3 ms·

“But we don’t have the housing stock...” This is an issue across the US. We need to work on this generally.

heavyset_go 5y ago
Most of the US would benefit from rezoning and a Highways Act-like deal to build stocks of affordable housing. Real estate investors and developers only seem to care to build relatively low-density 'luxury' housing, and fight affordable housing initiatives every step of the way. That seems to me like a market failure that could use some correction.
- bradlys 5y ago
  I am not a fan of more suburban sprawl which is what it sounds like you're advocating for. So, no thank you. Instead we should focus on building walkable neighborhoods that have higher density, less reliance on cars, and more emphasis on cycling+walking+public transit. Why it's bad: Suburbia is subsidized (many articles on HN similar to this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Climate change effects and other: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ Affordable housing is housing that is passed down from generation to generation. We don't need to build "affordable housing". We need to build good high quality housing that will then get transferred down to other people through sales. (And with proper land value taxes - these will not be appreciating assets)
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    No, I am not advocating for suburban sprawl. > Affordable housing is housing that is passed down from generation to generation. We don't need to build "affordable housing". We need to build good high quality housing that will then get transferred down to other people through sales. (And with proper land value taxes - these will not be appreciating assets) This is just trickle down theory, but for housing instead. What actually happens is that old housing stock is bought by investors who then tear it down and develop it into luxury housing, and often that housing is then either used as speculative assets or bought by some of the world's richest people looking to store value. Affordable housing doesn't mean "low-quality housing", it can mean high quality housing that is subsidized so that working class people can afford it, instead of just the adult children of the already wealthy, like many neighborhoods in cities are becoming/already are. Do it right, and that housing can become generational wealth, as well.
    - bradlys 5y ago
      > This is just trickle down theory, but for housing instead. What actually happens is that old housing stock is bought by investors who then tear it down and develop it into luxury housing, and often that housing is then either used as speculative assets or bought by some of the world's richest people looking to store value. Yet this theory is how actual housing has worked in many other places. Just because institutional investors have been manipulating the market in the US for a while doesn't mean it hasn't worked in the past in other places. Again - land value tax + some other taxes like vacancy taxes would solve this issue. You wouldn't see the weird skyscrapers in Manhattan if such things existed. Subsidized housing is not sustainable in the US. Fix the core issues like housing supply and this is a solvable problem. Things like subsidized housing just just fuck over the middle class more. Housing as generational wealth is something we should also avoid. Just creates another aristocracy.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      > This is just trickle down theory The laws of economics are real; increased supply will generally depress prices, damaging an asset's speculative value; increased prices will generally mean increased profits from building and thus attract more supply. It is always something to find those who deny the laws of economics so vigorously, in the manner that many deny climate change. I am certain that you had a cold winter in Missouri last year, and I am certain that you have found a neighborhood where someone is renovating old housing stock into luxury homes which some weirdoes are renting unused. Nevertheless the general laws hold: the globe warms, and new supply lowers prices. There are a finite number of people who will buy luxury homes of the sort you describe, they have finite amounts of money, many of them have alternatives in which to invest, and it is such a pathetically small and ineffective thing to make an campaign of class warfare against these people the centerpiece of one's housing policy, instead of simply encouraging more building by any reasonable means necessary, public or private, and removing barriers to that building.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > Real estate investors and developers ... fight affordable housing initiatives every step of the way I don't think affordable-housing is actually considered a real "threat" to private developers in most of the nation, but suppose that it were. Imagine that you had a business. The government says they'd like to fund a competitor. It's not just any competitor! This new competitor will be empowered to use a ton of tax money to compete with you. This competitor will be headed by someone who is politically connected. The politically connected owner will be able to take a fat cut of this tax money, and donate it back to the political machine, to fortify their position. They can expect a cozy relationship with regulators and special approvals you can't get. If you're unlucky they will add legislation passed to support their business while hindering yours. And, of course, their allies will insult you as villainous, greedy, and unreasonable. (Which you may be! And yet...) Would you fight all of that, or would you embrace it? — And if you think government projects aren't lousy with a corrupt politically-connected fat cats skimming money off the top, well, I have a delightful bridge to sell you!
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > I don't think affordable-housing is actually considered a real "threat" to private developers in most of the nation, but suppose that it were. My state has laws that say every new housing development must have affordable housing as a small percentage of the new housing that developers build. Developers choose to ignore those laws completely, partially because the affordable housing is protested against by the people who live by, or plan to live in, the new luxury housing. They instead just build all of the luxury housing they want to, with none of the affordable housing required by law. This has nothing to do with government projects, but stipulations for all new development.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      > My state has laws that say every new housing development must have affordable housing as a small percentage of the new housing that developers build. If your state is California, as I suspect it is, its housing policy is a miserable failure worthy only of derision and scorn. The price of housing is a bona fide humanitarian disaster, and the mandate you refer to is well known; it has solved almost nothing, what pathetically few solutions it has delivered are distributed by lottery (a key indicator of its abject failure), and — as your own description makes clear — it is just one more hurdle to make things more uncertain, drive up prices, and to drive away developers and the new construction they pay for.
- pkaye 5y ago
  Need to also expand beyond the coast which will be prone to flooding in the future.

