6 ms·

They are not the problem with residential real estate prices. The real problem is people that prevent additional housing from being built.

justinph 5y ago
Zillow's attempt at flipping was certainly not helping. Even if it doesn't improve things, at least it is not hurting anymore. The trend of big companies buying single family homes and attempting to flip them is demonstrably bad for individuals trying to purchase a home.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  I don’t know what sort or homes Zillow buys, but I know locally a lot of flippers purchase homes that most banks wouldn’t lend to a regular consumer. Then they fix them up. These are hoarder homes, abandoned buildings, condemned housing, etc. In so far as they’re making homes more accessible to folks without contracting skills I don’t see a problem.
giantg2 5y ago
"The real problem is people that prevent additional housing from being built." If you go deeper, it's about personal preferences and distribution of jobs. There are plenty of areas that allow houses to be built and have affordable houses. Many of those places may have limited job choices, although remote is becoming bigger. If companies didn't cluster as much, then overpopulation or constrained resources in specific areas wouldn't be as much of problem. But there's also the side of people wanting single family homes instead of apartments - both existing owners and many prospective buyers. It seems some companies and individuals are realizing this and moving to areas with lower density and lower cost of living (or cost of business). Sure, you could take the other way of removing many zoning regulations, but the regulations are the product of democracy. Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  It's pretty obvious that there are large returns to density. This has been repeatedly studied. This is why people move to cities and why employers move to cities. As more people are brought into the world, those cities will get larger. Effectively prohibiting construction is a ridiculously stupid policy > Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area. There certainly can be. I don't buy this perspective of extreme local control - it obviously can't apply for everything, and housing is one of the things it shouldn't apply to. It's also not just about "personal preference" - building more housing in these areas would be societally welfare improving. That is more than just my preference.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Effectively prohibiting construction is a ridiculously stupid policy" But one has to convince the residents or other voting population of that. "it obviously can't apply for everything, and housing is one of the things it shouldn't apply to." I generally agree that government should take the smallest role possible. It seems that this topic has a long and expansive precedent - code requirements for how structures are built and where they can be, zoning for where structures can be built and their uses, property taxes (and seizure of non-paying), ordinances restricting what people can do on their own property, property state restrictions (disrepair ordinances), etc. We could do away with basically all these restrictions. The question is where we draw that line, what we consider problem activity, and how we come to those determinations. "It's also not just about "personal preference" - building more housing in these areas would be societally welfare improving." What the preference was aimed at is that many people want single homes, garages, yards, etc. If they can't get them, they will end up moving to where they can. If they have them, they (and the other neighbors) will advocate to keep the neighborhood that way. You can call something societally beneficial, but others might not see it the same way. It seems the boom-bust housing cycle and migrations between various cities or other areas can also provide societal benefit, and may even be self-correcting as we see people and companies select away from the highest COL areas to more attractive areas. This could lead to sufficient remaining voter base to make the building more permissible or eliminate the need by reduction in demand.
konschubert 5y ago
In fact, they provide liquidity, which is a good thing.

justinph 5y ago

Zillow's attempt at flipping was certainly not helping. Even if it doesn't improve things, at least it is not hurting anymore. The trend of big companies buying single family homes and attempting to flip them is demonstrably bad for individuals trying to purchase a home.

jdavis703 5y ago
I don’t know what sort or homes Zillow buys, but I know locally a lot of flippers purchase homes that most banks wouldn’t lend to a regular consumer. Then they fix them up. These are hoarder homes, abandoned buildings, condemned housing, etc. In so far as they’re making homes more accessible to folks without contracting skills I don’t see a problem.

giantg2 5y ago

"The real problem is people that prevent additional housing from being built." If you go deeper, it's about personal preferences and distribution of jobs. There are plenty of areas that allow houses to be built and have affordable houses. Many of those places may have limited job choices, although remote is becoming bigger. If companies didn't cluster as much, then overpopulation or constrained resources in specific areas wouldn't be as much of problem. But there's also the side of people wanting single family homes instead of apartments - both existing owners and many prospective buyers. It seems some companies and individuals are realizing this and moving to areas with lower density and lower cost of living (or cost of business). Sure, you could take the other way of removing many zoning regulations, but the regulations are the product of democracy. Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area.

whimsicalism 5y ago
It's pretty obvious that there are large returns to density. This has been repeatedly studied. This is why people move to cities and why employers move to cities. As more people are brought into the world, those cities will get larger. Effectively prohibiting construction is a ridiculously stupid policy > Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area. There certainly can be. I don't buy this perspective of extreme local control - it obviously can't apply for everything, and housing is one of the things it shouldn't apply to. It's also not just about "personal preference" - building more housing in these areas would be societally welfare improving. That is more than just my preference.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Effectively prohibiting construction is a ridiculously stupid policy" But one has to convince the residents or other voting population of that. "it obviously can't apply for everything, and housing is one of the things it shouldn't apply to." I generally agree that government should take the smallest role possible. It seems that this topic has a long and expansive precedent - code requirements for how structures are built and where they can be, zoning for where structures can be built and their uses, property taxes (and seizure of non-paying), ordinances restricting what people can do on their own property, property state restrictions (disrepair ordinances), etc. We could do away with basically all these restrictions. The question is where we draw that line, what we consider problem activity, and how we come to those determinations. "It's also not just about "personal preference" - building more housing in these areas would be societally welfare improving." What the preference was aimed at is that many people want single homes, garages, yards, etc. If they can't get them, they will end up moving to where they can. If they have them, they (and the other neighbors) will advocate to keep the neighborhood that way. You can call something societally beneficial, but others might not see it the same way. It seems the boom-bust housing cycle and migrations between various cities or other areas can also provide societal benefit, and may even be self-correcting as we see people and companies select away from the highest COL areas to more attractive areas. This could lead to sufficient remaining voter base to make the building more permissible or eliminate the need by reduction in demand.

konschubert 5y ago

In fact, they provide liquidity, which is a good thing.