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

Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

denverite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 391 posts

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#321

Post by MangoToupe »

spankalee wrote: post #103
MangoToupe wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People in poverty have to pay for housing. No, they don't have to. That's a decision our society has made, and in my opinion it was a horribly evil one.

Even if the government is paying for housing for them, cheaper housing means that the government can pay for more people's housing. Building housing reduces the price of housing...

> cheaper housing means that the government can pay for more people's housing.

Which we will never do, because it depresses property values.

Look "abundance" bullshit would make sense in a continuum of housing policy. But by itself we're just doubling-down on reinforcing homelessness as an american institution.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#322

Post by MangoToupe »

spankalee wrote: post #98
MangoToupe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lowering the rent stops people from becoming homeless which is a necessary element of ending homelessness. Sure but by this reasoning you could justify any effort as sufficient. At some point you have to make the personal judgement on what effort is enough. I don't really see any effort focusing on anything short of homelessness as worth the oxygen in the room it consumes.

Who said anything here about "sufficient"?

Nobody; you can read this. What's your point? I realize americans don't give a shit about the homeless; you'd have to be retarded to think otherwise.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#323

Post by MangoToupe »

next_xibalba wrote: post #127
MangoToupe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all working people could afford housing? Hey, if that's the metric you're pushing for, good for you. I'm pushing for housing as a human right. I never caught the calvinist bug of "torture the non-productive until they conform and perform" method of population management.

Human rights don't depend on the compulsory labor of others. They are inherent. Housing doesn't qualify. "torture the non-productive until the conform or perform" is possibly the most inflammatory framing of "you should not make other people pay for your housing" I've seen.

> Human rights don't depend on the compulsory labor of others.

The ones that are worth fighting for do. Otherwise what is the point except to excuse acting like an asshole?

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#324

Post by MangoToupe »

prewett wrote: post #151
MangoToupe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all working people could afford housing? Hey, if that's the metric you're pushing for, good for you. I'm pushing for housing as a human right. I never caught the calvinist bug of "torture the non-productive until they conform and perform" method of population management.

Why should housing be a human right? Human rights came from seeing all people as made in the image of God, but since God is out of fashion, what justification is there? And even if you argue "image of God", human rights have hithertofore been about human interactions, not possessions or use of things. On the latter, Paul instructs thieves to stop stealing and work, so that they have something to give to the poor--it'…

> Human rights came from seeing all people as made in the image of God

bruh I don't think Jesus wants to create homelessness. Maybe you should read your book and stop using it to perpetrate blatant acts of evil. I don't think you're seeing heaven if you honestly think homelessness is justified in any way. Read your fucking book.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#325

Post by vkou »

msgodel wrote: post #319
vkou wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Short term thinking dominates economics these days. Especially among people criticizing the response to 2008/2020. Failing to mitigate sickness in capital markets and the economy in the short term would have inflicted far more damage in the long term .

[flagged]

You are assuming that there was any good way of dealing with a year where nobody went to work because of a global pandemic.

The economic pain of inflation was far preferable to the economic pain of active economic destruction, as short-term disruption to business would have resulted in long-term destruction of real value. It was far less painful long-term to print money and have the economy on pause for a year, with bills still getting paid, than it would have been to have the economy collapse over that year.

If it weren't for those mitigations, we'd all still be sitting around a tire fire, trading bottle caps for ammunition.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#326

Post by porridgeraisin »

kelnos wrote: post #311
jjav wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So when a new home owner buys something and suddenly the value drops $100k and the bank wants the money That's not how mortgages work (in the US, anyway). If the value drops, nothing happens, you still have the same house and same mortgage. I've been underwater twice, in the same house, as prices go up and down over the years. As long as you still like the house and want to continue living there (I did), being unde…

That's the catch, though. What if you wanted to move? That would have sucked. What if you had to move? That could have been disastrous to you. What if you had lost your job, and defaulted on the loan. Apparently most states in the US are non-recourse, so how would you feel when your next job's wages are garnished, or there's a lien on the next home you buy? When you have to put an "If" in front of "being underwater d…

Where do those ifs stop? What if you went blind in an accident? Some things are just disasters, you can't count that for optimising the majority of the system. Of course you can have support for poor people but that will obviously not match the 400k house lifestyle.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#327

Post by DaveZale »

rsync wrote: post #255
DaveZale wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just a little west of Pueblo. We're about 1/3 of the cost of living in the Denver area. We get plenty of migrants from the Denver area and elsewhere. Of course, the sales tax and other taxes are going up. Probably heading to a truly rural area with a nice community soon. I lived in many big cities over the years. They are toxic and unsafe. I know that because I worked in public health. If you look at the morbidity an…

“just a little west of Pueblo …” Canon City in the house .

Greybar Hotels! The Supermax... some bad hombres

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#328

Post by rolandog »

standardUser wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because this doesn’t magically solve the housing crisis It does. Twenty thousand units represent about 5% of Denver's housing stock [1]. Commit to adding this many units to the housing stock every year for the next 10 years and you'll have solved the housing crisis. (You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater, but that's a separate issue.) [1] http://censusreporter.org/pr…

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators. It's called buyer's remorse. We accept…

> If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators.

Isn't that missing the forest for the trees? There's an all-out class war between the haves and the have-nots. If it controls supply like a cartel, and if it pursues rent-seeking like a cartel, then maybe the real estate moguls and speculators that treat everything like an investment instrument should be held accountable and liable.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#329

Post by ctrlp »

standardUser wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because this doesn’t magically solve the housing crisis It does. Twenty thousand units represent about 5% of Denver's housing stock [1]. Commit to adding this many units to the housing stock every year for the next 10 years and you'll have solved the housing crisis. (You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater, but that's a separate issue.) [1] http://censusreporter.org/pr…

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators. It's called buyer's remorse. We accept…

If the government passed subsidy laws or building requirements that caused your loss, then you might expect compensation. Did you disagree with bailing out small businesses shuttered during COVID and their furloughed employees? Same principle.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#330

Post by msgodel »

vkou wrote: post #325
msgodel wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are assuming that there was any good way of dealing with a year where nobody went to work because of a global pandemic . The economic pain of inflation was far preferable to the economic pain of active economic destruction, as short-term disruption to business would have resulted in long-term destruction of real value. It was far less painful long-term to print money and have the economy on pause for a year, with…

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Post reply on HN