5 ms·

May I ask what your recommendations would be for this? What's broken and how would you fix it?

by poulsbohemian 5y ago

throwaway6734 5y ago
Build more housing
- poulsbohemian 5y ago
  So how do you manage zoning issues, including water and energy management? As we saw a good example of in Pittsburgh, how do we maintain the transportation and muni services to these new houses? (My real point in asking these questions is that housing issues in say, the Bay Area, are different from those in other parts of the country such that it's really hard to make blanket statements about housing. There are some themes, but I posit there are different answers for different locales.)
  - resonantjacket5 5y ago
    > So how do you manage zoning issues, including water and energy management? Single family housing uses more water and energy per capita, generally one will be fine. And overtime one can slowly upgrade infrastructure -- as is done around the world or what happens in American neighborhoods that are upzoned. It really is a red herring of a problem that is brought up. > As we saw a good example of in Pittsburgh, how do we maintain the transportation and muni services to these new houses? As long as one is building the new housing nearby jobs you'll be decreasing the average miles traveled. Also it is usually the other way around you need a minimum level of density to make transit more viable and useful.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    >including water and energy management Expand service? >how do we maintain the transportation and muni services to these new houses? Use the tax money they pay to pay for infrastructure maintenance. >are different from those in other parts of the country such that it's really hard to make blanket statements about housing But the general issues is the same isn't it: there's more demand than available supply or else prices wouldn't be going up
silisili 5y ago
I'm not smart enough to tell you what would work, but I've read a few ideas I'll throw out there as possibilities over the past couple years - 1 - Build more housing. 2 - Eliminate weird NIMBYisms in a lot of places. 3 - Rent controls 4 - Eliminate corporate ownership of SFH 5 - Progressive property taxing Instead, we've done absolutely nothing, and that unfortunately didn't seem to work.
- matchbok 5y ago
  Rent control has never worked. And never will. Corporate ownership of SFHs is so small to not matter. The house you live in shouldn't be an investment.
  - silisili 5y ago
    > Corporate ownership of SFHs is so small to not matter People keep saying this and quoting total ownership figures, which is probably what Blackrock and co wanted. Look at actual purchases in the last 2 years instead. Blackrock has bought nearly 50% of all SFH sales in my area in the last year. It's no coincidence that corporate buying percentages shot up with the prices.
- zepto 5y ago
  Progressive property taxing makes housing more expensive, not less.
  - klipt 5y ago
    Not necessarily. If property taxes were 0%, that would make housing a very desirable investment, pushing prices up out of reach of average people. On the other hand if property taxes get high enough, they basically act like rent, and the purchase price drops because it's no longer a good investment.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Having to both pay to purchase and pay rent makes housing more expensive as well as destroying the concept of home ownership altogether.
adam_arthur 5y ago
Fed should have hiked rates or started QT a year ago. Even 6 months ago it was pretty obvious the economy was rapidly approaching full employment. Feds policies led to artificially low interest rates which juices prices. But the prices become sticky when rates rise again, which they are now. All locales should allow for greater density, and YIMBY attitude needs to prevail over NIMBY. Plenty of people would love to live in small place in a great neighborhood. It's exclusionary and increases wealth disparity to prevent construction in desirable areas. Though denser zoning can actually be lucrative to homeowners (landowners). Government could also easily curb investor activity in residential by limiting the amount of leverage investors can use for buy and hold rentals. E.g. investors need to put 50% down if it's a buy and hold, and not just a flip. This would clearly kill large amounts of speculation in the SFH market.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  For an example of the third paragraph, Oregon passed a law in 2019 that overrides local zoning to legalize duplexes on almost all residential lots and fourplexes and cottage clusters on residential lots in cities with a certain density minimum.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm not familiar with the exact legalities, but it's similar in Austin. Lots of SFHs being converted to duplexes. Of course this alone doesn't completely solve the problem, but at least the duplexes are cheaper than the SFH. E.g. In the northwest hills neighborhood, lots of smaller homes that are noticeably cheaper than the SFH equivalents.
gremlinsinc 5y ago
STart a co-op? If you can get 200 people to buy land, and build tiny homesteads and a warehouse for shared goods (tools, ATVS, RVs, etc) you cut back on consumerism, help the environment, AND you take renters out of the rental market. All of a sudden holding onto a rental property doesn't seem so much fun when there's nobody wanting to live there because they can live in our beautiful mountain eco-village for $300/month, and get a real community that's more like a family and supports one another.

