7 ms·

It hurts the owners who would be receiving the wealthy newcomers' money. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people

by human20190310 7y ago

It hurts the owners who would be receiving the wealthy newcomers' money. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction. A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlords to stop opposing construction.

um_ya 7y ago
Do you really expect a place like California to reduce regulations? Their solution is a new regulation!
dgzl 7y ago
Construction isn't easy anymore. we've taxed and regulated it into a luxury.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  Lots of developers choose to build luxury buildings because it can take several years for the construction to be approved. We could build more starter homes like we used to, but it's hardly worth it for developers.
- dcolkitt 7y ago
  Maybe, but construction may not even be necessary. Shipping containers can now be easily retrofitted into stylish apartments. They can easily be stacked eight stories tall. 95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas. All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.
  - yocheckitdawg 7y ago
    Who the fuck wants to live in a shipping container?
    - dcolkitt 7y ago
      A shipping container is 320 square feet. Two pods can be joined into a single 740 square foot unit. That's a total cost of $80,000. Let's round to $100,000. Assume a rental yield of 12%. $1000 a month for a brand new 740 square foot apartment in the middle of San Francisco. Plus with modern finishes that are frankly much nicer than anything you'll find in the low-end SF rental market. I'd imagine quite a lot of people would sign up.
      - clucas 7y ago
        I don't think shipping container housing is the panacea the marketing makes it out to be. The savings aren't as crazy as you might think because of all the retrofitting involved to make them pleasant for human occupancy. Square feet are a nice shorthand for certain aspects of habitability, but floor area is not the only relevant factor. This is mostly from an NYT article, so perhaps it's just one school if thought among many, but I found it convincing on the merits. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/shipping-container-homes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/shipping-containe...
      - kube-system 7y ago
        That seems like a lot of money compared to existing prefab options. For the same or less money, why not use something designed to be a dwelling to begin with?
      - patmcc 7y ago
        Why do you think construction price, and not land price, is the limiting factor? I'm in a high-demand city in Canada. The house I'm in right now is worth about $70k. The land it sits on is worth $900k. Shipping containers aren't going to help with that.
khawkins 7y ago
Pernicious attacks on landlords because of some perceived collusion amongst them is ugly. The landlords aren't any more to blame for the lack of supply than their tenants or the politicians. There's obviously money to be had in leveling a block of houses and increasing the population density by 10-30 times the amount. The market demand is extremely high. Real estate developers would jump at the chance to do so if they thought they could get through all the red tape. The landlords owning those houses would certainly sell for the right price. The entire society is abandoning free market principles in favor of social engineering. If they're not careful, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
- fivre 7y ago
  They may not be some grand cabal, but if biggerpockets.com posts are anything to go by, I have no qualms with any pernicious attacks against them. Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    "Capitalism" doesn't mean profit motivated action. Advocating for government restrictions on private property rights, in order to restrict supply growth and increase profits, is not capitalism. It's cronyism.
  - jlebar 7y ago
    Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Like it or not, it's necessary for survival today. Absolutely ruthless capitalism at play, and at the hands of a lot of people we don't like. And yet...the system works pretty ok, I think? The last major oil shock we had was in the '70s -- not bad, considering how many financial crises we've had since then. I don't get what is your proposed alternative to "ruthless capitalism" for housing. Are you proposing "single payer housing"? Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?
foxtr0t 7y ago
That is only true if you assume the housing market under rent control is otherwise efficient. In reality it is painfully inefficient. Scarcity due to rent control (due to existing tenants holding on to leases) allows landlords to price gouge on everything from open units to parking to laundry. If you play that dynamic forward you end up in a situation where everyone is overpaying compared to a more fluid market, even those longer term tenants.
slavik81 7y ago
Getting back at owners for opposing new construction by instituting rent control is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rent control adds even more people who have no financial incentive to reduce the cost of housing in their neighborhood, thus making new construction even more politically difficult.

