5 ms·

> The key problem is the rich buying property for literal rent-seeking to become even richer. This key problem is in no way solved by the political proposal, a

by hnarn 8y ago

> The key problem is the rich buying property for literal rent-seeking to become even richer. This key problem is in no way solved by the political proposal, as "the rich" can move to buy older real estate instead. > This drives prices up for homes in the city to a point that only if you are in a relationship and over 30 you might be able to buy your first 'home'. The reason that prices are going up is because a lot of people want to spend a lot of money for the real estate, so in the end you must take a moral stand regarding who owns the right to live and/or own real estate in the city, and what this right is based on. Long term consistency is key here, because short lived stabs at the market like this one will not make any difference apart from creating volatility. As soon as you create economical impediments to achieve your "moral", or "political" goals, you must ask yourself questions almost like a penetration tester: how would I exploit this law if I wanted to stand to gain from it economically? There's almost always a way, and unless you take this into account before creating the law, you're just making the problem worse, and more complicated (normally the same thing). > the fun part of government is that you can learn, change and adapt Government shouldn't be having fun with laws. They should be enacting laws that are thoroughly studied, where the possible outcomes are weighed against eachother to minimize risk and maximize the odds of success. Of course you always need to evaluate and adapt, but this proposal is sloppy to say the least, perhaps even malicious.

hannasanarion 8y ago
Let them have older real estate. That pie isn't growing. The point is that the rich can't dominate the entire market any more, there is a class of housing reserved for the middle class
- hnarn 8y ago
  Giving the rich a monopoly on a fixed tier 1 subset of real estate in a market with huge demand is not how you solve affordable housing to the "local" middle class. It will create synthetic incentives, and escalate prices on all real estate as demand seeps over into black or grey markets. Changes like these need to be across the board, or not happen at all.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    This isn't "giving the rich a monopoly", it is restricting their existing monopoly by declaring a type of housing (newly constructed sfhs) out of their reach.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      But the middle class of today will be the rich of tomorrow, and not allowing them to rent out their own homes when they move means that basically they are prevented access to the same mechanisms of wealth creation that made today's rich people rich.
- stale2002 8y ago
  This law literally helps out rich people and hurts low income people. Low income people can't buy a house. They can only afford to rent. This law would criminalize the ability of poor people to live in the city, and it would do so to help the wealthy home owners.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Complete nonsense. First of all, homeowners aren't wealthy. Landlords are wealthy. The law says that wealthy landlords have to keep their hands off of brand new houses for a certain period of time so that homeowners can have a crack at it (therefore lowering prices, since rental profit isn't a consideration) This does nothing to prevent anyone from renting apartments, condos, or houses built over five years ago. Poor people aren't the ones renting brand-new construction. The renters of new houses are going to be people who could have and would have bought the house, if super rich landlords weren't jacking up prices.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Ok, so you are seriously going to argue that a person who rents new apartment isn't going to be significantly less wealthy than someone who purchases a new home? Do you see the obvious contradiction here? All this law does is take away poor people's ability to rent a home, that will instead be sold to a wealthy home owner. If you can afford to purchase a new home then you are way way more wealthy than someone who can only afford to rent that same home.
gekkeboom 8y ago
As you know with security, it's very difficult to predict in advance how flaws/loopholes will be exploited. So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes. Cities don't exist for rich people to exploit. They are the places where we live our lives, the focus is quality of life. Not some theoretical discussions about 'markets'.
- hnarn 8y ago
  > As you know with security, it's very difficult to predict in advance how flaws/loopholes will be exploited. Not always. This law has some very obvious loopholes that I would be very surprised if they weren't abused, should it ever become reality. > So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes. Nobody's saying that this is a bad thing, and it doesn't in any way require badly thought out laws like this one. > some theoretical discussions about 'markets' "Some theoretical discussion" is exactly what is missing in this proposal, which is why it's so badly thought out and will miss the mark, to nobody's benefit but the property owners of what politicians arbitrarily decide is "old" real estate.
  - wukerplank 8y ago
    Which policies do you propose to protect lower/middle incomes from getting priced out of their cities?
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      Build more housing, lots and lots more housing. Central Paris is beautiful and it’s almost uniformly dense eight story walk ups. Build new cities. It’s not like the Dutch haven’t built commuter cities around Amsterdam before. Do it again, taking account of the lessons learned from places like Almere.
      - somecallitblues 8y ago
        Sydney is a great example of where that doesn’t work. There’s a crane every 100 meters here and everyone but people with loads of money or rich foreigners is priced out.
johnchristopher 8y ago
> The reason that prices are going up is because a lot of people want to spend a lot of money for the real estate Hum. No. People don't want to spend a lot. But the whole system is built so owners can extract rent either from rentals or from buyers to which banks will lend enough money to meet the seller's price.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Yes, that’s what happens in a market where supply is growing slower than demand. Prices go up. See levels.fyi for an example of this in the market for software engineers.
- hnarn 8y ago
  > People don't want to spend a lot. The fact that prices are going up proves this is not true.
  - martin_a 8y ago
    > The fact that prices are going up proves this is not true. No. Prices go up because demand is higher than supply and people are forced to live somewhere (as in "reasonably near their work") and are therefore forced to spend lots of money on this. They wouldn't do so if they did not have to.
skohan 8y ago
> This key problem is in no way solved by the political proposal, as "the rich" can move to buy older real estate instead. I suspect this proposal has less to do with protecting middle class people's ability to be home owners, and has more to do with preventing perverse incentives around real estate development from having a long-term negative impact on Amsterdam's housing stock. For instance: look at what's happening in Toronto. There are a massive number of high-end, 1-br condos being built because that's the type of property which makes sense as an investment instrument. Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built.
- hnarn 8y ago
  > Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built. It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective. Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument. The problem appears when a moral argument should enter legal and political reality. When you look at this proposal through the lens of "what will be achieved", it's hard to be optimistic.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument. Even that sort of moral argument is short-sighted because natives benefit a lot by investments by foreign capital owners, specially in real estate.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective. Indeed it is, and in an honest democracy a question of this importance would be voted on in a referendum. But before doing that you'd first want the public to be informed of the facts. But in Canada the government won't even do that - we have no idea how much property is being purchased by foreign investors directly, or via proxy friends/relatives who have obtained Canadian citizenship.
Spooky23 8y ago
> The reason that prices are going up is because a lot of people want to spend a lot of money for the real estate... No. Real estate is 80% driven by finance and tax policy. The condo craze is just like the big box and franchises hotel boom a 15 years ago. Lots of money flows in, and the buildings get sold when they start losing money around the 15 year mark when depreciation catches up. Many of the marginal “luxury condos” will be shitty rentals in the 2030s when maintenance becomes a problem, and you’ll see them rapidly go down market. By that time, the money will have moved on the the next thing, and we’re all stuck with the mess.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > By that time, the money will have moved on the the next thing, and we’re all stuck with the mess. What mess would that be? A wealth of cheap condos in a market flooded by companies liquidating their investment?
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    You still have to pay to maintain them, and expensive high-rise condo maintenance sets a natural floor for rents.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Bankrupt condo associations and people with underwater mortgages walking away. For the rental units, the profits tank, so the landlords tighten the screws on opex, and they aren't "luxury" anymore. You may recall 2008, when this phenomena happened with single-family homes. Condos are much more fickle investments.
    - Scarblac 8y ago
      Note that in the Netherlands you can't just "walk away" from a mortgage. If the bank sells your house and the yield isn't enough to pay for the mortgage, you're still on the hook for the rest. After 2008 the housing market just more or less closed down. Nobody was selling as their mortgage was under water, so they just stayed where they were.

