6 ms·

We need to invest in proper public housing, pay for its upkeep, and avoid the massive public skyrises that are so expensive to maintain. We need to allow up zo

We need to invest in proper public housing, pay for its upkeep, and avoid the massive public skyrises that are so expensive to maintain. We need to allow up zoning and get rid of detached single family only zones. Heck, I'm all for fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align with housing the most people in the best conditions possible.

brudgers 7y ago
Hope VI eliminated a significant fraction of the US's public housing stock. You could shave the last twenty five years of the housing market with Occam's Razor and a supply demand curve.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  For those unfamiliar: HOPE VI is a program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is intended to revitalize the worst public housing projects in the United States into mixed-income developments. Its philosophy is largely based on New Urbanism and the concept of defensible space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI
roenxi 7y ago
> fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align The incentives for commodity housing are to build more if the price is high. There aren't a lot of incentive structures that improve on that. The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the government builds and assigns all housing. I'd bet that turns out to be worse in practice, but if it has ever worked out anywhere ever I'd be interested in the case study. It would be a much better idea to stick to non-radical things like tweaking the zoning so developers aren't banned from building things.
- sanxiyn 7y ago
  > The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the government builds and assigns all housing. I'd bet that turns out to be worse in practice, but if it has ever worked out anywhere ever I'd be interested in the case study. This is how Singapore works. It has been working great there.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I'll read up on it, but it wouldn't surprise me if Singapore had more land devoted to urban development than they do countryside. Their policies aren't going to be optimising for general welfare as much as they are working around the fact that they have no land to play with when compared to anyone else. Their system looks like it makes sense for those conditions, but it would be a massive burden elsewhere. Look at the complexity of their quota system, for example [0]. So people are not going to be living where they want and everyone is going to be in the same part of the city anyway because Singapore is small - I could walk the long edge of their land in a single day. So basically, point taken that it works for Singapore. But Singapore is facing unique geographical constraints and it probably causes a lot of pain in practice that we don't hear about [1]. under normal conditions it would be far cheaper and easier just to build some high density government housing rather than trying to decommoditise. I expect it will turn out that nobody with alternatives should try to copy that aspect of Singapore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore#Resale_flats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore#Re... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index - See Singapore, entry 151 of 180
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Actually, there's considerable evidence to suggest that for financialised assets, there's an extraordinarily strong incentive to block new production in order to inflate asset prices. We see this in, for example, housing, diamonds, law degrees, and doctors licences. Until Uber and Lyft came along, in taxi medallions.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  If housing is an asset and its amount is constrained, then its value goes up. If I'm wealthy, I can use the leverage I have on existing properties to buy more properties, to earn a multiplier on whatever the market does. Have 10x properties? You get 10x the returns when the market rises. (And 10x the leverage to buy more property.) Not to mention you can charge more rent. Once you reach a certain point, it might not be in your best interest for the housing supply to increase, as your existing investments won't be as valuable. > The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the government builds and assigns all housing. It doesn't have to be all or nothing -- we can change the incentives in various ways. For example, tax on land value not property value. (Encouraging housing to be built rather than parking lots). Allow tenants the right of first offer on property they are renting, so an apartment complex can become a coop rather than owned by a private entity. Increase taxes on non-owner occupied properties, to encourage folks not to just buy and hold vacant property. Improve protections for tenants -- increase penalties for landlords who do not maintain their properties. There's probably a lot more ways we could incentivize increasing the number of people housed rather than maximizing the revenue for the landlord. Build distributed public housing, in smaller, more manageable buildings. Don't require that public housing revenue covers all maintenance for the property -- if we agree that we should build some, why would we let it fall into disrepair? We should adequately fund its care. In addition to tenant coops, support cohousing.
panic 7y ago
> Heck, I'm all for fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align with housing the most people in the best conditions possible. 100% on board with this. Having a place to live is too important to leave to the whims of the market. It's arguably more important than having our publicly-funded military—there's no point in defending land if people aren't able to live on it.
- coding123 7y ago
  Wouldn't a superpower county invade if there was no US military?
  - panic 7y ago
    To be clear, I'm not saying the military is unimportant. Just that housing may also deserve the kind of public funding that the military enjoys.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Not just superpowers; even the minor powers would likely evaluate their options. Humorously, if the US tried to go completely pacifist then it would be very politically contentious and it might get 'invaded' by one of its own States. Something like a Texas-Mexico alliance, perhaps.
    - maze-le 7y ago
      'Pacifist' does not imply no defense spending. Swiss neutrality is arguably a very pacifist foreign policy, while Switzerland has a very well funded military for a country of that size.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- kofejnik 7y ago
  your intentions are certainly nice, but do you want to get Soviet Union? Because state-controlled housing is how you get Soviet Union
dredmorbius 7y ago
What do you mean by "decommodifying" housing? My view is increasingly that it needs to be de-assetified, if that's a word, or de-financialised, almost certainly through a land value tax.
- someguydave 7y ago
  There’s already significant land taxes. Why do you think even higher taxes will help? How do you propose finding a fair value?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > There’s already significant land taxes Real property taxes as structured anywhere in the US are not LVTs, and in much of the US (California perhaps most notably) are not significant, either.
    - someguydave 7y ago
      1% per year is not significant?? I hope you mean to lower other taxes too in this fantasy...
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Most of my property tax is on the structures, not the land. That means that undeveloped and underdeveloped land gets less taxation than land that, say, has apartments on it. It's the opposite of the way it should be -- taxes should penalize parking lots and incentivize housing.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      This. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- 7y ago

brudgers 7y ago

Hope VI eliminated a significant fraction of the US's public housing stock. You could shave the last twenty five years of the housing market with Occam's Razor and a supply demand curve.

