6 ms·

The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to b

The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.

simfree 5y ago
The state building affordable and midrange housing does have precedent in Finland, where municipal employees build the majority of homes, leaving the upper mid-range and high end homes to be built by private developers. They do tightly manage where each type of residence is built, from what I hear the goal is to avoid the creation of exclusively wealthy or poor neighborhoods as their existence damages society.
TeeMassive 5y ago
> The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. These have never worked and are full of pervert effects. It's at best a band aid. > I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. > I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit. That's a cool political slogan, however nobody will build a housing without a profit and nobody is entitled to other people's labor. Making sure that houses are not left empty and sane zoning rules are more likely to result in viable changes. Absurdly low interest rates are also to blame.
- foerbert 5y ago
  You started by dismissing the proposed solution out of hand and then went on to attack a strawman. You do end with a couple ideas of your own, but overall I find this comment more disingenuous than not.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    I merely pointed obvious problems in your argument. Then your reply to my comment make accusations but has no substantive explanations at all, which also means it can be dismissed as such.
    - foerbert 5y ago
      It wasn't my argument. I was explaining why I downvoted your comment, which I probably should have been more clear about.
reducesuffering 5y ago
The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state." Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing and will break the housing-as-investment pitfall by breaking the supply-constraint that causes people to treat it that way.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> Let people build buildings on their own land. All land is owned subject to the laws that govern its potential uses. Land that is open to more uses is more valuable than land that is not. Land that can be subdivided is worth more than land that cannot. Allowing people to build more houses on "their own land" is a wonderful gift to land owners. It increases the value of their property. But that exacerbates the problem. A trend towards greater freedom to develop real estate means it is, yet again, only a more attractive investment vehicle. Rather than "let them build", perhaps we should consider "thou shalt build" or "thou shalt rent". Laws that demand certain real estate owners do X or Y could not only increase the number of rental units but also diminish the attractiveness of unoccupied or unused real estate as an investment vehicle.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Um, people building more houses means more supply which means lower prices. Nobody has yet managed to repeal the law of supply and demand.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      The problem is that in high demand areas, it can be profitable for people to buy property purely as speculation without ever having people live there.
      - 5y ago
refurb 5y ago
The market is ill-equipped? Prior government interventions in housing are driving most of the price inflation and investment. Every time they come up with a new way to help people buy houses they just further drive up the price.
Gustomaximus 5y ago
State housing has a place, but I think they really need to fix the demand side of investors. There should be significant deterant to holding residential property in large scale. While options are varied I think a progressive asset tax of total property owned. Something like 0.5% per million starting on the second million. Maybe some principle place of residence reduction. So most people can have a house even a second/third house without occuring holding tax but you stop people sitting on $10m+ in residential property, which is quite a low threshold really. And stop investors dropping billion plus amounts into the market. Then some rule about top marginal rate for obscured ownership like overseas owners and trusts etc to stop shenanigans there. It comes down to that line about residential property has to be good for residents or good for investors, you can't have both.
- Guest42 5y ago
  Agree, and would propose increased property taxes for amount of time a property is empty, I think this would increase liquidity in rental markets.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Even if it's being rented, I think the tax should still be there. We want people to own the places they live in
- fartingflamingo 5y ago
  First home? 3% real estate transaction tax, or 1% if renovating up to high energy savings specs. Any other home? 12% real estate transaction tax. That's roughly how it works in the Flanders region of Belgium from 2022.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Many people want and/or need to rent. How would this not just drive up rent 9%
cscurmudgeon 5y ago
> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem 1. Step one: Prevent market from functioning through excessive regulation 2. Step two: Blame the market Edit: Step 3: Downvote and run away
m0zg 5y ago
Better yet, the state needs to get out of the way of the private sector building things and let it create more supply. A friend of mine wanted to tear down and rebuild an old house he bought. Spent a year and a half trying to obtain all the permits and gave up. And that's a regular house on a plot of land that he already owns, the "easy" case. You can imagine what kind of insane bureaucratic hoops one would need to jump through to build anything that's "affordable" and therefore a little bit unconventional. My house tripled in value in 10 years. There's simply no way a glorified wooden box costs $2M. The "state" (and the restriction of supply) is the reason why.

simfree 5y ago

The state building affordable and midrange housing does have precedent in Finland, where municipal employees build the majority of homes, leaving the upper mid-range and high end homes to be built by private developers. They do tightly manage where each type of residence is built, from what I hear the goal is to avoid the creation of exclusively wealthy or poor neighborhoods as their existence damages society.

