411–420 of 1001 posts
Part of the problem is government regulation. In some places, it's almost impossible to build new houses due to regulations. Some portion of the population wants to see house prices continue to increase and they will vote for politicians who will implement policies which will support that agenda. Of course this happens at the expense of another, also large portion of the population who do not own a house and have to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think houses should be used by anybody to build up wealth.
So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...? I understand your perspective; there's a reason the term "rent-seeking" has a negative connotation. But I don't really see an alternative that wouldn't be worse. Different tax rates for primary residences sounds like a potentially okay compromise (though it would make renting more expensive, by design).
The state/county/city/whatever entity could provide those and make it a +/-0 thing for their books. They don't need to make money by doing that. "Social housing" is a concept that has been pretty much lost, I think.
Part of the problem is government regulation. In some places, it's almost impossible to build new houses due to regulations. Some portion of the population wants to see house prices continue to increase and they will vote for politicians who will implement policies which will support that agenda. Of course this happens at the expense of another, also large portion of the population who do not own a house and have to…
Perhaps, but I think the more difficult issue in communities is how developers take over city councils and hamstring especially high-density development to benefit themselves personally- to eliminate competition and only let their or friends' own pet projects see the light of day.
Also since they are almost always wealthy, they do not want housing to assist the poor or nontraditional housing that takes advantage of alternative energy to be built near their properties because in their mind it devalues them.
I think they are going to be tragically wrong in the near future, but the bubble around capitalist-oriented real estate is VERY strong and unlikely to burst until it's catastrophic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only perceive corporate landlords as the greater problem because we're not living in the counterfactual reality where there are millions of new apartments that are inexpensive, tiny, safe, quiet, modern, clean, dignified, and well-located. In pretty much every major city in North America, it is illegal or there is too much red tape to build the affordable housing people actually want. Why is it that living in a t…
You say this like every developer would be rushing out to build low-income housing if only they could. Developers build expensive luxury units because they can rent them for $2k a month by scalping tenants from nearby buildings who are currently paying $2.1k per month, because the buildings really don't cost that much more to build, the higher forecasted income from said renting makes it easier to sell to banks and g…
You could make this argument for any product. Of course it’s more profitable to cook steaks for the rich. That doesn’t mean nobody poor has ever eaten.
About one percent of Americans are poor on a global scale [1]. Unaffordability of housing is a political choice. It is driven by an alliance between cynical and ignorant interests.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of the problem is government regulation. And not just too much regulation, but the wrong kind of regulation, and a lack of regulation in areas that need it. Someone in the article was forced out of her home because her landlord suddenly raised her rent by $500. That shouldn't be legal. Corporations buying up homes in order to drive up prices shouldn't be allowed. Lots of things are allowed that shouldn't be. A…
It shouldnt be allowed for people to raise rent on the property they own? Thats an absurd idea. People have been complaining about not having the home they want in the location they want since the beginning of mankind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not absurd because nobody is forcing that person to rent. Housing is a public resource, and contributing to that public resource shouldn't come without asterisks. Cities need the non-owning class to function, and cities function better when the non-owning class has some degree of stability-- letting landlords juice their tenants for as much as possible is counterproductive to this.
But if it becomes unprofitable (for some value of profit) to rent, they will stop renting, unless you force them at gunpoint to continue renting even when it loses money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among my friends seeking to buy houses, the greater problem is the ability of large companies to buy up whatever is on the market, which they then immediately turn into a rental. It’s nearly impossible to compete with a company who will pay $50k over asking price, in cash, for the house you’re trying to get. Comparatively, immigrants don’t have the purchasing power to compete, so saying they’re the problem is a weird…
You only perceive corporate landlords as the greater problem because we're not living in the counterfactual reality where there are millions of new apartments that are inexpensive, tiny, safe, quiet, modern, clean, dignified, and well-located. In pretty much every major city in North America, it is illegal or there is too much red tape to build the affordable housing people actually want. Why is it that living in a t…
I don’t understand how the consolidation of the housing market doesn’t create a feedback loop that prevents that counterfactual reality?
A few asset management companies have been purchasing the entire supply chain. From land to homes, from builders to agents.
These companies have a large amount of capital to deploy to make sure their assets go up and to the right.
It also seems like that capital being deployed to create a positive feedback loop pricing buyers out of the market is being funded by … buyers in the market. It’s partly their retirement assets. It seems that, in a very real way, buyers are bidding against their own retirement accounts trying to maximize returns in a decelerating market.
I very much agree that it’s government policy that gave rise to this, and that the counterfactual reality would normalize prices, but I’m not sure you can separate off corporate buyers from the feedback loop.
It all seems to be part of the same death spiral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's comforting to think homelessness is caused by people making bad decisions, but it's almost entirely a result of bad public policy. West Virginia has a much higher rate of drug addiction than Portland, but much less homelessness. Because drug addicts in West Virginia can afford housing. Other places have worse access to mental healthcare but less homelessness for the same reason. Demand in metropolitan areas has…
Housing is cheap in West Virginia because it's currently experiencing the largest population exodus in the US. https://apnews.com/article/al-state-wire-west-virginia-lifes...
Charleston didn’t make better policy than Salem; it simply didn’t pass the bad ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's comforting to think homelessness is caused by people making bad decisions, but it's almost entirely a result of bad public policy. West Virginia has a much higher rate of drug addiction than Portland, but much less homelessness. Because drug addicts in West Virginia can afford housing. Other places have worse access to mental healthcare but less homelessness for the same reason. Demand in metropolitan areas has…
Housing is cheap in West Virginia because it's currently experiencing the largest population exodus in the US. https://apnews.com/article/al-state-wire-west-virginia-lifes...