3 ms·

The conclusion I came to was that there’s no magic wand, and the only “real” solution is more housing. LA is a very desirable place to live, and the city has fa

The conclusion I came to was that there’s no magic wand, and the only “real” solution is more housing. LA is a very desirable place to live, and the city has failed to deliver on the necessary new housing to economically support the demand.

harryh 6y ago
To be more precise: The city has outlawed the construction of new housing to economically support the demand.
acdha 6y ago
> the city has failed to deliver on the necessary new housing to economically support the demand. Less passively, current property owners have successfully lobbied the local government to increase the value of their properties. This is especially potent in California where Prop 13 heavily favors long-time owners. If you stand to make a fortune when you retire and are going to pay very little until then, you’re probably going to be in frequent contact with your elected officials.
snidane 6y ago
Did you try hard enough? Inplement a small annual fee on the parcel based on market rate and watch the vacant housing appear back on the market in the blink of an eye. You can't clear the housing market without this. Instead of supply/demand dynamic you get a Greater Fool dynamic on the market.
- epistasis 6y ago
  Charging taxes based on market value has been banned in the California constitution, with the passage of the disastrous Prop 13 in the late 1970s. It is the source of many problems in California. Taxes based on percentage of value are limited to 1% of purchase price, with a maximum increase of tax paid of 2% per year, which is sub inflationary. Presumably if we had a loooong run of time with property values increasing less than 2% per year, newly purchased homes would still be taxed at market value, but that's pretty far outside the normal realm of market behavior.
etripe 6y ago
The question is whether politically there is a greater demand for available housing, or for ROI on already owned properties. Depending on which hypothesis you prefer, there either is a problem today or there isn't. When one factors in that this situation is decades in the making and present across most of the Western world, I would argue the political interest is in looking out for home owners, not starters, both in sheer voter numbers and the politicians' own group membership.

harryh 6y ago

To be more precise: The city has outlawed the construction of new housing to economically support the demand.

acdha 6y ago

> the city has failed to deliver on the necessary new housing to economically support the demand. Less passively, current property owners have successfully lobbied the local government to increase the value of their properties. This is especially potent in California where Prop 13 heavily favors long-time owners. If you stand to make a fortune when you retire and are going to pay very little until then, you’re probably going to be in frequent contact with your elected officials.

snidane 6y ago

Did you try hard enough? Inplement a small annual fee on the parcel based on market rate and watch the vacant housing appear back on the market in the blink of an eye. You can't clear the housing market without this. Instead of supply/demand dynamic you get a Greater Fool dynamic on the market.

epistasis 6y ago
Charging taxes based on market value has been banned in the California constitution, with the passage of the disastrous Prop 13 in the late 1970s. It is the source of many problems in California. Taxes based on percentage of value are limited to 1% of purchase price, with a maximum increase of tax paid of 2% per year, which is sub inflationary. Presumably if we had a loooong run of time with property values increasing less than 2% per year, newly purchased homes would still be taxed at market value, but that's pretty far outside the normal realm of market behavior.

etripe 6y ago

The question is whether politically there is a greater demand for available housing, or for ROI on already owned properties. Depending on which hypothesis you prefer, there either is a problem today or there isn't. When one factors in that this situation is decades in the making and present across most of the Western world, I would argue the political interest is in looking out for home owners, not starters, both in sheer voter numbers and the politicians' own group membership.