um_ya 7y ago

Do you really expect a place like California to reduce regulations? Their solution is a new regulation!

dgzl 7y ago

Construction isn't easy anymore. we've taxed and regulated it into a luxury.

ravenstine 7y ago
Lots of developers choose to build luxury buildings because it can take several years for the construction to be approved. We could build more starter homes like we used to, but it's hardly worth it for developers.
dcolkitt 7y ago
Maybe, but construction may not even be necessary. Shipping containers can now be easily retrofitted into stylish apartments. They can easily be stacked eight stories tall. 95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas. All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.
- yocheckitdawg 7y ago
  Who the fuck wants to live in a shipping container?
  - dcolkitt 7y ago
    A shipping container is 320 square feet. Two pods can be joined into a single 740 square foot unit. That's a total cost of $80,000. Let's round to $100,000. Assume a rental yield of 12%. $1000 a month for a brand new 740 square foot apartment in the middle of San Francisco. Plus with modern finishes that are frankly much nicer than anything you'll find in the low-end SF rental market. I'd imagine quite a lot of people would sign up.
    - clucas 7y ago
      I don't think shipping container housing is the panacea the marketing makes it out to be. The savings aren't as crazy as you might think because of all the retrofitting involved to make them pleasant for human occupancy. Square feet are a nice shorthand for certain aspects of habitability, but floor area is not the only relevant factor. This is mostly from an NYT article, so perhaps it's just one school if thought among many, but I found it convincing on the merits. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/shipping-container-homes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/shipping-containe...
    - kube-system 7y ago
      That seems like a lot of money compared to existing prefab options. For the same or less money, why not use something designed to be a dwelling to begin with?
    - patmcc 7y ago
      Why do you think construction price, and not land price, is the limiting factor? I'm in a high-demand city in Canada. The house I'm in right now is worth about $70k. The land it sits on is worth $900k. Shipping containers aren't going to help with that.

khawkins 7y ago

Pernicious attacks on landlords because of some perceived collusion amongst them is ugly. The landlords aren't any more to blame for the lack of supply than their tenants or the politicians. There's obviously money to be had in leveling a block of houses and increasing the population density by 10-30 times the amount. The market demand is extremely high. Real estate developers would jump at the chance to do so if they thought they could get through all the red tape. The landlords owning those houses would certainly sell for the right price. The entire society is abandoning free market principles in favor of social engineering. If they're not careful, they'll kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

fivre 7y ago
They may not be some grand cabal, but if biggerpockets.com posts are anything to go by, I have no qualms with any pernicious attacks against them. Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  "Capitalism" doesn't mean profit motivated action. Advocating for government restrictions on private property rights, in order to restrict supply growth and increase profits, is not capitalism. It's cronyism.
- jlebar 7y ago
  Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well. I dunno. I don't have much trouble finding reasonably priced, nutritious, and tasty food (cooked or as ingredients) anywhere I've visited in the world. Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos? What about...petroleum? Like it or not, it's necessary for survival today. Absolutely ruthless capitalism at play, and at the hands of a lot of people we don't like. And yet...the system works pretty ok, I think? The last major oil shock we had was in the '70s -- not bad, considering how many financial crises we've had since then. I don't get what is your proposed alternative to "ruthless capitalism" for housing. Are you proposing "single payer housing"? Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government?

foxtr0t 7y ago

That is only true if you assume the housing market under rent control is otherwise efficient. In reality it is painfully inefficient. Scarcity due to rent control (due to existing tenants holding on to leases) allows landlords to price gouge on everything from open units to parking to laundry. If you play that dynamic forward you end up in a situation where everyone is overpaying compared to a more fluid market, even those longer term tenants.

slavik81 7y ago

Getting back at owners for opposing new construction by instituting rent control is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rent control adds even more people who have no financial incentive to reduce the cost of housing in their neighborhood, thus making new construction even more politically difficult.