5 ms·

This is a great idea and I hope more cities take the hint and fight housing speculation.

by pietrovismara 8y ago

alexgmcm 8y ago
I hope more cities tackle the actual cause and build/repair more housing.
- iagovar 8y ago
  There's no unlimited supply of land. And there's a limited distance that citizens can travel before that impacts their lifestyle or behavior. Also, if you wanted to build higher buildings to accommodate more people in the same space, good luck doing that in a city center, because there's no space for such thing.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    > Also, if you wanted to build higher buildings to accommodate more people in the same space, good luck doing that in a city center, because there's no space for such thing. I have seen a three story building knocked down in Hong Kong and a 20 story building rise in its place without any damage to the structural integrity of its neighbours. Engineers are really good at building things if they’re allowed to do so, even under significant constraints.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      [gestures at London as a prime example of the same]
    - iagovar 8y ago
      The problem is not a technical one, but a legal one. There are very few empty buildings in most euro cities, and people is typically reluctant to get out because of the hassle it causes them. If there is a run down and empty building, then sure, but you won't find many.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  There are already more houses than people. Building more of it isn't going to solve the problem. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable to everyone and a good investment. Society needs to pick one and write laws accordingly.
pfisch 8y ago
This idea is absolutely going to backfire and drive up rents because they are about to massively constrain the supply of rentable houses.
- iagovar 8y ago
  It depends if current tenant/investors are impacted or not. If they aren't, the supply of rentable houses won't change, or at least not decrease.
  - pfisch 8y ago
    It can only decrease. As in someone buys an existing lot, knocks down the house and builds a new house on it. Or a house burns down, or any other house destroying event.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Or you could build apartments. The law doesn't say you can't build rental property, just that you can't build houses as an investment.
      - Macross8299 8y ago
        The law doesn't mandate building apartments either, so if the same people who build/buy houses as rental properties are unwilling/unable to invest in apartments (because building a 400-person complex is a lot more expensive than a house), then rental property supply can only be constrained by this law or concentrated into the hands of management companies (who have a vested interest in constraining supply) Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced that restricting rental property ownership to property management companies who can afford to build apartment complexes is inherently more equitable than letting a middle class person with good credit buy an extra house and rent it out. Where I'm from originally (Alberta), it was common for electricians/plumbers/tradesmen to buy an extra property with a combination of credit and wages and maintain it. It's a relatively simple and time-tested path for moving from working/lower middle class to being upper middle class or even wealthy.
mcny 8y ago
I think the correct solution to fighting housing speculation is increase property valuation to real world prices, eliminate extra taxes on vacant apartments, and drastically increase (to about 5% - 7% of valuation every year) the property taxes on everyone. At 7.2%, the doubling period is about ten years. This should cool down the market.

This is a great idea and I hope more cities take the hint and fight housing speculation.

alexgmcm 8y ago

I hope more cities tackle the actual cause and build/repair more housing.

iagovar 8y ago
There's no unlimited supply of land. And there's a limited distance that citizens can travel before that impacts their lifestyle or behavior. Also, if you wanted to build higher buildings to accommodate more people in the same space, good luck doing that in a city center, because there's no space for such thing.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  > Also, if you wanted to build higher buildings to accommodate more people in the same space, good luck doing that in a city center, because there's no space for such thing. I have seen a three story building knocked down in Hong Kong and a 20 story building rise in its place without any damage to the structural integrity of its neighbours. Engineers are really good at building things if they’re allowed to do so, even under significant constraints.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    [gestures at London as a prime example of the same]
  - iagovar 8y ago
    The problem is not a technical one, but a legal one. There are very few empty buildings in most euro cities, and people is typically reluctant to get out because of the hassle it causes them. If there is a run down and empty building, then sure, but you won't find many.
hannasanarion 8y ago
There are already more houses than people. Building more of it isn't going to solve the problem. Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable to everyone and a good investment. Society needs to pick one and write laws accordingly.

pfisch 8y ago

This idea is absolutely going to backfire and drive up rents because they are about to massively constrain the supply of rentable houses.

iagovar 8y ago
It depends if current tenant/investors are impacted or not. If they aren't, the supply of rentable houses won't change, or at least not decrease.
- pfisch 8y ago
  It can only decrease. As in someone buys an existing lot, knocks down the house and builds a new house on it. Or a house burns down, or any other house destroying event.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Or you could build apartments. The law doesn't say you can't build rental property, just that you can't build houses as an investment.
    - Macross8299 8y ago
      The law doesn't mandate building apartments either, so if the same people who build/buy houses as rental properties are unwilling/unable to invest in apartments (because building a 400-person complex is a lot more expensive than a house), then rental property supply can only be constrained by this law or concentrated into the hands of management companies (who have a vested interest in constraining supply) Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced that restricting rental property ownership to property management companies who can afford to build apartment complexes is inherently more equitable than letting a middle class person with good credit buy an extra house and rent it out. Where I'm from originally (Alberta), it was common for electricians/plumbers/tradesmen to buy an extra property with a combination of credit and wages and maintain it. It's a relatively simple and time-tested path for moving from working/lower middle class to being upper middle class or even wealthy.

mcny 8y ago

I think the correct solution to fighting housing speculation is increase property valuation to real world prices, eliminate extra taxes on vacant apartments, and drastically increase (to about 5% - 7% of valuation every year) the property taxes on everyone. At 7.2%, the doubling period is about ten years. This should cool down the market.