dredmorbius 7y ago
For those unfamiliar: HOPE VI is a program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is intended to revitalize the worst public housing projects in the United States into mixed-income developments. Its philosophy is largely based on New Urbanism and the concept of defensible space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI

roenxi 7y ago

> fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align The incentives for commodity housing are to build more if the price is high. There aren't a lot of incentive structures that improve on that. The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the government builds and assigns all housing. I'd bet that turns out to be worse in practice, but if it has ever worked out anywhere ever I'd be interested in the case study. It would be a much better idea to stick to non-radical things like tweaking the zoning so developers aren't banned from building things.

sanxiyn 7y ago
> The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the government builds and assigns all housing. I'd bet that turns out to be worse in practice, but if it has ever worked out anywhere ever I'd be interested in the case study. This is how Singapore works. It has been working great there.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I'll read up on it, but it wouldn't surprise me if Singapore had more land devoted to urban development than they do countryside. Their policies aren't going to be optimising for general welfare as much as they are working around the fact that they have no land to play with when compared to anyone else. Their system looks like it makes sense for those conditions, but it would be a massive burden elsewhere. Look at the complexity of their quota system, for example [0]. So people are not going to be living where they want and everyone is going to be in the same part of the city anyway because Singapore is small - I could walk the long edge of their land in a single day. So basically, point taken that it works for Singapore. But Singapore is facing unique geographical constraints and it probably causes a lot of pain in practice that we don't hear about [1]. under normal conditions it would be far cheaper and easier just to build some high density government housing rather than trying to decommoditise. I expect it will turn out that nobody with alternatives should try to copy that aspect of Singapore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore#Resale_flats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore#Re... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index - See Singapore, entry 151 of 180
dredmorbius 7y ago
Actually, there's considerable evidence to suggest that for financialised assets, there's an extraordinarily strong incentive to block new production in order to inflate asset prices. We see this in, for example, housing, diamonds, law degrees, and doctors licences. Until Uber and Lyft came along, in taxi medallions.
Pfhreak 7y ago
If housing is an asset and its amount is constrained, then its value goes up. If I'm wealthy, I can use the leverage I have on existing properties to buy more properties, to earn a multiplier on whatever the market does. Have 10x properties? You get 10x the returns when the market rises. (And 10x the leverage to buy more property.) Not to mention you can charge more rent. Once you reach a certain point, it might not be in your best interest for the housing supply to increase, as your existing investments won't be as valuable. > The only alternative that doesn't have strictly worse incentives are if the government builds and assigns all housing. It doesn't have to be all or nothing -- we can change the incentives in various ways. For example, tax on land value not property value. (Encouraging housing to be built rather than parking lots). Allow tenants the right of first offer on property they are renting, so an apartment complex can become a coop rather than owned by a private entity. Increase taxes on non-owner occupied properties, to encourage folks not to just buy and hold vacant property. Improve protections for tenants -- increase penalties for landlords who do not maintain their properties. There's probably a lot more ways we could incentivize increasing the number of people housed rather than maximizing the revenue for the landlord. Build distributed public housing, in smaller, more manageable buildings. Don't require that public housing revenue covers all maintenance for the property -- if we agree that we should build some, why would we let it fall into disrepair? We should adequately fund its care. In addition to tenant coops, support cohousing.

panic 7y ago

> Heck, I'm all for fully decomodifying housing - which I recognize is radical - but the incentives for buying and building housing today don't align with housing the most people in the best conditions possible. 100% on board with this. Having a place to live is too important to leave to the whims of the market. It's arguably more important than having our publicly-funded military—there's no point in defending land if people aren't able to live on it.

coding123 7y ago
Wouldn't a superpower county invade if there was no US military?
- panic 7y ago
  To be clear, I'm not saying the military is unimportant. Just that housing may also deserve the kind of public funding that the military enjoys.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Not just superpowers; even the minor powers would likely evaluate their options. Humorously, if the US tried to go completely pacifist then it would be very politically contentious and it might get 'invaded' by one of its own States. Something like a Texas-Mexico alliance, perhaps.
  - maze-le 7y ago
    'Pacifist' does not imply no defense spending. Swiss neutrality is arguably a very pacifist foreign policy, while Switzerland has a very well funded military for a country of that size.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
kofejnik 7y ago
your intentions are certainly nice, but do you want to get Soviet Union? Because state-controlled housing is how you get Soviet Union

dredmorbius 7y ago

What do you mean by "decommodifying" housing? My view is increasingly that it needs to be de-assetified, if that's a word, or de-financialised, almost certainly through a land value tax.

someguydave 7y ago
There’s already significant land taxes. Why do you think even higher taxes will help? How do you propose finding a fair value?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > There’s already significant land taxes Real property taxes as structured anywhere in the US are not LVTs, and in much of the US (California perhaps most notably) are not significant, either.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    1% per year is not significant?? I hope you mean to lower other taxes too in this fantasy...
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Most of my property tax is on the structures, not the land. That means that undeveloped and underdeveloped land gets less taxation than land that, say, has apartments on it. It's the opposite of the way it should be -- taxes should penalize parking lots and incentivize housing.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    This. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
7y ago