People buy RV lots here for camping...knowing fully well that they're limited to 90 days of camping. (or 90 days of having an RV parked on their lot.) Then they start bitching about wanting to use it 120, 180, even 365 days per year. That's not what they agreed to when they bought their lot...and in most cases, that was carefully explained to them by their realtor and/or title company.
I could get behind this. I think California should enact a law that does a progressive tax on income generated from rental property: the more units you own, the higher the marginal tax rate.Really want to make a dent in housing prices? Take the housing market away from the corporations who buy up everything they can in desirable areas...then jack the prices, whether for resale or rentals.
The fastest way to reduce housing prices is....Really want to make a dent in housing prices? Take the housing market away from the corporations who buy up everything they can in desirable areas...then jack the prices, whether for resale or rentals.
Those corporations make up a small fraction of the total housing market. The publicly traded ones even tell us why they do it: artificially constrained supply drives up prices, making it a way for them to make a lot of money. We could undercut them tomorrow by allowing more to get built.Really want to make a dent in housing prices? Take the housing market away from the corporations who buy up everything they can in desirable areas...then jack the prices, whether for resale or rentals.
Yeah, it's a slow but correct walk in the right direction, but I still think that it's not quick enough. The few remaining ways to own property in a HCOL area in California is either through a big windfall from your parents, dual high income household, or have the property straight up gifted down to the next generation via inheritance. Good luck to future generations who didn't have parents who they themselves were able to obtain property via one of the aforementioned methods.
As for the Bay Area, I was born and raised in San Francisco, so I understand completely. The height restriction in all of the residential areas makes the City's aesthetic so unique but it's also what makes building more units so dang hard. Funny how this thread was started by someone complaining about the housing prices in Pasadena, and here I am today not more than a few minutes drive from Pasadena itself. I'm still not a homeowner, though, if it wasn't obvious.
It's only adding more congestion if you keep everything car focused. The good thing about density is that it can support other modes of transit and even just walking. And density wouldn't happen overnight. It would take time, just like it took time to get where we are today. And if someone doesn't like the density, they can always sell out and move elsewhere. It's not the government's job to protect your property value at the expense of increased housing costs for others and mass homelessness.Of course changing zoning laws hurts people. That’s why it is wildly unpopular. When people buy property, they look at the surrounding property uses. Adding more density means more congestion and more noise. I know folks here love to waive away externalities but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Small correction, build more affordable housing. I've ranted about this before, but it does no good to build housing/rentals if they're exclusively targeted at the middle-upper class housing market, and the builder can afford to sit on the property/land until the market 'cooperates'.The fastest way to reduce housing prices is....
wait for it....
wait for it....
BUILD MORE FUCKING HOUSING.
Build more houses, more corporations will buy them to help control the market...and the number isn't as small as you think...especially in the rental market. The more single family homes the corporate investors buy and remove from the market, the more pressure that puts on home prices for sales.Those corporations make up a small fraction of the total housing market. The publicly traded ones even tell us why they do it: artificially constrained supply drives up prices, making it a way for them to make a lot of money. We could undercut them tomorrow by allowing more to get built.
When you go to sell your property, are you going to sell it at a substantial markdown or are you going to try to get the most you can based on the local market?
The fastest way to reduce housing prices is....
wait for it....
wait for it....
BUILD MORE FUCKING HOUSING.
So not building (what's largely happening now) has led to high prices, but building more will also lead to high prices? Right...Build more houses, more corporations will buy them to help control the market...and the number isn't as small as you think...especially in the rental market. The more single family homes the corporate investors buy and remove from the market, the more pressure that puts on home prices for sales.
Wall Street has purchased hundreds of thousands of single-family homes since the Great Recession. Here's what that means for rental prices
Corporations backed by private equity groups such as Blackstone and Pretium Partners bought tens of thousands of homes across the U.S. Sun Belt.www.cnbc.com
Are Big Companies Really Buying Houses? Everything You Need to Know - Today's Homeowner
It has been challenging for first-time homebuyers to find affordable housing in recent years. Many have placed the blame on the shoulders of big business, and in this article, we investigate that claim.todayshomeowner.com
Investors Bought a Quarter of Homes Sold Last Year, Driving Up Rents • Stateline
Investors bought nearly a quarter of U.S. single-family homes that sold last year, often driving up rents for suburban families in the process. The issue is especially acute in some Sun Belt states amid evidence that investors often can outbid other buyers, keeping starter homes out of the hands...stateline.org
Builders are building like crazy around here and prices are still going up because builders don’t bother building for people who can’t afford housing. Builders build for the high end to maximize profits.So not building (what's largely happening now) has led to high prices, but building more will also lead to high prices? Right...