by hnarn 8y ago

hannasanarion 8y ago

Let them have older real estate. That pie isn't growing. The point is that the rich can't dominate the entire market any more, there is a class of housing reserved for the middle class

hnarn 8y ago
Giving the rich a monopoly on a fixed tier 1 subset of real estate in a market with huge demand is not how you solve affordable housing to the "local" middle class. It will create synthetic incentives, and escalate prices on all real estate as demand seeps over into black or grey markets. Changes like these need to be across the board, or not happen at all.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  This isn't "giving the rich a monopoly", it is restricting their existing monopoly by declaring a type of housing (newly constructed sfhs) out of their reach.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    But the middle class of today will be the rich of tomorrow, and not allowing them to rent out their own homes when they move means that basically they are prevented access to the same mechanisms of wealth creation that made today's rich people rich.
stale2002 8y ago
This law literally helps out rich people and hurts low income people. Low income people can't buy a house. They can only afford to rent. This law would criminalize the ability of poor people to live in the city, and it would do so to help the wealthy home owners.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Complete nonsense. First of all, homeowners aren't wealthy. Landlords are wealthy. The law says that wealthy landlords have to keep their hands off of brand new houses for a certain period of time so that homeowners can have a crack at it (therefore lowering prices, since rental profit isn't a consideration) This does nothing to prevent anyone from renting apartments, condos, or houses built over five years ago. Poor people aren't the ones renting brand-new construction. The renters of new houses are going to be people who could have and would have bought the house, if super rich landlords weren't jacking up prices.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Ok, so you are seriously going to argue that a person who rents new apartment isn't going to be significantly less wealthy than someone who purchases a new home? Do you see the obvious contradiction here? All this law does is take away poor people's ability to rent a home, that will instead be sold to a wealthy home owner. If you can afford to purchase a new home then you are way way more wealthy than someone who can only afford to rent that same home.

