4 ms·

I’m convinced that this is the reason behind SF housing problems as well. There’s just too much value for landlords.

by baby 5y ago

mywittyname 5y ago
Not just landlords, but everyday home owners too. People who got a $X00k mortgage on a house by-and-large are not going to actively support policies which may reduce the asset backing that loan. There would absolutely be long-term benefits to lowering housing costs in parts of the country, but some people are going to have to feel the short-term pain to make that happen.
- ladyattis 5y ago
  It all comes down to the belief that someone has a guaranteed rate of return on a purchase they deem an investment whether it's a house or a corporate bond there's a baked-in sense of entitlement that sometimes flourishes as absurd laws and regulations.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > which may reduce the asset backing that loan. IMO its worse than that.. no asset has been "reduced" yet the tempers and decision making get worse and worse.. This is a fundementally divisive issue that brings out the worst in people. Community is nowhere to be seen when it comes to private property and the dollars that come with it. It is a bitter end-game of an explosive and wealthy 100 years of growth in this part of the world.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Tempers and radicalism are going up for one good reason: As the size of the loans go up, the stakes go up.
Causality1 5y ago
I think anti-profiteering laws could be helpful. If you bought land and built a house and want to live in a quiet neighborhood until you die, fine. But maybe if you vote against expanded housing you don't get to sell your house for more than you paid for it, or maybe don't get to sell it at all while you're alive. Separating the homesteaders from the investors would do a lot of good.
- what_is_orcas 5y ago
  This is something I've been thinking about a lot: how to make homes less of an "investment". When I bought my house my realtor seemed unable to accept that I don't plan on ever selling. I bought this house because I like it and I want to live here, not because I think I can sell it in a few years. I work remote and I hate moving. I know a lot of the HN crowd hates the thought of government regulation but I do agree that the individual interests are directly at odds with community interests and I'm not sure how to correct that without regulating the individuals.
  - tata71 5y ago
    And if you regulate those individuals, they will never trust an economic policy you push forward again, because you majorly pulled the rug, after building a ponzi scheme that they were monkeyed into taking part in.
- greedo 5y ago
  Everyone is an investor at some point in a home. You may not realize your gains for a long time, but the idea that someone who purchases a house isn't allowed to sell it while alive will never fly.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I think this is a convenient caricature of why people want to keep single family zoning, but it doesn't match my experience. I am one of those people that favors single family zoning, and no one I know that shares the same view favors low-density zoning to drive value. Not one. The reason I hear consistently is that people want to preserve their way of life and quality of life. Introducing new zoning and higher density works against that. It brings an influx of newcomers that change local politics, it causes additional traffic beyond what driving infrastructure can support, it soaks up parking and makes businesses/neighborhoods less accessible to those living outside the immediate vicinity, it makes parks/amenities more crowded, it changes the sense of community, it affects safety, and so on. Those things are important to many people, not just current home owners, and I think it particularly matters to those who have lived in an area for a long time and helped make it what it is.
- baby 5y ago
  > The reason I hear consistently is that people want to preserve their way of life and quality of life With all the homeless people in the city I'm not sure why they would want to preserve that.

I’m convinced that this is the reason behind SF housing problems as well. There’s just too much value for landlords.

by baby 5y ago

I’m convinced that this is the reason behind SF housing problems as well. There’s just too much value for landlords.

Not just landlords, but everyday home owners too. People who got a $X00k mortgage on a house by-and-large are not going to actively support policies which may reduce the asset backing that loan. There would absolutely be long-term benefits to lowering housing costs in parts of the country, but some people are going to have to feel the short-term pain to make that happen.

ladyattis 5y ago
It all comes down to the belief that someone has a guaranteed rate of return on a purchase they deem an investment whether it's a house or a corporate bond there's a baked-in sense of entitlement that sometimes flourishes as absurd laws and regulations.
mistrial9 5y ago
> which may reduce the asset backing that loan. IMO its worse than that.. no asset has been "reduced" yet the tempers and decision making get worse and worse.. This is a fundementally divisive issue that brings out the worst in people. Community is nowhere to be seen when it comes to private property and the dollars that come with it. It is a bitter end-game of an explosive and wealthy 100 years of growth in this part of the world.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Tempers and radicalism are going up for one good reason: As the size of the loans go up, the stakes go up.

Causality1 5y ago

I think anti-profiteering laws could be helpful. If you bought land and built a house and want to live in a quiet neighborhood until you die, fine. But maybe if you vote against expanded housing you don't get to sell your house for more than you paid for it, or maybe don't get to sell it at all while you're alive. Separating the homesteaders from the investors would do a lot of good.

what_is_orcas 5y ago
This is something I've been thinking about a lot: how to make homes less of an "investment". When I bought my house my realtor seemed unable to accept that I don't plan on ever selling. I bought this house because I like it and I want to live here, not because I think I can sell it in a few years. I work remote and I hate moving. I know a lot of the HN crowd hates the thought of government regulation but I do agree that the individual interests are directly at odds with community interests and I'm not sure how to correct that without regulating the individuals.
- tata71 5y ago
  And if you regulate those individuals, they will never trust an economic policy you push forward again, because you majorly pulled the rug, after building a ponzi scheme that they were monkeyed into taking part in.
greedo 5y ago
Everyone is an investor at some point in a home. You may not realize your gains for a long time, but the idea that someone who purchases a house isn't allowed to sell it while alive will never fly.

throwawaysea 5y ago

I think this is a convenient caricature of why people want to keep single family zoning, but it doesn't match my experience. I am one of those people that favors single family zoning, and no one I know that shares the same view favors low-density zoning to drive value. Not one. The reason I hear consistently is that people want to preserve their way of life and quality of life. Introducing new zoning and higher density works against that. It brings an influx of newcomers that change local politics, it causes additional traffic beyond what driving infrastructure can support, it soaks up parking and makes businesses/neighborhoods less accessible to those living outside the immediate vicinity, it makes parks/amenities more crowded, it changes the sense of community, it affects safety, and so on. Those things are important to many people, not just current home owners, and I think it particularly matters to those who have lived in an area for a long time and helped make it what it is.

baby 5y ago
> The reason I hear consistently is that people want to preserve their way of life and quality of life With all the homeless people in the city I'm not sure why they would want to preserve that.