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

Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

inpractice.yimbyaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 539 posts

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#431

Post by Workaccount2 »

Telemakhos wrote: post #384
throwaway2037 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love to purchase a home, but even 10 years of a software engineering salary are not enough for that in NYC. Imagine a 1M USD studio apartment. Is 10% (100K USD) down payment feasible? Usually, banks are happy to lend 90% to people with good jobs and a good credit score.

If you’re paying a million dollars to own a studio apartment (essentially a hotel room), something has gone horribly wrong. That could be any number of things (inflation, insane property valuations, unreasonable demand for city life), but that same money could be spent very differently and go much further in a different location.

You pay the million dollars, rent it at $3.5k/mo, get a 3.5% return from rent, and then let the market drive up the value of the place 6-7% a year.

You now have an investment returning a fairly steady ~10% annually, which matches the returns on some pretty bad junk bonds, however on paper your risk is much less. Or you could live in it and just get the 6-7% annual return, with even lower risk.

That's why the apartment costs $1M.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#432

Post by noisy_boy »

crooked-v wrote: post #68
cortesoft wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Delivering better lives for people” is already an inherently social issue, though. There are many people who don’t WANT to improve certain people’s lives, and if your proposed policies help them, they will be against it even if it makes everyone’s life better; they are willing to forgo improving their own life to make sure the people they hate won’t see any improvement. Unless your policies go out of their way to ex…

See, for an example, that "he's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting" quote that made the rounds from an unhappy 2019 Trump voter.

That voter much be very happy now because he is hurting plenty of people aplenty.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#433

Post by sc68cal »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #306
floatrock wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is expensive to be poor because of feedback loops. If you lose a job and miss a paycheck this month, maybe you need an extra month to get back on your feet. If you lose housing right away, it's gonna be harder to find a job ("why is your suit wrinkled? why do you smell like you haven't taken a shower in a week?"), which makes it harder to get an apartment that would stabilize things. We have safety nets so the sma…

Ok but we have plenty of other safety nets. Govt programs like SNAP, Unemployment, TANF, etc. We have other potential safety nets such as family, churches, various other organizations that help out, friend’s couches. I don’t understand why a small time landlord who probably doesn’t have huge cash flow on a property should be unable to pay the mortgage on the property for 6 months or a year. It doesn’t seem right to m…

If a landlord can't pay the mortgage then they probably shouldn't be a landlord.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#434

Post by Enginerrrd »

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

The issue I'm seeing is that right now, you won't even be cashflow positive unless you can put 40-50% down on the construction costs.

That's a HUGE ask for someone to build an ADU! If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you just become a developer? The answer is obvious: capital. But that applies at every scale, and thus to a whole lot of those homeowners you're showing disdain for too.

People complain the rents in my area are too high. But the costs of the underlying real estate, maintenance, construction, and repairs are so high right now that it barely pencils out if at all. Most houses in the area were constructed in the 70's or the 90's and have not been well-maintained. So there's added costs of trying to bring old structures back up to snuff. New construction, even medium/high density stuff doesn't make sense unless you have 40-50% down or access to some ridiculously low interest loan.

Something has to give. Either prices need to come down on land, labor and construction materials, or rents need to go even higher.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#435

Post by steveBK123 »

lesuorac wrote: post #399
steveBK123 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting problem I'm not sure what the solution is. Being a small-time landlord is unreasonably risky due to tenant friendly laws and backed up courts. Similarly, I've found renting from small-time landlords to be a worse experience. They tend to do things that a large corporation would eventually face lawsuits over - discrimination, demanding more money up front, keeping deposits, poor upkeep of units, et…

> It's an interesting problem I'm not sure what the solution is. Actually funded court system? Having to wait months to evict a tenant for legitimate reasons is a huge issue if it's affecting >50% of your rental units.

