3 ms·

As a thought experiment, what would happen if a city like San Francisco required you to own the home or condo you lived in, and provided financial guarantees.

As a thought experiment, what would happen if a city like San Francisco required you to own the home or condo you lived in, and provided financial guarantees. So any non-owner occupied residence was illegal. And then the city paid a variety of contractors to build studio apartments which would rent for $500/month without any commitments, deposit or credit score. With 2-4BR for families. The thought is the city, community & companies build up immense value for real estate owners. It's somewhat unfair to create this fantastic system we have in the Bay Area, where all these smart hardworking people gravitate to work on new, sometimes transformative ideas but then we channel lots of the profits to early real estate holders who effectively got lucky. While unnecessarily adding a ton of stress to people's lives. Of course, it would never be implemented. But the basic idea is that all apartment rentals would be through an open system via local government and all condos & homes would require the owner to live in them.

T2_t2 9y ago
That would be an unmitigated disaster. For a start, what is the value of all rental properties in the bay area? Lets say it is 15%. So the government either needs to come up with 15% of the value of ALL rented houses, or steal them in some unfair way. And can I claim my kids and wife live and own their own houses? What if they are 15? Can I own 5 houses? Starting this alone would be a massive disaster - either economically (fair price paid), morally (lets steal rental properties) or pragmagtically (can we guarantee people won't cheat?). If by a miracle this hump could be got over, it would also lead to massive problems of supply. 100% of new developments having to be sold to owner occupiers, or be paid for by the government, would make it hard to impossible for either side to build much more supply. I can't start a new development unless I am sure I can sell 100% to owners, or the government buys some of the units. Hello massive corruption! Lastly, https://pics.me.me/the-30-second-guide-to-government-spending-buying-something-using-your-25857769.png https://pics.me.me/the-30-second-guide-to-government-spendin... is an example of how people buy. A Government run rental market would have ridiculously impractical houses, as now governments would have the ability to manipulate the housing market for votes. "X government built practical, affordable no frills units, but you hate them. We'll build you all places you love". Disaster number, what, 7? It is just a disaster from every possible, conceivable angle.
lev99 9y ago
I don't think as many people would want to move to the Bay Area is they were forced to either buy a home or rent municipal owned housing.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Stopping people from moving here is the most popular thing a Bay Area politician could possibly do.
  - lev99 9y ago
    Attracting young smart workers is one of the Bay Area's greatest assets, from an outsider's point of view.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Voters find the low density (light, air, lack of bulk, lack of height) to be a much more important asset, and the two are not compatible.

T2_t2 9y ago

That would be an unmitigated disaster. For a start, what is the value of all rental properties in the bay area? Lets say it is 15%. So the government either needs to come up with 15% of the value of ALL rented houses, or steal them in some unfair way. And can I claim my kids and wife live and own their own houses? What if they are 15? Can I own 5 houses? Starting this alone would be a massive disaster - either economically (fair price paid), morally (lets steal rental properties) or pragmagtically (can we guarantee people won't cheat?). If by a miracle this hump could be got over, it would also lead to massive problems of supply. 100% of new developments having to be sold to owner occupiers, or be paid for by the government, would make it hard to impossible for either side to build much more supply. I can't start a new development unless I am sure I can sell 100% to owners, or the government buys some of the units. Hello massive corruption! Lastly, https://pics.me.me/the-30-second-guide-to-government-spending-buying-something-using-your-25857769.png https://pics.me.me/the-30-second-guide-to-government-spendin... is an example of how people buy. A Government run rental market would have ridiculously impractical houses, as now governments would have the ability to manipulate the housing market for votes. "X government built practical, affordable no frills units, but you hate them. We'll build you all places you love". Disaster number, what, 7? It is just a disaster from every possible, conceivable angle.

lev99 9y ago

I don't think as many people would want to move to the Bay Area is they were forced to either buy a home or rent municipal owned housing.

closeparen 9y ago
Stopping people from moving here is the most popular thing a Bay Area politician could possibly do.
- lev99 9y ago
  Attracting young smart workers is one of the Bay Area's greatest assets, from an outsider's point of view.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Voters find the low density (light, air, lack of bulk, lack of height) to be a much more important asset, and the two are not compatible.