4 ms·

build more housing

by throwaway6734 6y ago

build more housing

skohan 6y ago
why is this mutually exclusive?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Rent control could technically be done by handing money to tennants to then hand to landlords, but in practice it's done by taking money away from landlords. Obviously, that's going to keep landlords from being able to give that money to construction companies. Another possible solution would be to take money away from tenants and landlords both to give directly to construction companies. That's socialized housing. However in the long run it's not likely to be much cheaper, because it's not like landlords are making that much profit in the first place. The profit in renting is about the cost of capital, the government is not going to do much better.
  - asdff 6y ago
    Is that how rent control is done in Europe? In the U.S. at least, rent control isn't taking money away from anyone. All rent control stipulates is that for the duration of your lease you cannot raise rent a certain percentage, such as 4% a year. Not having rent control allows rents to exceed earned wages for working people and pushes them to the street sooner than it pushes them out of the city.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      That's taking money from landlords, (the point of reference is what everyone would have in the absence of a policy) and results in less money available for construction than would otherwise be. In the presence of supply problems you'd have to fix that either by taking money from tenants to give to construction companies (tax funded social housing) or by relaxing rent control so that the money goes tenant->landlord->construction.
    - throwaway6734 6y ago
      If rental prices are rising faster than 4% a year than certain landlords are losing profit aka bearing the cost. It's absurd to make certain individuals pay for others housing in a random way.
  - skohan 6y ago
    Wouldn't Vienna be an obvious counterexample of your claim?
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Which claim, and how?
      - skohan 6y ago
        Vienna has achieved a very good result with socialized housing, in terms of keeping costs down and providing adequate housing stock. It seems like an example of the government solving the problem of housing better than the market.
        whatshisface 6y ago
        Well, it's not like there's a counterfactual Venice with a market to compete with the real Venetian government. But even accepting your claim at face value, all I said was that the government paying construction companies was not likely to outperform landlords paying construction companies by that much, because the best they could do would be to get rid of the (actually quite small) cut that landlords take for themselves. It's not exactly axiomatic that a well-functioning democracy can't sign the same contracts that landlords do, it's just that the amount to be gained is limited by a force all socialists should be intimately familiar with: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
        skohan 6y ago
        First of all, it's Vienna, not Venice. And you don't need a counterfactual Vienna to compare it to cities of similar size and economic characteristics. > the best they could do would be to get rid of the (actually quite small) cut that landlords take for themselves Again, I think this claim is easily contradicted by the success of Vienna's housing market. The thing is, if you took the market as it is today, and the government just bought all the housing properties at market rates, then yes you would only see savings in terms of the profit margin which is currently enjoyed by landlords. But if the government takes the role of providing housing as a public good, it can change the incentive structure of the market in a way which benefits renters. For instance, if your goal is to maximize rent profits, you will make decisions to maximize the year-over-year increase in rent, and you will build more units in a way which maximizes the rental price per unit. That's how you end up with so many shoebox-sized luxury condos in Toronto that nobody really wants and an under-served affordable housing market. If you treat housing as a public good, you make decisions to keep rent prices stable, and you build more housing to serve the need rather than the profit motive.
  - girvo 6y ago
    That’s how it was approached somewhat here in Australia. NRAS effectively did give money to the suppliers of housing so that rents could be lower to eligible people. https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programmes-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/...
mjevans 6y ago
Also minimize middle-persons and standardize the sales and transfer and ownership contacts (preferably at a state or higher level). The goal should be to make it easier and more orderly to transfer property ownership, while also providing protection to those making the sales. The standard contacts should also include enumerations of inspection agencies and what type of inspections were performed (and when), and the various types of insurance which might also be optional and cover protection for buyer / seller / etc.
- throwaway6734 6y ago
  Sounds great. We just refinanced and I couldn't believe how burdensome and slow the process was. I don't understand why I had to talk to a person at all.
- llampx 6y ago
  The German government has absolutely no interest in lowering the taxes they collect from property sales.

