3 ms·

The problem is that "investors" would swoop in and buy said houses for the 30k, and rent it out for $700 a month. The first round wouldn't be so bad, but every-

The problem is that "investors" would swoop in and buy said houses for the 30k, and rent it out for $700 a month. The first round wouldn't be so bad, but every-time anything came up for sale it would get bid up until the rent is astronomical in relation to the base materials cost. In order for this to work you have to build enough oversupply that anyone at any time who wanted a 30k house could get one (and wouldn't have to drive two hours out of town). To do this you probably need to build huge condo blocks like you find in Hong Kong, or similar cities and those buildings aren't inexpensive. Possible, but I don't see it being something that happens without strong government involvement. Which itself tends to be a problem unless you happen to luck out with the proverbial benevolent dictator.

8bitsrule 9y ago
Well (ha ha) obviously this program would only be for eligible low-income individuals. And one of the conditions of sale (renting not allowed) would be: only to eligible individuals, on the same terms. Take it or leave it.
bgorman 9y ago
The reason we don't have mass high rise construction everywhere in high cost of living cities is due to goverment regulations. In Seattle you cannot build above four stories for much of the city. San Francisco has similarly restrictive measures. The problem is usually incumbent property owners want to preserve the "character" of their neighborhood and protect their investment.
- himom 9y ago
  Barking up the wrong tree. Nothing to do with regulations except as a side proxy tool of powerful NIMFOBY homeowners’ interests whom want their scenic views and low inventory to keep their property values high. Regulations aren’t automatically good or bad, consider each as a possible multi-edged sword. Banning leaded gas in cars was mostly good.
himom 9y ago
Let’s not kid ourselves about what kind of houses they’d be: million tiny houses would be arranged like refugee camps. The cheapest shit possible that can be called a “livable shelter,” except it will be like a favela. The market of that wouldn’t be much.
- 8bitsrule 9y ago
  The cheapest shit a homeless person might prefer to living in a car or a tent is probably more like $5000-10000. Could build a million of those for $10B. Plumbed. Ever seen a cottage? The people living next to my parents lived in one, no more than 500 sq.ft. Happily raised two kids in it; happily lived in it until their deaths. On a nice lot on a nice street, far from cheap shit. Maybe the favela ( been reading Sterling?) is in your head.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
We don't need high-rises to achieve a high supply of housing. We just need to allow six story buildings anywhere that someone wants to build one. These buildings are much cheaper per housing unit than high rises, but allow for much greater population density than the two to three stories that we allow in some of our most sought after locations.

8bitsrule 9y ago

Well (ha ha) obviously this program would only be for eligible low-income individuals. And one of the conditions of sale (renting not allowed) would be: only to eligible individuals, on the same terms. Take it or leave it.

bgorman 9y ago

The reason we don't have mass high rise construction everywhere in high cost of living cities is due to goverment regulations. In Seattle you cannot build above four stories for much of the city. San Francisco has similarly restrictive measures. The problem is usually incumbent property owners want to preserve the "character" of their neighborhood and protect their investment.

himom 9y ago
Barking up the wrong tree. Nothing to do with regulations except as a side proxy tool of powerful NIMFOBY homeowners’ interests whom want their scenic views and low inventory to keep their property values high. Regulations aren’t automatically good or bad, consider each as a possible multi-edged sword. Banning leaded gas in cars was mostly good.

himom 9y ago

Let’s not kid ourselves about what kind of houses they’d be: million tiny houses would be arranged like refugee camps. The cheapest shit possible that can be called a “livable shelter,” except it will be like a favela. The market of that wouldn’t be much.

8bitsrule 9y ago
The cheapest shit a homeless person might prefer to living in a car or a tent is probably more like $5000-10000. Could build a million of those for $10B. Plumbed. Ever seen a cottage? The people living next to my parents lived in one, no more than 500 sq.ft. Happily raised two kids in it; happily lived in it until their deaths. On a nice lot on a nice street, far from cheap shit. Maybe the favela ( been reading Sterling?) is in your head.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

We don't need high-rises to achieve a high supply of housing. We just need to allow six story buildings anywhere that someone wants to build one. These buildings are much cheaper per housing unit than high rises, but allow for much greater population density than the two to three stories that we allow in some of our most sought after locations.