3 ms·

We should be getting rid of the notion of housing as a commodity. Pricing/rewarding building housing based on how well it houses people, unifying the tax credit

We should be getting rid of the notion of housing as a commodity. Pricing/rewarding building housing based on how well it houses people, unifying the tax credits for housing (that disproportionately go to the wealthy), building and maintaining public housing (without requiring it to be revenue neutral), rent control, increased tenant protects, and right of first refusal for tenants/tenant coops when a property sells.

gibsonf1 7y ago
It is not an accident that locations with rent control have the worst housing crises. Rent control immediately discourages new construction and therefore the starting rents go up as fewer units are available with growing populations. New York and San Francisco are classic examples of the destructive force that rent control has on affordable rents.
- likpok 7y ago
  SF rent control does not apply to new construction. The argument that rent control causes this is a little more convoluted: renters would support more development if they were not shielded from the impact of not building. SF has its own way of discouraging development via long discretionary review processes.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    Rent control can still limit development even though it does not apply to new construction. 2004 is an arbitrary date that will likely be bumped up in the future. This is a looming risk for anyone looking to purchase rental properly and therefore developers. You're right though that the review process and other regulations such as the requirement for some percentage of affordable housing units is also quite significant.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
      As a R/E investor, one of the things I'm most cautious of is buying a building that might end up in rent control. It's the difference in making a good investment and losing a ton of money. I like to consider myself a good person, but I have zero interest in renting housing to people at a loss. I know people can use some help, but I'm not that rich and life is too short.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I think it's not correct to imply rent control is the cause. I see it as the symptom Once a place gets rich enough to where they can justify micromanaging what goes where (poor places mostly have bigger fish to fry and are happy to have any tax paying development) it artificially constrains supply. Then they double down by tacking on rent control to slow the death spiral but it just makes it worse.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  It does not need to be. The problem is that when a unit gets replaced, the tenants cannot get an equivalent unit in the new building at the same rent. So they are incentivized to try to stop new construction. By all means build more units in the same area, but guarantee that folks who will be displaced can move back in one of the units for their existing rent. Then everyone wins. I encourage you to think beyond one or two examples where things have gone wrong and instead try to figure out how you could take the fundamental idea and improve it.
onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
Rent control increases prices by limiting supply. It's a lottery ticket. Sure, it's good for people grandfathered in. It's terrible for new people to the city. It's also terrible for landlords who have a building put in rent control. I know everyone thinks landlords are evil, but you can't have rentals without a landlord. And no one is going to invest in rentals if they don't think it's a good investment. And if you want to incentivize people to put down roots and stay in one place for a while, home ownership is almost always a better option over a 3+ year horizon. Rent control also incentivizes landlords to neglect their properties. Again, something that doesn't seem good for the community. You can't get something from nothing. Landlords aren't going to subsidize housing for people. The government already does that, probably at too high of a degree already.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Maybe landlords shouldn't be getting much, if any, returns on their investment. That we even consider housing an investment is a problem. You've framed your response using a capitalist response - why would I spend money if it wasn't going to return more than I spent. I'm suggesting you look through other lenses - housing as a necessity or social good. Housing as a coop. Housing as a charity (e.g. Helping a refugee family by housing them.)
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    That's nice. Where's the money for that going to come from? Because such groups already exist in small numbers - it's not like the existence of capitalist landlords prevents coops or charities from existing.
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      > Where's the money for that going to come from? Us. If we think housing people is important. Increasing taxes, reducing spending on other areas, etc. It's interesting to me that people seem to always ask, "How are we going to pay for this?" when HUD's entire budget is ~$60B/year. Compared to the $1,100B/year we spend on defense, it seems like we could make some pretty small adjustments there and have some pretty huge impacts. The mortgage credit, for instance, disproportionately goes to wealthy people and is costing us ~$10B a year. Rework that to be less regressive and actually focus on developing housing and you've have made a huge impact on HUD's bottom line.

gibsonf1 7y ago

It is not an accident that locations with rent control have the worst housing crises. Rent control immediately discourages new construction and therefore the starting rents go up as fewer units are available with growing populations. New York and San Francisco are classic examples of the destructive force that rent control has on affordable rents.

likpok 7y ago
SF rent control does not apply to new construction. The argument that rent control causes this is a little more convoluted: renters would support more development if they were not shielded from the impact of not building. SF has its own way of discouraging development via long discretionary review processes.
- aeternum 7y ago
  Rent control can still limit development even though it does not apply to new construction. 2004 is an arbitrary date that will likely be bumped up in the future. This is a looming risk for anyone looking to purchase rental properly and therefore developers. You're right though that the review process and other regulations such as the requirement for some percentage of affordable housing units is also quite significant.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    As a R/E investor, one of the things I'm most cautious of is buying a building that might end up in rent control. It's the difference in making a good investment and losing a ton of money. I like to consider myself a good person, but I have zero interest in renting housing to people at a loss. I know people can use some help, but I'm not that rich and life is too short.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I think it's not correct to imply rent control is the cause. I see it as the symptom Once a place gets rich enough to where they can justify micromanaging what goes where (poor places mostly have bigger fish to fry and are happy to have any tax paying development) it artificially constrains supply. Then they double down by tacking on rent control to slow the death spiral but it just makes it worse.
Pfhreak 7y ago
It does not need to be. The problem is that when a unit gets replaced, the tenants cannot get an equivalent unit in the new building at the same rent. So they are incentivized to try to stop new construction. By all means build more units in the same area, but guarantee that folks who will be displaced can move back in one of the units for their existing rent. Then everyone wins. I encourage you to think beyond one or two examples where things have gone wrong and instead try to figure out how you could take the fundamental idea and improve it.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

Rent control increases prices by limiting supply. It's a lottery ticket. Sure, it's good for people grandfathered in. It's terrible for new people to the city. It's also terrible for landlords who have a building put in rent control. I know everyone thinks landlords are evil, but you can't have rentals without a landlord. And no one is going to invest in rentals if they don't think it's a good investment. And if you want to incentivize people to put down roots and stay in one place for a while, home ownership is almost always a better option over a 3+ year horizon. Rent control also incentivizes landlords to neglect their properties. Again, something that doesn't seem good for the community. You can't get something from nothing. Landlords aren't going to subsidize housing for people. The government already does that, probably at too high of a degree already.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Maybe landlords shouldn't be getting much, if any, returns on their investment. That we even consider housing an investment is a problem. You've framed your response using a capitalist response - why would I spend money if it wasn't going to return more than I spent. I'm suggesting you look through other lenses - housing as a necessity or social good. Housing as a coop. Housing as a charity (e.g. Helping a refugee family by housing them.)
- DuskStar 7y ago
  That's nice. Where's the money for that going to come from? Because such groups already exist in small numbers - it's not like the existence of capitalist landlords prevents coops or charities from existing.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    > Where's the money for that going to come from? Us. If we think housing people is important. Increasing taxes, reducing spending on other areas, etc. It's interesting to me that people seem to always ask, "How are we going to pay for this?" when HUD's entire budget is ~$60B/year. Compared to the $1,100B/year we spend on defense, it seems like we could make some pretty small adjustments there and have some pretty huge impacts. The mortgage credit, for instance, disproportionately goes to wealthy people and is costing us ~$10B a year. Rework that to be less regressive and actually focus on developing housing and you've have made a huge impact on HUD's bottom line.