build more housing

skohan 6y ago

why is this mutually exclusive?

whatshisface 6y ago
Rent control could technically be done by handing money to tennants to then hand to landlords, but in practice it's done by taking money away from landlords. Obviously, that's going to keep landlords from being able to give that money to construction companies. Another possible solution would be to take money away from tenants and landlords both to give directly to construction companies. That's socialized housing. However in the long run it's not likely to be much cheaper, because it's not like landlords are making that much profit in the first place. The profit in renting is about the cost of capital, the government is not going to do much better.
- asdff 6y ago
  Is that how rent control is done in Europe? In the U.S. at least, rent control isn't taking money away from anyone. All rent control stipulates is that for the duration of your lease you cannot raise rent a certain percentage, such as 4% a year. Not having rent control allows rents to exceed earned wages for working people and pushes them to the street sooner than it pushes them out of the city.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    That's taking money from landlords, (the point of reference is what everyone would have in the absence of a policy) and results in less money available for construction than would otherwise be. In the presence of supply problems you'd have to fix that either by taking money from tenants to give to construction companies (tax funded social housing) or by relaxing rent control so that the money goes tenant->landlord->construction.
  - throwaway6734 6y ago
    If rental prices are rising faster than 4% a year than certain landlords are losing profit aka bearing the cost. It's absurd to make certain individuals pay for others housing in a random way.
- skohan 6y ago
  Wouldn't Vienna be an obvious counterexample of your claim?
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Which claim, and how?
    - skohan 6y ago
      Vienna has achieved a very good result with socialized housing, in terms of keeping costs down and providing adequate housing stock. It seems like an example of the government solving the problem of housing better than the market.
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        Well, it's not like there's a counterfactual Venice with a market to compete with the real Venetian government. But even accepting your claim at face value, all I said was that the government paying construction companies was not likely to outperform landlords paying construction companies by that much, because the best they could do would be to get rid of the (actually quite small) cut that landlords take for themselves. It's not exactly axiomatic that a well-functioning democracy can't sign the same contracts that landlords do, it's just that the amount to be gained is limited by a force all socialists should be intimately familiar with: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
        skohan 6y ago
        First of all, it's Vienna, not Venice. And you don't need a counterfactual Vienna to compare it to cities of similar size and economic characteristics. > the best they could do would be to get rid of the (actually quite small) cut that landlords take for themselves Again, I think this claim is easily contradicted by the success of Vienna's housing market. The thing is, if you took the market as it is today, and the government just bought all the housing properties at market rates, then yes you would only see savings in terms of the profit margin which is currently enjoyed by landlords. But if the government takes the role of providing housing as a public good, it can change the incentive structure of the market in a way which benefits renters. For instance, if your goal is to maximize rent profits, you will make decisions to maximize the year-over-year increase in rent, and you will build more units in a way which maximizes the rental price per unit. That's how you end up with so many shoebox-sized luxury condos in Toronto that nobody really wants and an under-served affordable housing market. If you treat housing as a public good, you make decisions to keep rent prices stable, and you build more housing to serve the need rather than the profit motive.
- girvo 6y ago
  That’s how it was approached somewhat here in Australia. NRAS effectively did give money to the suppliers of housing so that rents could be lower to eligible people. https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programmes-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/...

mjevans 6y ago

Also minimize middle-persons and standardize the sales and transfer and ownership contacts (preferably at a state or higher level). The goal should be to make it easier and more orderly to transfer property ownership, while also providing protection to those making the sales. The standard contacts should also include enumerations of inspection agencies and what type of inspections were performed (and when), and the various types of insurance which might also be optional and cover protection for buyer / seller / etc.

throwaway6734 6y ago
Sounds great. We just refinanced and I couldn't believe how burdensome and slow the process was. I don't understand why I had to talk to a person at all.
llampx 6y ago
The German government has absolutely no interest in lowering the taxes they collect from property sales.