7 ms·

Ok, why can't we just say housing isn't a market, it's priced primarily for livibility and less for some concept of quality. Then living wage doesn't need to be

Ok, why can't we just say housing isn't a market, it's priced primarily for livibility and less for some concept of quality. Then living wage doesn't need to be opened to inflated housing markets.

renewiltord 6y ago
Because there is an existing large class of people (2 in 3 Americans) who have acted based on the idea that housing is a market and have bought a home on that basis. They have no interest in altering the status quo. To add to that, you can't choose what housing is priced by unless you have government price controls and that is a cure that's worse than the disease.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Singapore has some pretty nice public housing. If there was a government policy that any time median rents climb above X, the state will procure land and build housing until it drops below that number again, it might be more workable than the blunt instrument of price caps.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I am a huge fan of public housing, not least because of the fact that I think that in the absence of a Land Value Tax, the state owning a large amount of land in high-growth regions is important for the public to diminish the impact of rent-seeking. However, the practice of this is that these governments are highly corrupt, and usually conspire to use the mechanism of public housing as primarily a means to enrich themselves through the proxy of their construction contractors. Look no farther than Dianne Feinstein and Tutor Perini.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Unfortunately, even the state gets caught up with the broken system of building approval with NIMBYist local interests control zoning and building approval. https://ktla.com/news/california/its-insane-san-diego-county-affordable-housing-project-set-to-cost-1-1-million-per-apartment/ https://ktla.com/news/california/its-insane-san-diego-county...
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Public housing in thE US is almost entirely shitholes, though. It's better than being homeless, maybe. That's about it. That is the reason many large cities have torn most of it down and replaced it with section 8 vouchers. This scatters the ghetto-dwellers from their former high-rise islands into neighborhoods, which triggers flight by the existing residents since the people coming out of public housing are clueless about taking care of a property and being good neighbors.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      That's entirely because of the way our procurement process works. We have separate capital and maintenance procurement processes. Typically, we splurge on a high capital budget (the cost to build housing) and then skimp or cut out the maintenance budget. Or worse, we expect the housing to be self supporting. Public housing done right is distributed, low rise apartments rented below market rate and not expected to be self supporting. As a tax payer, it's so frustrating to see us build good things and then totally neglect to maintain them. I will say that high rise public housing in the US introduces complexity because it necessitates a degree of service infrastructure that's more costly than more, lower buildings.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      I brought up Singapore's public housing model because in Singapore residents have the option to buy, so the housing is occupied and maintained by owners who are invested in the property. I think this would work well in California and would avoid a lot of the previous, designed-to-fail public housing systems we've tried. Singapore attaches their public housing to transit and doesn't have California's regulations for parking, which cuts costs significantly.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I own a home, and if it steadily loses value but my city becomes affordable for anyone who wants to live here, that seems like a pretty fair trade to me...
  - foogazi 6y ago
    Would we own homes if they steadily lost value ? I mean the house steadily loses value due to deterioration. But the land appreciates due to scarcity and the available financing. >affordable for anyone who wants to live here That doesn’t scale
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      I'm talking about how, in the transition between housing as a commodity vs housing as a public good there would be loss of value. And I think people still would want to own houses. There's pride in being a homeowner for many. Knowing you have a place that is yours. It does scale, because not everyone wants to live here. Some people want to live in nyc or Miami or Houston or Chicago, etc. There's a finite interest in any location.
  - sizzle 6y ago
    Tell that to the people who will be underwater on the mortgage, only way this is equitable for all is if mortgage loan principle is adjusted in reverse in parallel.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      That sounds reasonable to me. If we're working on decommodification of housing, it makes sense to assist folks during the transition.
zajio1am 6y ago
Well, due to limitiations in supply, housing is market based on scarcity. There is no way to fix that without fixing the fundamental issue of insufficient supply.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Sounds good. Build more, subsidize buildings with lots of units, eliminate parking minimums, upzone popular areas, pay for public housing, and tax land in a way that disincentivizes surface parking lots. All those seem doable to me, which would address your concerns. Any reason we couldn't do all that?

