it to a friend who in turn lets them use it. If they're buying multiple homes to rent out at market rates to the general public then they're just an ordinary landlord -- the thing that wouldn't be paying a ta…