May I ask what your recommendations would be for this? What's broken and how would you fix it?

throwaway6734 5y ago

Build more housing

poulsbohemian 5y ago
So how do you manage zoning issues, including water and energy management? As we saw a good example of in Pittsburgh, how do we maintain the transportation and muni services to these new houses? (My real point in asking these questions is that housing issues in say, the Bay Area, are different from those in other parts of the country such that it's really hard to make blanket statements about housing. There are some themes, but I posit there are different answers for different locales.)
- resonantjacket5 5y ago
  > So how do you manage zoning issues, including water and energy management? Single family housing uses more water and energy per capita, generally one will be fine. And overtime one can slowly upgrade infrastructure -- as is done around the world or what happens in American neighborhoods that are upzoned. It really is a red herring of a problem that is brought up. > As we saw a good example of in Pittsburgh, how do we maintain the transportation and muni services to these new houses? As long as one is building the new housing nearby jobs you'll be decreasing the average miles traveled. Also it is usually the other way around you need a minimum level of density to make transit more viable and useful.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  >including water and energy management Expand service? >how do we maintain the transportation and muni services to these new houses? Use the tax money they pay to pay for infrastructure maintenance. >are different from those in other parts of the country such that it's really hard to make blanket statements about housing But the general issues is the same isn't it: there's more demand than available supply or else prices wouldn't be going up

silisili 5y ago

I'm not smart enough to tell you what would work, but I've read a few ideas I'll throw out there as possibilities over the past couple years - 1 - Build more housing. 2 - Eliminate weird NIMBYisms in a lot of places. 3 - Rent controls 4 - Eliminate corporate ownership of SFH 5 - Progressive property taxing Instead, we've done absolutely nothing, and that unfortunately didn't seem to work.

matchbok 5y ago
Rent control has never worked. And never will. Corporate ownership of SFHs is so small to not matter. The house you live in shouldn't be an investment.
- silisili 5y ago
  > Corporate ownership of SFHs is so small to not matter People keep saying this and quoting total ownership figures, which is probably what Blackrock and co wanted. Look at actual purchases in the last 2 years instead. Blackrock has bought nearly 50% of all SFH sales in my area in the last year. It's no coincidence that corporate buying percentages shot up with the prices.
zepto 5y ago
Progressive property taxing makes housing more expensive, not less.
- klipt 5y ago
  Not necessarily. If property taxes were 0%, that would make housing a very desirable investment, pushing prices up out of reach of average people. On the other hand if property taxes get high enough, they basically act like rent, and the purchase price drops because it's no longer a good investment.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Having to both pay to purchase and pay rent makes housing more expensive as well as destroying the concept of home ownership altogether.

adam_arthur 5y ago

Fed should have hiked rates or started QT a year ago. Even 6 months ago it was pretty obvious the economy was rapidly approaching full employment. Feds policies led to artificially low interest rates which juices prices. But the prices become sticky when rates rise again, which they are now. All locales should allow for greater density, and YIMBY attitude needs to prevail over NIMBY. Plenty of people would love to live in small place in a great neighborhood. It's exclusionary and increases wealth disparity to prevent construction in desirable areas. Though denser zoning can actually be lucrative to homeowners (landowners). Government could also easily curb investor activity in residential by limiting the amount of leverage investors can use for buy and hold rentals. E.g. investors need to put 50% down if it's a buy and hold, and not just a flip. This would clearly kill large amounts of speculation in the SFH market.

crooked-v 5y ago
For an example of the third paragraph, Oregon passed a law in 2019 that overrides local zoning to legalize duplexes on almost all residential lots and fourplexes and cottage clusters on residential lots in cities with a certain density minimum.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm not familiar with the exact legalities, but it's similar in Austin. Lots of SFHs being converted to duplexes. Of course this alone doesn't completely solve the problem, but at least the duplexes are cheaper than the SFH. E.g. In the northwest hills neighborhood, lots of smaller homes that are noticeably cheaper than the SFH equivalents.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

STart a co-op? If you can get 200 people to buy land, and build tiny homesteads and a warehouse for shared goods (tools, ATVS, RVs, etc) you cut back on consumerism, help the environment, AND you take renters out of the rental market. All of a sudden holding onto a rental property doesn't seem so much fun when there's nobody wanting to live there because they can live in our beautiful mountain eco-village for $300/month, and get a real community that's more like a family and supports one another.