Most of the US would benefit from rezoning and a Highways Act-like deal to build stocks of affordable housing. Real estate investors and developers only seem to care to build relatively low-density 'luxury' housing, and fight affordable housing initiatives every step of the way. That seems to me like a market failure that could use some correction.

bradlys 5y ago
I am not a fan of more suburban sprawl which is what it sounds like you're advocating for. So, no thank you. Instead we should focus on building walkable neighborhoods that have higher density, less reliance on cars, and more emphasis on cycling+walking+public transit. Why it's bad: Suburbia is subsidized (many articles on HN similar to this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Climate change effects and other: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO6txCZpbsQ Affordable housing is housing that is passed down from generation to generation. We don't need to build "affordable housing". We need to build good high quality housing that will then get transferred down to other people through sales. (And with proper land value taxes - these will not be appreciating assets)
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  No, I am not advocating for suburban sprawl. > Affordable housing is housing that is passed down from generation to generation. We don't need to build "affordable housing". We need to build good high quality housing that will then get transferred down to other people through sales. (And with proper land value taxes - these will not be appreciating assets) This is just trickle down theory, but for housing instead. What actually happens is that old housing stock is bought by investors who then tear it down and develop it into luxury housing, and often that housing is then either used as speculative assets or bought by some of the world's richest people looking to store value. Affordable housing doesn't mean "low-quality housing", it can mean high quality housing that is subsidized so that working class people can afford it, instead of just the adult children of the already wealthy, like many neighborhoods in cities are becoming/already are. Do it right, and that housing can become generational wealth, as well.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    > This is just trickle down theory, but for housing instead. What actually happens is that old housing stock is bought by investors who then tear it down and develop it into luxury housing, and often that housing is then either used as speculative assets or bought by some of the world's richest people looking to store value. Yet this theory is how actual housing has worked in many other places. Just because institutional investors have been manipulating the market in the US for a while doesn't mean it hasn't worked in the past in other places. Again - land value tax + some other taxes like vacancy taxes would solve this issue. You wouldn't see the weird skyscrapers in Manhattan if such things existed. Subsidized housing is not sustainable in the US. Fix the core issues like housing supply and this is a solvable problem. Things like subsidized housing just just fuck over the middle class more. Housing as generational wealth is something we should also avoid. Just creates another aristocracy.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    > This is just trickle down theory The laws of economics are real; increased supply will generally depress prices, damaging an asset's speculative value; increased prices will generally mean increased profits from building and thus attract more supply. It is always something to find those who deny the laws of economics so vigorously, in the manner that many deny climate change. I am certain that you had a cold winter in Missouri last year, and I am certain that you have found a neighborhood where someone is renovating old housing stock into luxury homes which some weirdoes are renting unused. Nevertheless the general laws hold: the globe warms, and new supply lowers prices. There are a finite number of people who will buy luxury homes of the sort you describe, they have finite amounts of money, many of them have alternatives in which to invest, and it is such a pathetically small and ineffective thing to make an campaign of class warfare against these people the centerpiece of one's housing policy, instead of simply encouraging more building by any reasonable means necessary, public or private, and removing barriers to that building.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
> Real estate investors and developers ... fight affordable housing initiatives every step of the way I don't think affordable-housing is actually considered a real "threat" to private developers in most of the nation, but suppose that it were. Imagine that you had a business. The government says they'd like to fund a competitor. It's not just any competitor! This new competitor will be empowered to use a ton of tax money to compete with you. This competitor will be headed by someone who is politically connected. The politically connected owner will be able to take a fat cut of this tax money, and donate it back to the political machine, to fortify their position. They can expect a cozy relationship with regulators and special approvals you can't get. If you're unlucky they will add legislation passed to support their business while hindering yours. And, of course, their allies will insult you as villainous, greedy, and unreasonable. (Which you may be! And yet...) Would you fight all of that, or would you embrace it? — And if you think government projects aren't lousy with a corrupt politically-connected fat cats skimming money off the top, well, I have a delightful bridge to sell you!
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > I don't think affordable-housing is actually considered a real "threat" to private developers in most of the nation, but suppose that it were. My state has laws that say every new housing development must have affordable housing as a small percentage of the new housing that developers build. Developers choose to ignore those laws completely, partially because the affordable housing is protested against by the people who live by, or plan to live in, the new luxury housing. They instead just build all of the luxury housing they want to, with none of the affordable housing required by law. This has nothing to do with government projects, but stipulations for all new development.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    > My state has laws that say every new housing development must have affordable housing as a small percentage of the new housing that developers build. If your state is California, as I suspect it is, its housing policy is a miserable failure worthy only of derision and scorn. The price of housing is a bona fide humanitarian disaster, and the mandate you refer to is well known; it has solved almost nothing, what pathetically few solutions it has delivered are distributed by lottery (a key indicator of its abject failure), and — as your own description makes clear — it is just one more hurdle to make things more uncertain, drive up prices, and to drive away developers and the new construction they pay for.
pkaye 5y ago
Need to also expand beyond the coast which will be prone to flooding in the future.