Yes funding courts would solve a lot of gray area issues

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#436

Post by horsawlarway »

Analemma_ wrote: post #278
horsawlarway wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is closer to hitting the truth. I'll add... I think idealizing single family housing as the default, over generational family housing (mostly as a response to industrialization wanting worker movement, and the advent of automobiles) is going to eventually be seen as an unforgivable mistake. And they're all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same

I see this take a lot, and I think it has a terribly romanticized and unrealistic rose-colored view of the past. Multi-generational housing suuuuucks , and it’s a near-universal feature of human societies that as soon as people become wealthy enough to vote with their feet and get out of it, they immediately do so, because “multi-generational housing” means constantly having nosy relatives butting into your business,…

Yes, and most people prefer to eat sweets and pizza instead of vegetables.

That doesn't change that single family homes are essentially making childcare and elderly costs skyrocket.

Personally, I'd much rather deal with the inconvenience of having family in my house than pay more than the mortgage on my property for childcare, and have my parents die bankrupt because of long term care costs.

Single family households bleed generational wealth, and that's somewhat ok during a period where the house itself appreciates enough to offset that... but otherwise... it's a bad deal.

Side note... it really helps if you don't hate your family. Sounds like you have personal issues on that front.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#437

Post by huvarda »

biophysboy wrote: post #422
thegrim33 wrote: post #98

I can not follow the linked article at all. It keeps whiplashing back and forth between "big government good" and "big government bad". The summary, the best I can tell, is "big government bad, that's why we need to empower big government even more, so that it has the power to fix the things that big government did"? We gave control over housing to big government, which did things the author doesn't like, so now the…

The basic thesis is that big government is bad when the gears are gummed by excessive participation/procedure, but good when it provides fast grants to pressing issues.

wouldnt the fastest possible grant be no requirement for grant at all?

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#438

Post by noisy_boy »

hayst4ck wrote: post #216
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Instead of getting tangled up in social issues, liberal politicians should be prioritizing housing, infrastructure and government services supporting people's economic activity of all kinds. Delivering better lives for people, and having the courage to stand up to vested interests, from house owners to corporations, would create a huge and lasting political win across a broad section of the electorate.

Democrats are largely controlled opposition. If you ask where democratic power comes from, it comes from campaign donations by America's richest and most powerful people. Bloomberg ran for president under their banner, think about that. At minimum it communicates that the democratic platform is compatible with oligarchs. How are they supposed to wrangle corporate power, when that is exactly where their power comes fr…

> Then you get sad, because you realize there is no way to get actual representation for the issues you care about other than to run yourself, but if you ran explicitly to challenge those in power, those in power would fund your opposition. So then you realize that it's hard to get into power without expressing loyalty to those who grant power, and then you have a cogent explanation for why things are the way they are.

For a practical example, see Bernie.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#439

Post by steveBK123 »

BrenBarn wrote: post #334
steveBK123 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting problem I'm not sure what the solution is. Being a small-time landlord is unreasonably risky due to tenant friendly laws and backed up courts. Similarly, I've found renting from small-time landlords to be a worse experience. They tend to do things that a large corporation would eventually face lawsuits over - discrimination, demanding more money up front, keeping deposits, poor upkeep of units, et…

> It's an interesting problem I'm not sure what the solution is. The solution is to make the rules different for small landlords.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice this stuff is unworkable slippery slope to unmitigated arb.

How do you quantify small - number of units or dollar value? What is small - 1 unit? 2? 5?.

What stops a larger landlord setting up 1000 LLCs each managing 3 unit?

As soon as you get into "different laws apply to different people" you run into problems.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#440

Post by totalkikedeath »

floatrock wrote: post #273
ReptileMan wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works wonders for utilities and telcos. You stop paying your bills - your phone is dead, you have no internet and electricity in X days after skipping an invoice. Why should be leasing real estate any different?

It is expensive to be poor because of feedback loops. If you lose a job and miss a paycheck this month, maybe you need an extra month to get back on your feet. If you lose housing right away, it's gonna be harder to find a job ("why is your suit wrinkled? why do you smell like you haven't taken a shower in a week?"), which makes it harder to get an apartment that would stabilize things. We have safety nets so the sma…

[dead]
Post reply on HN