TeeMassive 5y ago

> The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. These have never worked and are full of pervert effects. It's at best a band aid. > I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. > I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit. That's a cool political slogan, however nobody will build a housing without a profit and nobody is entitled to other people's labor. Making sure that houses are not left empty and sane zoning rules are more likely to result in viable changes. Absurdly low interest rates are also to blame.

foerbert 5y ago
You started by dismissing the proposed solution out of hand and then went on to attack a strawman. You do end with a couple ideas of your own, but overall I find this comment more disingenuous than not.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  I merely pointed obvious problems in your argument. Then your reply to my comment make accusations but has no substantive explanations at all, which also means it can be dismissed as such.
  - foerbert 5y ago
    It wasn't my argument. I was explaining why I downvoted your comment, which I probably should have been more clear about.

reducesuffering 5y ago

The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state." Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing and will break the housing-as-investment pitfall by breaking the supply-constraint that causes people to treat it that way.

sandworm101 5y ago
>> Let people build buildings on their own land. All land is owned subject to the laws that govern its potential uses. Land that is open to more uses is more valuable than land that is not. Land that can be subdivided is worth more than land that cannot. Allowing people to build more houses on "their own land" is a wonderful gift to land owners. It increases the value of their property. But that exacerbates the problem. A trend towards greater freedom to develop real estate means it is, yet again, only a more attractive investment vehicle. Rather than "let them build", perhaps we should consider "thou shalt build" or "thou shalt rent". Laws that demand certain real estate owners do X or Y could not only increase the number of rental units but also diminish the attractiveness of unoccupied or unused real estate as an investment vehicle.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Um, people building more houses means more supply which means lower prices. Nobody has yet managed to repeal the law of supply and demand.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    The problem is that in high demand areas, it can be profitable for people to buy property purely as speculation without ever having people live there.
    - 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

The market is ill-equipped? Prior government interventions in housing are driving most of the price inflation and investment. Every time they come up with a new way to help people buy houses they just further drive up the price.

Gustomaximus 5y ago

State housing has a place, but I think they really need to fix the demand side of investors. There should be significant deterant to holding residential property in large scale. While options are varied I think a progressive asset tax of total property owned. Something like 0.5% per million starting on the second million. Maybe some principle place of residence reduction. So most people can have a house even a second/third house without occuring holding tax but you stop people sitting on $10m+ in residential property, which is quite a low threshold really. And stop investors dropping billion plus amounts into the market. Then some rule about top marginal rate for obscured ownership like overseas owners and trusts etc to stop shenanigans there. It comes down to that line about residential property has to be good for residents or good for investors, you can't have both.

Guest42 5y ago
Agree, and would propose increased property taxes for amount of time a property is empty, I think this would increase liquidity in rental markets.
- 8note 5y ago
  Even if it's being rented, I think the tax should still be there. We want people to own the places they live in
fartingflamingo 5y ago
First home? 3% real estate transaction tax, or 1% if renovating up to high energy savings specs. Any other home? 12% real estate transaction tax. That's roughly how it works in the Flanders region of Belgium from 2022.
- nightski 5y ago
  Many people want and/or need to rent. How would this not just drive up rent 9%

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem 1. Step one: Prevent market from functioning through excessive regulation 2. Step two: Blame the market Edit: Step 3: Downvote and run away

m0zg 5y ago

Better yet, the state needs to get out of the way of the private sector building things and let it create more supply. A friend of mine wanted to tear down and rebuild an old house he bought. Spent a year and a half trying to obtain all the permits and gave up. And that's a regular house on a plot of land that he already owns, the "easy" case. You can imagine what kind of insane bureaucratic hoops one would need to jump through to build anything that's "affordable" and therefore a little bit unconventional. My house tripled in value in 10 years. There's simply no way a glorified wooden box costs $2M. The "state" (and the restriction of supply) is the reason why.