3 ms·

> But generally, the bureaucracy is large, the inefficiency and corruption runs rampant, the quality is subpar and they're constantly at risk to be sold off whe

by tpm 6y ago

> But generally, the bureaucracy is large, the inefficiency and corruption runs rampant, the quality is subpar and they're constantly at risk to be sold off when the next mayor wants to spend money on a new air port or some policy their voters like. I completely believe all of that. It's still much better than here in Slovakia where public housing is pretty much nonexistent, most people own their flat/house outright and if you live in a rented property people are looking down on you. As a result there are on one side scores of people who live in their own house in so-called 'hunger valleys' where they can't find work and on the other side lots of available employment roles but no affordable living in the cities. > If you want the interests to align, just use a private entity, like cooperative housing. And the best thing about that? It's completely voluntary, no need for state involvement, no need to force others to fund it etc. I already mentioned Slovakia, so I can continue with that: a private entity first would have to acquire land suitable for flats and get all the planning permissions. Land is scarce and regulations complicated. It's made worse by the outdated building code, and the state is not really incentivized to update it. So I think interests would be better aligned if the state decided it wants to really support building new housing instead of only paying lip service to it.

luckylion 6y ago
Wouldn't the state have to acquire the land and keep up with building codes as well? Cooperatives are member-owned, so essentially you + 100 other people would get together, each put up a bit of money, get a loan from the bank, and build a house for all of you to live in. They're not-for-profit entities, they exist to apartments to their members. But they're explicitly not the state, so they're not a tool being (ab)used by politicians. > So I think interests would be better aligned if the state decided it wants to really support building new housing instead of only paying lip service to it. I agree, but I believe that would only be temporary, and as soon as they no longer accidentally align, you'd be in a tough spot. This is different in a cooperative entity, where renters = owners. Why aren't more rentals being created in Slovakia? Just because of social stigma of not owning?
- tpm 6y ago
  > Wouldn't the state have to acquire the land and keep up with building codes as well? The issue is to acquire land suitable for housing, which is scarce. The suitability itself is defined by various regulations. The state can (and should) change the regulations. The state can (and should) update the building codes, too. > Cooperatives are member-owned... Yes that is clear, but as they are explicitly not the state, the state has sadly no incentive to help them. The state also does not help the cities to build housing. The private developers always find a way to build flats, but as you can probably imagine, sometimes corruption can be involved and that makes the resulting product expensive. Also cooperatives are problably not really trusted here; people fear being taken advantage of, so they mostle care about themselves. Each one for himself, that is our society in a nutshell. See also Covid mortality. Sorry for the off-topic. > Why aren't more rentals being created in Slovakia? Just because of social stigma of not owning? Partly that. Also the aforementioned complications mean that new developments are expensive and are marketed as luxury. And the demand for housing is huge so the developers are catering to the high-margin end of market and are not interested in long-term rented property management.

by tpm 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

Wouldn't the state have to acquire the land and keep up with building codes as well? Cooperatives are member-owned, so essentially you + 100 other people would get together, each put up a bit of money, get a loan from the bank, and build a house for all of you to live in. They're not-for-profit entities, they exist to apartments to their members. But they're explicitly not the state, so they're not a tool being (ab)used by politicians. > So I think interests would be better aligned if the state decided it wants to really support building new housing instead of only paying lip service to it. I agree, but I believe that would only be temporary, and as soon as they no longer accidentally align, you'd be in a tough spot. This is different in a cooperative entity, where renters = owners. Why aren't more rentals being created in Slovakia? Just because of social stigma of not owning?

tpm 6y ago
> Wouldn't the state have to acquire the land and keep up with building codes as well? The issue is to acquire land suitable for housing, which is scarce. The suitability itself is defined by various regulations. The state can (and should) change the regulations. The state can (and should) update the building codes, too. > Cooperatives are member-owned... Yes that is clear, but as they are explicitly not the state, the state has sadly no incentive to help them. The state also does not help the cities to build housing. The private developers always find a way to build flats, but as you can probably imagine, sometimes corruption can be involved and that makes the resulting product expensive. Also cooperatives are problably not really trusted here; people fear being taken advantage of, so they mostle care about themselves. Each one for himself, that is our society in a nutshell. See also Covid mortality. Sorry for the off-topic. > Why aren't more rentals being created in Slovakia? Just because of social stigma of not owning? Partly that. Also the aforementioned complications mean that new developments are expensive and are marketed as luxury. And the demand for housing is huge so the developers are catering to the high-margin end of market and are not interested in long-term rented property management.