61–70 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s not terrible because the middle upper classes don’t use it. the middle/upper classes don’t use it because it’s terrible because of the people who live in it and do terrible things. sorry it’s not PC but it’s true
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But those programs should be implemented as subsidies, not price controls! Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords, and an accelerant to runaway general unaffordability. You could probably split the difference with weaker rent controls and subsidies that make it look like stronger rent control from the renters side, which might mitigate the worst problems of eithe…
> Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords How is it a windfall for landlords? If the rent prices are going up, they will be making the money regardless of whether the renter is paying for it or the government is paying for some of it. If your point is that a subsidy will shift demand and increase the price, that is exactly what we want! A price signal to the market…
As long as that same government is using law (ie. violence) to prevent building more housing, no amount of subsidies can be effective.
What do you intend landlords do? Hire an army to defend cheap housing from the government?
1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent.
2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months.
3) Eventually, I own enough of a share of the property that I no longer have to make payments, similar to having paid off a mortgage. I'd be responsible for upkeep (e.g. roof repairs), property taxes, that sort of thing.
What I'm not understanding, though, is how this passes down. If I'm a partial owner and move, doesn't the next buyer have the same issue raising capital that the model tries to address? Does it not also mean that I could become a landlord in my own right, and begin renting to another occupant, who stands to build no wealth themselves?
Change happens. Stability can’t be decreed.
I didn't quite glean a thorough understanding of the model from the article. It sounds like it's: 1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent. 2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months. 3) Eventually, I own en…
Plus, there is a notion in the article that this would be an incoming-producing asset and that income is presumably coming from the rents paid. Unless this is a massive Ponzi scheme, there's consumption going on (and therefore you're not building equity with all of the rent payments).
There's no realistic way you're going to have 100% (and likely not even 50%) of a rental payment going to building equity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords How is it a windfall for landlords? If the rent prices are going up, they will be making the money regardless of whether the renter is paying for it or the government is paying for some of it. If your point is that a subsidy will shift demand and increase the price, that is exactly what we want! A price signal to the market…
> If your point is that a subsidy will shift demand and increase the price, that is exactly what we want! A price signal to the market to build more housing to accommodate everyone who wants to live there including displaced communities! As long as that same government is using law (ie. violence) to prevent building more housing, no amount of subsidies can be effective. What do you intend landlords do? Hire an army t…
Yes, law includes the threat of coercion, I don't see what adding that little tidbit does to improve your point.
I didn't quite glean a thorough understanding of the model from the article. It sounds like it's: 1) Public funds provide capital to build a new dwelling; individuals move in at rates similar to market rent. 2) Rather than rents paying a landlord, rents act like principal payments on a personal mortgage - e.g. I own $10,000 worth of shares of the property after paying $1,000/mo for ten months. 3) Eventually, I own en…
Basically, folks would sign up for home ownership education, do a bunch of stuff related to maintenance, etc and shop for a two family. The housing authority (through a grant) would essentially provide a loan for 20-30% of the purchase price for down payment and some repairs. The loan would be forgiven in 5 years.
It was pretty transformative and really changed lives for the better. About 90% of the participants made it through year 5.
"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…
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But those programs should be implemented as subsidies, not price controls! Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords, and an accelerant to runaway general unaffordability. You could probably split the difference with weaker rent controls and subsidies that make it look like stronger rent control from the renters side, which might mitigate the worst problems of eithe…
> Subsidies for historic populations without price controls would be a windfall for landlords How is it a windfall for landlords? If the rent prices are going up, they will be making the money regardless of whether the renter is paying for it or the government is paying for some of it. If your point is that a subsidy will shift demand and increase the price, that is exactly what we want! A price signal to the market…
Subsidies for a population that otherwise couldn’t afford it will accelerate the rate at which market price increases, especially since those subsidies will also increase as the market price does. It’s like student loans and college prices, but worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's set mostly by supply and demand across the market. The owner and the renter can get together and negotiate a small deviation based on the property's idiosyncracies, but it's the market that's primarily driving it.
The term for an opportunistic escalation in pricing (of a critical commodity) due to a rapid-onset shortage is price gouging. Like many US markets, local rental prices have ~doubled in the last two years. As in every case of price gouging, sufficient supply would have prevented the opportunism that is presently causing broad harm. Huzzah for supply and demand, I guess.
Increase the supply through deregulation or incentives and we won't have this problem.