This idea that landlords of all types are able to collude with one another to keep prices high is pretty preposterous. We also have real world examples in the US where building has led to net decreases in housing costs (Austin & Minneapolis for instance).
Part of that is just what we allow though. Too much red tape means only big builders that can get through it. Lot sizes and max units/lot means only expensive McMansions. Impact fees charged by municipal governments drive up prices and come directly out of the buyer's pocket (instead of using property taxes to find infrastructure). Never mind the general idea that new almost always costs more than used (though, in many areas, we're in such a rut, it would take tens to hundreds of thousands of new units across metro areas to really start making a dent in prices, either by slowing price growth, or of enough is built, actually lowering total prices)Builders are building like crazy around here and prices are still going up because builders don’t bother building for people who can’t afford housing. Builders build for the high end to maximize profits.
What’s darkly amusing is that these corporations you hate so much say one of the main reasons they are buying up housing is they know it’s a winning investment due to government bans on new construction.Really want to make a dent in housing prices? Take the housing market away from the corporations who buy up everything they can in desirable areas...then jack the prices, whether for resale or rentals.
This, all of this....Part of that is just what we allow though. Too much red tape means only big builders that can get through it. Lot sizes and max units/lot means only expensive McMansions. Impact fees charged by municipal governments drive up prices and come directly out of the buyer's pocket (instead of using property taxes to find infrastructure). Never mind the general idea that new almost always costs more than used (though, in many areas, we're in such a rut, it would take tens to hundreds of thousands of new units across metro areas to really start making a dent in prices, either by slowing price growth, or of enough is built, actually lowering total prices)
At the end of the day, people need somewhere to live. If well off people are buying a home, they are likely leaving a place somewhere else that the next person in the economic ladder could occupy. Filtering is a real effect in housing.
Adjusting zoning and associated codes won't fix everything, but it is currently a severe constraint on what can be built in the first place. We also need targeted construction and subsidies to help out lower income people (but we shouldn't look to reproduce The Projects of the past).
Much like with cars, brand new housing is for rich people and that’s fine.Builders are building like crazy around here and prices are still going up because builders don’t bother building for people who can’t afford housing. Builders build for the high end to maximize profits.
This argument has been debunked so many times. It looks like New York City is building tons of buildings but it's not a lot compared to per capita and it's not enough to make up the hundreds of thousands of units of shortfall.Builders are building like crazy around here and prices are still going up because builders don’t bother building for people who can’t afford housing. Builders build for the high end to maximize profits.
But as density increases desirability decreases. A lot of people don't want to live in a box on the 25th floor, that's the New Delhi dream, not the American dream.The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
If areas, as exhibited by prices, are popular, we should let density increase to allow supply to attempt to meet demand, instead of trying to micromanage our communities like SimCity.
So the house they moved out of, it's gone down in price since they bought it because it's used now right?Much like with cars, brand new housing is for rich people and that’s fine.
Remember, if that new luxury condo isn’t there for that rich person they aren’t going to sleep in their car instead, they are going to go down the ladder one step and kick a middle class person out.
New York City says hi, haha. Regardless, we already have a great system for how to determine how desirable a place is to live, it’s called the free market.But as density increases desirability decreases. A lot of people don't want to live in a box on the 25th floor,
False. The American dream is to live in whatever type of house you want although it’s sort of funny to see an American conservative extoll the virtues of central planning for one of our largest economic sectors.that's the New Delhi dream, not the American dream.
But of course that’s the thing - they aren’t allowed to build where they want.There is land aplenty all across the united states, pick a spot and start building.
But as density increases desirability decreases. A lot of people don't want to live in a box on the 25th floor, that's the New Delhi dream, not the American dream.
There is land aplenty all across the united states, pick a spot and start building.
If another, newer house were built next door to it with similar features then it would be cheaper than the newer one, yes.So the house they moved out of, it's gone down in price since they bought it because it's used now right?
I am continually baffled as to why people think supply and demand doesn't apply to housing. A more accurate question if if all else being equal as compared to the current baseline when you increase supply do housing prices go up or go down?Right?