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

Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

pew.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#891

Post by bradchris »

deanishe wrote: post #830
bombcar wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both affordable and an investment - it cannot (and will not) perpetually be a market-beating top-tier investment . All of the items above can have drastic unintended consequences; the way to keep prices affordable is to make sure that supply is always outstripping demand by a bit. Some examples of unintended consequences: * I can't add an ADU to my existing property which would add one more dwelling unit *…

> it could substantially discourage non-citizen immigrants (legal or not) Make an exception for owner-occupiers?

So like what California did, which resulted in only a couple hundred thousand units over half a decade when they were hoping for/needing a couple million statewide.

Not the mention that ironically, the private owners with the space to build an ADU on their lot are the ones most likely to already be wealthy, and not actually rent it out to anyone below their socioeconomic bracket.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#892

Post by Forgeties79 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #888
Forgeties79 wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s the thing, that’s not what these properties are generally here. These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents. People lived in these homes prior and somebody else would have likely bought and lived in it if they left. When my wife and I were buying our first house we had two houses taken out from under us because somebody came in with an all cash bid tens of thousands…

> These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents. This happens because hotel accommodation is generally overpriced. But if you tax the airbnb rentals, it deters profit-minded developers from engaging in this practice, while still allowing it as a last resort for homes that cannot be rented long-term and would otherwise sit empty.

Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day. That’s the entire issue. This type of construction and renovation is bad for housing. My city’s story is very common - it was especially in the 2010’s.

House-Hotels managed by companies based in other states (sometimes even other countries!) don’t belong in residential neighborhoods. We have zoning for a reason.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#893

Post by exabrial »

testing22321 wrote: post #774
exabrial wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build more housing

If investment companies that already own tens of thousands of homes buy them and keep increasing the rent, the problem has not been solved.

You literally didn't read the article.

Build more housing.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#894

Post by exabrial »

idbnstra wrote: post #817
testing22321 wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If investment companies that already own tens of thousands of homes buy them and keep increasing the rent, the problem has not been solved.

land value tax would fix this

No, build more housing.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#895

Post by tadfisher »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #671
tadfisher wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That eight inches is called "side impact protection" and, while it sucks to not be able to comfortably rest your arm on the window sill, it is pretty important to have in the event of an impact to the side.

Safety people: Also safety people: "These goddamn consumers have started buying SUVs" I'm not saying this is you personally but the trend is pretty goddamn clear.

I drive a 90s Miata. Trust me, I hate the SUV trend as much as anyone else, and I also recognize that car design from the 90s is not exactly the pinnacle of crash safety.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#896

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

zozbot234 wrote: post #875
michaelmrose wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of housing is not to provide an investment vehicle nor should we optimize for this. Airbnb should just regulated out of existence in most urban markets because we are chronically low on housing and the city doesn't need short term rentals at all.

The purpose of most real estate is to provide shelter for people, not to sit empty and unused. That's exactly what AirBnb allows to those who are only willing to rent short term (because it's their vacation home and they want to be able to use it).

You are referring to properties held by the already rich (only the rich can afford 'vacation homes').

If they can't afford a 'vacation home' without short term rentals then it should be sold and provide housing year-round and build equity for a new homeowner.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#897

Post by pfdietz »

myrmidon wrote: post #808
pfdietz wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is the government has artificially restricted housing supply and this has driven up prices. It's not a market failure, it's a government failure.

I think it's not helpful to talk of "government failure" as long as democratic principles are upheld. You could call it "voter failure" instead. But I'd argue that many of those voters are just acting in their own best interest, because they already own a home and more construction/housing supply does not help them at all. Some part you might be able to blame on the system, because I'm pretty confident that owners of…

Of course it's helpful, unless one has the ridiculous idea that democracies can't make mistakes.

Yes, voters are acting in their own interests, or at least what they perceive to be their interests at the time. This can lead to bad outcomes. It's why we have things like the Bill of Rights, which restricts what even a majority can impose.

The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#898

Post by exabrial »

testing22321 wrote: post #810
brazzy wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they cannot increase rents when there is enough supply for a market to actually work.

The market will remain irrational longer than… Of course they can when they own them all. See De Beers diamonds. Buy them all, keep the price artificially high.

They can only do that (own them all) with government assistance. See De Beers diamonds, who leveraged the legal system to create a monopoly.

The solution is to build more housing and get the government out of the picture.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#899

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

sophrosyne42 wrote: post #553
laserlight wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. Nowhere in the economic theory there is a proposition stating that prices should fall below affordable levels, given enough competition.

The relative abundance of land compared to other factors of production is, in fact, such a proposition. But when land is restricted through zoning laws this stops holding true. In other words, we must eliminate restrictions on production for the benefit of all people, but particularly the poorest.

I mean I would love to bulldoze that strip of forest next to Beverly Hills and put in a hog farm. It would provide tons of jobs.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#900

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

dan-robertson wrote: post #826
harrall wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the biggest reason is, learning from history, the instability of food prices destabilizes nations. There have been many “bread riots.”

Bread is much cheaper today (at least relative to incomes) than in the days of bread riots.

Wheat is HEAVILY subsidized.
Post reply on HN