4 ms·

The down payment hurdle is indeed a problem. However, if we took steps to make down payments easier (by lowering down payment requirements or through something

The down payment hurdle is indeed a problem. However, if we took steps to make down payments easier (by lowering down payment requirements or through something like Biden's first-time homebuyer credit) then we're also pumping more money into the housing market. That will drive prices up again, further raising prices and making it even harder for future buyers to enter the market. The only real way to push affordability down, long-term, is to build more. I'd personally like to see incentives targeted toward something like all-new construction (no tear-down rebuilds, only new houses where previous houses didn't exist). Give people money to spend on new construction and the new construction will follow.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago
While I 100% agree with you that matching demand with a commensurate increase in supply is the only true fix to the problem of housing costs, in practice I don’t see it happening for a couple main reasons: Firstly, the people with the most political power are not coincidentally those who would lose the most if housing prices decrease. NIMBYism therefore inevitably wins. Secondly, building additional housing in regions that need it most (i.e. dense urban areas) would require dramatically improving public transit in those areas. The transportation networks of e.g. San Francisco, Boston, or even New York (which has by far the best public transit in the country) are already at a breaking point and simply cannot tolerate the influx of people more housing stock would bring. Sadly, I don’t think the US has the ability anymore to build large infrastructure projects at reasonable prices.
fartcannon 5y ago
Build more and ban investment properties. No more AirBnB, no more rentals. Prices will come down and those people who previously had to rent, will now be able to own and life will be better for everyone except the poor souls who bought in the last 20 years.
- ffggvv 5y ago
  im choosing to rent a house.. so now am forced to rent an apartment or buy a house?
- jliptzin 5y ago
  A lot of people prefer renting though, even if they can afford to buy a home. Many don’t want to be homeowners, or enjoy the flexibility of being able to move at any time without the hassle and expense of selling a home.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  I wouldn’t go as far as to ban rentals outright (people moving to a new city can’t be expected to buy a property before moving), but I would certainly support steep taxes on non-owner occupied properties, with deductions available for maintenance/upgrades (thus making rental businesses de facto non-profits). I would also add deductions for developers building new rental housing stock to encourage new construction.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Add a progresssive tax on land. The more land you own, the more you pay. This forces developers to focus on denser housing while the average home owner can be left alone. The tricky part is that home owners will knowingly defend the interests of real estate corporations because they want their own tax bill to be low.
  - IkmoIkmo 5y ago
    This is pretty damn hard to do. Any legal entity owning land could split it into multiple entities, who're avoiding the progressive tax. There'll probably be a million loopholes for that. Changing zoning is politically difficult, but a much more simple and effective policy approach if you can get it through.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  There are lots of valid reasons besides "I can't afford to buy" to rent. I've been a renter for most of my life because I liked the freedom of being able to move to a new area (either locally, or in an entirely new region) with little hassle. I'm a homeowner now, but I was renting even when I could afford a house. In an economic downturn many people get stuck with a house that's underwater and unable to sell while also needing to look outside of the area for a new job. Also, if your income (or family size) changes, its a lot easier to trade up (or down) when you rent than when you own. Instead of mandating that everyone buy a house whether they want to or not, I'd rather see renter protections, particularly in capping rent increases.
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    You might think I'm crazy, but it's the generational wealth that I think about most. If you rent, you basically guarantee that your children and their children and so on won't ever be land owners. They'll be serfs and someone else will be their lord. Of course it could all collapse but I sincerely doubt it.
alistairSH 5y ago
no tear-down rebuilds, only new houses where previous houses didn't exist I assume "tear down 1 unit, build 5-10 units" is OK? Otherwise, what you're suggesting just leads to more suburban sprawl. There isn't room in SF, NYC, etc for infill development (from vacant lots) at the scale necessary to make a dent in housing prices.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago

While I 100% agree with you that matching demand with a commensurate increase in supply is the only true fix to the problem of housing costs, in practice I don’t see it happening for a couple main reasons: Firstly, the people with the most political power are not coincidentally those who would lose the most if housing prices decrease. NIMBYism therefore inevitably wins. Secondly, building additional housing in regions that need it most (i.e. dense urban areas) would require dramatically improving public transit in those areas. The transportation networks of e.g. San Francisco, Boston, or even New York (which has by far the best public transit in the country) are already at a breaking point and simply cannot tolerate the influx of people more housing stock would bring. Sadly, I don’t think the US has the ability anymore to build large infrastructure projects at reasonable prices.

fartcannon 5y ago

Build more and ban investment properties. No more AirBnB, no more rentals. Prices will come down and those people who previously had to rent, will now be able to own and life will be better for everyone except the poor souls who bought in the last 20 years.

ffggvv 5y ago
im choosing to rent a house.. so now am forced to rent an apartment or buy a house?
jliptzin 5y ago
A lot of people prefer renting though, even if they can afford to buy a home. Many don’t want to be homeowners, or enjoy the flexibility of being able to move at any time without the hassle and expense of selling a home.
MontyCarloHall 5y ago
I wouldn’t go as far as to ban rentals outright (people moving to a new city can’t be expected to buy a property before moving), but I would certainly support steep taxes on non-owner occupied properties, with deductions available for maintenance/upgrades (thus making rental businesses de facto non-profits). I would also add deductions for developers building new rental housing stock to encourage new construction.
imtringued 5y ago
Add a progresssive tax on land. The more land you own, the more you pay. This forces developers to focus on denser housing while the average home owner can be left alone. The tricky part is that home owners will knowingly defend the interests of real estate corporations because they want their own tax bill to be low.
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  This is pretty damn hard to do. Any legal entity owning land could split it into multiple entities, who're avoiding the progressive tax. There'll probably be a million loopholes for that. Changing zoning is politically difficult, but a much more simple and effective policy approach if you can get it through.
Johnny555 5y ago
There are lots of valid reasons besides "I can't afford to buy" to rent. I've been a renter for most of my life because I liked the freedom of being able to move to a new area (either locally, or in an entirely new region) with little hassle. I'm a homeowner now, but I was renting even when I could afford a house. In an economic downturn many people get stuck with a house that's underwater and unable to sell while also needing to look outside of the area for a new job. Also, if your income (or family size) changes, its a lot easier to trade up (or down) when you rent than when you own. Instead of mandating that everyone buy a house whether they want to or not, I'd rather see renter protections, particularly in capping rent increases.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  You might think I'm crazy, but it's the generational wealth that I think about most. If you rent, you basically guarantee that your children and their children and so on won't ever be land owners. They'll be serfs and someone else will be their lord. Of course it could all collapse but I sincerely doubt it.

alistairSH 5y ago

no tear-down rebuilds, only new houses where previous houses didn't exist I assume "tear down 1 unit, build 5-10 units" is OK? Otherwise, what you're suggesting just leads to more suburban sprawl. There isn't room in SF, NYC, etc for infill development (from vacant lots) at the scale necessary to make a dent in housing prices.