I’ve said time and time again that “building more houses” is not the solution.
The problem is resource hoarding. Regulate the real estate monopolies. Stricter bans on AirBnBs and second vacation homes. Rent control properties. And renovate buildings that aren’t up to code.
Outside of extremely dense cities, it’s never, ever been a population issue. It’s a class issue.
It’s also the huge amount of housing that’s built that’s not affordable. We have had 5 neighborhoods built within 4 miles of my house over the past 5 years. Nothing is below 500k starting price.
The alternative is that nothing gets built and people compete for the existing stock which drives up prices anyway
Or, now hear me out, we limit profit on things like this.
that’s because you can’t build homes for cheaper than that.
developers aren’t going to charge 300K for a home that cost them 400K to build
They actually can build homes cheaper than that, there’s a certain price point where they feel they’re making the kind of profit they want which is basically the cost of a older home profit-wise. There’s a recent article that came out that I’m can’t find right now but I read it just a couple months ago that talked about the 400 to $500,000 price range is the profit margin that builders want to make. That means they’re probably making 20 to 30% profit. And while they can build cheaper homes they make less profit so they are not motivated to.
I know it’s not going to happen under this regime but it seems like the solution is to offer tax breaks, subsidies, or whatever we think might give the developers some incentive to build lower income housing.
OK. you go develop those homes then.
since you’re such an expert and seem to think a 10% margin is totally worthwhile?
I run a company, and it often is. Think about it this way. If you sell a 250k home,10% would be 25k. A developer often sells an entire neighborhood, so let’s say conservatively 30 homes. That’s 750,000$. If that’s not enough profit to keep building, well, you now know the problem with our society.
It doesn’t need to be an either-or situation. We can attack the problem from multiple sides, since there’s isn’t a silver bullet. New housing absolutely has to be part of it, but obviously it’s not super helpful if the new stock isn’t affordable or practical for average people.
Counterproductive regulations (restrictive zoning, vetocracy setups) have prevented environmentally sensible and affordable housing from being added in sufficient quantities in most of the US for a long time. We have more people living in smaller households than we used to; it just doesn’t math without adding new stock.
I’ve said the same thing. More housing will just be bought by more speculators. I also think a massive tax on owning more than 5 properties would be helpful as well. Put the revenue from that into affordable housing subsidies.
If you build enough housing it gets back into being economically competitive for the average person to own their home. Speculators can speculate until it doesn’t make sense any more.
We got into the current situation because we slowed way down on building homes.
Building more housing is the solution, even if those homes largely go to the upper middle class and wealthy. Building new homes primarily for well off people isn’t a historic anomaly, it’s the norm. If you’re already building a house, it doesn’t take that much more to add some luxury features to make it appeal to the high end of the market. This is how it’s always been. Historically, the affordable housing of today is the luxury housing of yesterday.
Preventing new home construction doesn’t prevent neighborhoods from gentrifying. You just end up with yuppies living in newly renovated former tenements.
seriously. poor people don’t buy new homes. rich people do. i grew up poor. every house we lived in was 30+ years old. poor people buy homes that are old.
the issue is there are no more old homes anymore because we don’t build enough new homes. so now rich people buy old homes and push our the poor people who can’t afford any home.
people like me, making 150K and now going into poor communities and buying up the homes for ourselves because we can’t afford anything newer. all the old homes in the richer towns are crazy expensive, and the new ones are 2x the cost of the old ones.
new constructed home in my city is about 2-3million. a 50 year old house is like 1-1.5 million. a newly constructed home in a poor shit down is 500K. a old home in a shit town is like 350K. I can afford a 350K house. i can’t afford one that’s 500K or more.
people move to wear they can afford homes.
I’ve said time and time again that “building more houses” is not the solution.
I mean, it’s also been said that a lot of these empty houses are in rural/suburban neighborhoods outside of dying industrial centers. We’re effectively talking about “Ghost Towns”, with no social services and a deteriorating domestic infrastructure, that people are deliberately abandoning.
And we’re stacking that up against the homeless encampments that appear in large, dense, urban environments where social services are (relatively) robust and utilities operate at full capacity around the clock.
Picking people up from under the I-10 overpass and moving them to
doesn’t address homelessness as a structural problem. It just shuttles people around the state aimlessly and hopes you can squirrel them away where your voters won’t see them anymore.
At some point, you absolutely do need to build more apartment blocks and rail corridors and invest in local/state/federal public services again, such that you can gainfully employ (or at least comfortably retire) people with no future economic prospects. You can’t just take folks out to shacks in the boonies and say “Homelessness Resolved!”
Sounds like all those places need are people to live in them.
It’s a win-win.
…But nobody wants to live there.
You could give a bunch of homeless people housing, but there’s simply no structure around it. They have no money, and there’s no jobs. There’s no services around. They won’t be much better off than homeless in a big city tbh. Might be WORSE off.
There needs to be available housing near the places where there’s actually things to do, jobs to hold, services to use.
Worst part is, I bet a LOT of those ghots towns are suburban, not urban - so it makes it more difficult and expensive to build up a new community there. Everything is spaced out
They need economic activity to be livable. Shoving broke people onto a reservation doesn’t accomplish that.
They create the economic activity.
More people living in an area means there’s more to do and more people to do it.
On average, each additional person contributes more than they take out.
Stalin thought Siberia needed a lot of people living there. Look how that turned out.
You need jobs near those places first. The locations are dying because of lack of industry.