Ok, why can't we just say housing isn't a market, it's priced primarily for livibility and less for some concept of quality. Then living wage doesn't need to be opened to inflated housing markets.

renewiltord 6y ago

Because there is an existing large class of people (2 in 3 Americans) who have acted based on the idea that housing is a market and have bought a home on that basis. They have no interest in altering the status quo. To add to that, you can't choose what housing is priced by unless you have government price controls and that is a cure that's worse than the disease.

mullingitover 6y ago
Singapore has some pretty nice public housing. If there was a government policy that any time median rents climb above X, the state will procure land and build housing until it drops below that number again, it might be more workable than the blunt instrument of price caps.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I am a huge fan of public housing, not least because of the fact that I think that in the absence of a Land Value Tax, the state owning a large amount of land in high-growth regions is important for the public to diminish the impact of rent-seeking. However, the practice of this is that these governments are highly corrupt, and usually conspire to use the mechanism of public housing as primarily a means to enrich themselves through the proxy of their construction contractors. Look no farther than Dianne Feinstein and Tutor Perini.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Unfortunately, even the state gets caught up with the broken system of building approval with NIMBYist local interests control zoning and building approval. https://ktla.com/news/california/its-insane-san-diego-county-affordable-housing-project-set-to-cost-1-1-million-per-apartment/ https://ktla.com/news/california/its-insane-san-diego-county...
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Public housing in thE US is almost entirely shitholes, though. It's better than being homeless, maybe. That's about it. That is the reason many large cities have torn most of it down and replaced it with section 8 vouchers. This scatters the ghetto-dwellers from their former high-rise islands into neighborhoods, which triggers flight by the existing residents since the people coming out of public housing are clueless about taking care of a property and being good neighbors.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    That's entirely because of the way our procurement process works. We have separate capital and maintenance procurement processes. Typically, we splurge on a high capital budget (the cost to build housing) and then skimp or cut out the maintenance budget. Or worse, we expect the housing to be self supporting. Public housing done right is distributed, low rise apartments rented below market rate and not expected to be self supporting. As a tax payer, it's so frustrating to see us build good things and then totally neglect to maintain them. I will say that high rise public housing in the US introduces complexity because it necessitates a degree of service infrastructure that's more costly than more, lower buildings.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    I brought up Singapore's public housing model because in Singapore residents have the option to buy, so the housing is occupied and maintained by owners who are invested in the property. I think this would work well in California and would avoid a lot of the previous, designed-to-fail public housing systems we've tried. Singapore attaches their public housing to transit and doesn't have California's regulations for parking, which cuts costs significantly.
Pfhreak 6y ago
I own a home, and if it steadily loses value but my city becomes affordable for anyone who wants to live here, that seems like a pretty fair trade to me...
- foogazi 6y ago
  Would we own homes if they steadily lost value ? I mean the house steadily loses value due to deterioration. But the land appreciates due to scarcity and the available financing. >affordable for anyone who wants to live here That doesn’t scale
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I'm talking about how, in the transition between housing as a commodity vs housing as a public good there would be loss of value. And I think people still would want to own houses. There's pride in being a homeowner for many. Knowing you have a place that is yours. It does scale, because not everyone wants to live here. Some people want to live in nyc or Miami or Houston or Chicago, etc. There's a finite interest in any location.
- sizzle 6y ago
  Tell that to the people who will be underwater on the mortgage, only way this is equitable for all is if mortgage loan principle is adjusted in reverse in parallel.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    That sounds reasonable to me. If we're working on decommodification of housing, it makes sense to assist folks during the transition.

zajio1am 6y ago

Well, due to limitiations in supply, housing is market based on scarcity. There is no way to fix that without fixing the fundamental issue of insufficient supply.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Sounds good. Build more, subsidize buildings with lots of units, eliminate parking minimums, upzone popular areas, pay for public housing, and tax land in a way that disincentivizes surface parking lots. All those seem doable to me, which would address your concerns. Any reason we couldn't do all that?