gekkeboom 8y ago

As you know with security, it's very difficult to predict in advance how flaws/loopholes will be exploited. So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes. Cities don't exist for rich people to exploit. They are the places where we live our lives, the focus is quality of life. Not some theoretical discussions about 'markets'.

hnarn 8y ago
> As you know with security, it's very difficult to predict in advance how flaws/loopholes will be exploited. Not always. This law has some very obvious loopholes that I would be very surprised if they weren't abused, should it ever become reality. > So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes. Nobody's saying that this is a bad thing, and it doesn't in any way require badly thought out laws like this one. > some theoretical discussions about 'markets' "Some theoretical discussion" is exactly what is missing in this proposal, which is why it's so badly thought out and will miss the mark, to nobody's benefit but the property owners of what politicians arbitrarily decide is "old" real estate.
- wukerplank 8y ago
  Which policies do you propose to protect lower/middle incomes from getting priced out of their cities?
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    Build more housing, lots and lots more housing. Central Paris is beautiful and it’s almost uniformly dense eight story walk ups. Build new cities. It’s not like the Dutch haven’t built commuter cities around Amsterdam before. Do it again, taking account of the lessons learned from places like Almere.
    - somecallitblues 8y ago
      Sydney is a great example of where that doesn’t work. There’s a crane every 100 meters here and everyone but people with loads of money or rich foreigners is priced out.

johnchristopher 8y ago

> The reason that prices are going up is because a lot of people want to spend a lot of money for the real estate Hum. No. People don't want to spend a lot. But the whole system is built so owners can extract rent either from rentals or from buyers to which banks will lend enough money to meet the seller's price.

barry-cotter 8y ago
Yes, that’s what happens in a market where supply is growing slower than demand. Prices go up. See levels.fyi for an example of this in the market for software engineers.
hnarn 8y ago
> People don't want to spend a lot. The fact that prices are going up proves this is not true.
- martin_a 8y ago
  > The fact that prices are going up proves this is not true. No. Prices go up because demand is higher than supply and people are forced to live somewhere (as in "reasonably near their work") and are therefore forced to spend lots of money on this. They wouldn't do so if they did not have to.

skohan 8y ago

> This key problem is in no way solved by the political proposal, as "the rich" can move to buy older real estate instead. I suspect this proposal has less to do with protecting middle class people's ability to be home owners, and has more to do with preventing perverse incentives around real estate development from having a long-term negative impact on Amsterdam's housing stock. For instance: look at what's happening in Toronto. There are a massive number of high-end, 1-br condos being built because that's the type of property which makes sense as an investment instrument. Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built.

hnarn 8y ago
> Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built. It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective. Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument. The problem appears when a moral argument should enter legal and political reality. When you look at this proposal through the lens of "what will be achieved", it's hard to be optimistic.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument. Even that sort of moral argument is short-sighted because natives benefit a lot by investments by foreign capital owners, specially in real estate.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective. Indeed it is, and in an honest democracy a question of this importance would be voted on in a referendum. But before doing that you'd first want the public to be informed of the facts. But in Canada the government won't even do that - we have no idea how much property is being purchased by foreign investors directly, or via proxy friends/relatives who have obtained Canadian citizenship.

Spooky23 8y ago

> The reason that prices are going up is because a lot of people want to spend a lot of money for the real estate... No. Real estate is 80% driven by finance and tax policy. The condo craze is just like the big box and franchises hotel boom a 15 years ago. Lots of money flows in, and the buildings get sold when they start losing money around the 15 year mark when depreciation catches up. Many of the marginal “luxury condos” will be shitty rentals in the 2030s when maintenance becomes a problem, and you’ll see them rapidly go down market. By that time, the money will have moved on the the next thing, and we’re all stuck with the mess.

geezerjay 8y ago
> By that time, the money will have moved on the the next thing, and we’re all stuck with the mess. What mess would that be? A wealth of cheap condos in a market flooded by companies liquidating their investment?
- mywittyname 8y ago
  You still have to pay to maintain them, and expensive high-rise condo maintenance sets a natural floor for rents.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Bankrupt condo associations and people with underwater mortgages walking away. For the rental units, the profits tank, so the landlords tighten the screws on opex, and they aren't "luxury" anymore. You may recall 2008, when this phenomena happened with single-family homes. Condos are much more fickle investments.
  - Scarblac 8y ago
    Note that in the Netherlands you can't just "walk away" from a mortgage. If the bank sells your house and the yield isn't enough to pay for the mortgage, you're still on the hook for the rest. After 2008 the housing market just more or less closed down. Nobody was selling as their mortgage was under water, so they just stayed where they were.