The people who move there will create jobs and demand.
That’s really not how it works. If you’re homeless you’re not in a position to be a job creator.
More people living in a location means there is more work to be done and more people to do it.
Each additional person, on average, can contribute more than they take out.
Homeless people, on average, contribute less to society than housed people, on average. Generally multiple societal structural failures and bad luck are major contributions to a person ending up homeless, but their own genetic- and nuture-driven characteristics play a role, too, and having a higher physical and mental disability burden than the average human is common.
Also, living remotely often means subsistence is a major part of how people get on, and subsistence is an intensely knowledge- and skill-based task highly specific to locale. Hunting in rural Alaska is not immediately transferable to hunting in Greenland, and dumping someone in rural Montana is not going to poof make them an expert gatherer.
More people living in a location means there is more work to be done and more people to do it.
If that were universally applicable the towns wouldn’t be dying to begin with. The houses are empty because there’s a lack of available work.
We prefer to call them investment properties.
We need a land value tax to stop real estate speculation.
Also we have more churches than homeless people. If churches aren’t even helping one of the most disadvantages and the individuals damn near every holy book says to help. What are they doing? They don’t even help the homeless children.
And if you let people live in them they might depreciate in value. So…
I’d love to ensure everyone has an acceptable home and access to clean water and food. It seems like we could do that.
Conversely, I’ve seen people’s living situations and people are fucking gross. This includes home owners and non homeowners.
People get shit on and then just repeatedly shit on. I’m not sure what I would do, had I held the power. Probably let people have smaller homes and start there. Like those little mini homes? Still homes, still have housing, but limited. Earn more?
Idk. I’m not a politician.
That’s true, but also inversely generally being gross on a property does not outweigh the value of the property over time in most cases. Even having gross tenants over time at market rent generally results in net profit after they leave and any additional cleanup costs incurred, plus you still own the property at the end of the day, and if we’re talking about houses, you probably own the land too.
I’ve seen what you’re describing and I think what you’re getting at is more of a societal systemic issue related to mental health and income. Most people I think would like to live clean and healthy lives, but they either need mental health support they aren’t getting/can’t afford, etc, and/or are spending more time working/taking care of family/battling addiction or whatever and end up not taking care of themselves or where they live
But at the end of the day this is all anecdotal and the whole thing should be addressed by a governing body made up of compassionate voted-in representatives using available resources and a scientific approach that want to fix the problem rather than arbitrary individuals chatting about it
Yeah that makes sense. I do wish the humans were more caring of each other. We’re all here together to live. Why not help each other?
Thats not what depreciation means.
If youre trying to say the wear and tear decreases the property’s value, it wouldn’t decrease much more than a rented property, and the investor would have all that rent income.
Also they already get a tax break for depreciation…
In most jurisdictions you cant claim depreciation if the property is not available to rent.
They should never have been allowed to become gambling chips.
Noone should be allowed to purchase a home without agreeing to live in it full time for at least a year afterwards. Split it into a duplex to become a landlord? Another year. Wanna be a landlord? You must live in that building full time along with your tenants. Outrageous? Not nearly as outrageous as homelessness because of the prices.
Easiest way is to ensure the unit isn’t vacant for more than a year, else they will get taxed extra. Also rent shouldn’t be x% higher than the mortgage.
Some cities in Australia have a vacant property tax. It makes sense in some areas.
Good idea. There are plenty more conditions that could be added on to make becoming a landlord/gambler much less attractive. Like: you can’t even begin to buy another until you’ve finished your year and sold the place.
Yes, the government can actually do something about it if they want, and imo that’s the issue, because taxes from property sales is much more attractive to them.
Don’t forget brib…sorry, I mean lobbying from rich people and corporations owning a lot of properties.
it’s called a vacancy tax.
landlords already get tax discounts for living in properties they rent out in most communities.
You shouldn’t be allowed to own residential property you don’t live on. There needs to be a way for people to move so after 3 months of owning a property that is not your primary residence taxes go through the roof and double every year.
“What about renters?”
Basement suites / duplexes exist. An apartment building will be better taken care of when the owner has to also live in the apartment building.Another good idea would be to require every rental to include a rent-to-buy option. If the renter wishes, a substantial portion of those rental fees would count as equity, and at any time they can afford it, they can exercise that option to buy. If they decide to move out, that equity does not revert to landlord but goes into a special trust which pays for more affordable housing.
This is somewhat similar to how the right to buy initiative worked with council housing in the UK till they sold them all off and stopped building more.
To do something like that you’ll need to introduce public housing, maybe nationalise blackrock? 💀
I would be willing to bet most anything that if anyone here owned another property, they would not freely just donate it to the unhoused.
And that is entirely because passing judgement is very easy and requires no effort or financial loss.
if I was as wealthy as some of the celebrities you smart people keep sucking off, I would definitely be funneling my wealth to those who need it.
I say it is OK to own 2 houses.
But you guys should make it a crime to own more than 2.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s never okay to hoard more than you need while there others who genuinely need the things being hoarded. This is doubly true for housing.
Housing should be more controlled, but "need’ will always be a fuzzy term if you still want to allow individuals to have different levels of wealth. Nobody needs a huge home, either. Two or three rooms, actually…maybe a little more with kids.
if you still want to allow individuals to have different levels of wealth.
I most certainly do not.
So what’s the allowance for people’s homes in your world? Two rooms and one more for each kid?
