7 ms·

Why on earth would anybody build apartments or rent out property under your scheme?

by Ferrotin 4y ago

brtkdotse 4y ago
The government would.
anm89 4y ago
- turtledove 4y ago
  It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance. Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result. Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment complexes that are public housing. Everything I've suggested either exists or is being discussed seriously in some capacity. But, by all means keep your head in the sand rather than try to engage with actual housing policy.
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    It's really incredible that you're saying "superficially similar policies are being enacted in multiple, disparate geographies around the world, in vastly differing cultural and economic contexts, so you can't deny that all of them should coincide in one totally separate place I've chosen." I notice you didn't mention Berlin's rent control fiasco btw
  - shaky-carrousel 4y ago
    It's funny. There are ignorant people everywhere. But smug ignorance, that I only find it in Americans, for some reason. Maybe it's that "best country in the world" mentality leaking. That mentality doesn't make humble people.
    - Gortal278 4y ago
      Travel more. There is plenty of smug ignorance around the world.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    About a third of Singapore is persons who don't have Citizenship nor PR. Their public housing is propped up by making like 1/3 of the often lower earning workers (who are ineligible for public housing) pay taxes so that the Citizens and PR holders can profit. If 'Success' is your metric, the Singapore analogy to America would be to import way more Canadians and Mexicans, ban them from public housing and then make them pay for it.
  - andi999 4y ago
    The singapore housing system is a great policy. I dont see it how it fits with your ideas. First landlord is protected over tenant (rents are through the roof in singapore as well). The hdb scheme is worth look into: government build apartments sold to people with medium income and racial quotas.
  - b112 4y ago
    Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. No, no they are not. Washington state has more than Seattle in it. It has rural areas, and mountainous regions, and no, every house in a rural area is not on agriculturally zoned land. Nor does it make sense to have multidwelling houses, miles apart from each other. I think, as others in this thread have stated, you are mistaking musings, ponderings, and "feelz good" ideas for serious discourse. I support public housing, but that has zero bearing on changing the housing market. Which, I may add, is in a tiny, temporary inflated bubble. A decade ago, it was still recovering from the largest crash in modern history. In terms of public housing, as land value increases, so do property taxes. Thus, municipalities then have more funds to... build and maintain public housing! Which means that housing costs do not change the percentage of a city's budgetary costs, to build and maintain public housing.
    - turtledove 4y ago
      https://mynorthwest.com/3284239/ross-gov-inslee-plan-move-beyond-single-family-zoning-homeless-crisis/ https://mynorthwest.com/3284239/ross-gov-inslee-plan-move-be... Yes, Washington State is considering this. Yes, it's back on the drawing board, but it's very much in active discussion at the state level.
      - b112 4y ago
        Interesting, I get it now. They have "area zoning", which says "only single family homes may exist here". Thus, changing this won't ban single family dwellings. Only enable other types of dwellings. A strange concept, but OK. Understood, thanks.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    Oh my, clearly you’ve never lived in these places. I used to live in Singapore: it’s one of the most overheated housing markets in the world. All of the things you mention exist in the US to much larger degrees (do you know how much the US spends on social housing??) You are slinging insults to other commenters but you are really out of your depth here and have picked a couple of things and hailed them as solutions. You know not what you speak of. Source: American expat currently living in London, previously Singapore.
turtledove 4y ago
The government would pay to do it. Or there would be taxes or rents paid to developers in accordance to the number of people housed x the quality of the housing. Or people like me would rent units because housing is important, and rent their space at cost. We can choose to pay for housing for everyone, we just have to adjust the formulas we use to decide who benefits.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >The government would pay to do it. That's just a loopback to where you started. When government pays, you pay.
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Hilarious how your system gets more and more complex requiring more and more rules. You’re basically taking a market that has an artificially constrained supply and trying to replace it with an entirely planned system. Why?
      - turtledove 4y ago
        Why? Because the current system leads to poverty, inequity, homelessness, waste, inefficiency, etc. And to be clear, I've proposed a system of adjusted incentives followed by but not necessarily required to be followed by a more planned system.
        refurb 4y ago
dvh 4y ago
You build apartment and sell it to people for profit.
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  No, profit is icky and illegal apparently.
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Profiting from housing, yes, is not something I personally consider moral. But also, I believe that we don't need to meet my fairly radical moral stance to make housing more affordable and attainable for all. We can make incremental progress here by just tweaking incentives. We can go further by reducing profits. It's not some binary all or nothing affair.
    - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
      Well then, feel free to buy a house and sell it at cost. Don't worry about all that money you put into the home over the years to improve or maintain it, either. Oh, and to add to the utter inanity of what you're proposing, make sure that you sell it at your purchase cost and not the 200%ish extra that they tack on to a 30 year loan at 4% interest. Go ahead. Chalk it up to a personal experiment and let us know how it turns out in 30 years.
      - turtledove 4y ago
        Improving and maintaining a house is "at cost". And I've done what you describe. I was a landlord for a decade. I paid back each of my tenants all the profit I made from them, thousands and thousands of dollars per tenant. Adjusted upwards by the amount the property had appreciated. I now rent in a sliding scale, capped at the cost of the unit. Granted, it's only been ten years, not the thirty you suggest, but it's worked out great. Nearly every tenant has used their time with me to build a nest egg or savings that enabled them to move into a house they owned.

Why on earth would anybody build apartments or rent out property under your scheme?

brtkdotse 4y ago

The government would.

anm89 4y ago

turtledove 4y ago
It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance. Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result. Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment complexes that are public housing. Everything I've suggested either exists or is being discussed seriously in some capacity. But, by all means keep your head in the sand rather than try to engage with actual housing policy.
- paisawalla 4y ago
  It's really incredible that you're saying "superficially similar policies are being enacted in multiple, disparate geographies around the world, in vastly differing cultural and economic contexts, so you can't deny that all of them should coincide in one totally separate place I've chosen." I notice you didn't mention Berlin's rent control fiasco btw
- shaky-carrousel 4y ago
  It's funny. There are ignorant people everywhere. But smug ignorance, that I only find it in Americans, for some reason. Maybe it's that "best country in the world" mentality leaking. That mentality doesn't make humble people.
  - Gortal278 4y ago
    Travel more. There is plenty of smug ignorance around the world.
- notch656a 4y ago
  About a third of Singapore is persons who don't have Citizenship nor PR. Their public housing is propped up by making like 1/3 of the often lower earning workers (who are ineligible for public housing) pay taxes so that the Citizens and PR holders can profit. If 'Success' is your metric, the Singapore analogy to America would be to import way more Canadians and Mexicans, ban them from public housing and then make them pay for it.
- andi999 4y ago
  The singapore housing system is a great policy. I dont see it how it fits with your ideas. First landlord is protected over tenant (rents are through the roof in singapore as well). The hdb scheme is worth look into: government build apartments sold to people with medium income and racial quotas.
- b112 4y ago
  Washington State is considering removing single family zoning. No, no they are not. Washington state has more than Seattle in it. It has rural areas, and mountainous regions, and no, every house in a rural area is not on agriculturally zoned land. Nor does it make sense to have multidwelling houses, miles apart from each other. I think, as others in this thread have stated, you are mistaking musings, ponderings, and "feelz good" ideas for serious discourse. I support public housing, but that has zero bearing on changing the housing market. Which, I may add, is in a tiny, temporary inflated bubble. A decade ago, it was still recovering from the largest crash in modern history. In terms of public housing, as land value increases, so do property taxes. Thus, municipalities then have more funds to... build and maintain public housing! Which means that housing costs do not change the percentage of a city's budgetary costs, to build and maintain public housing.
  - turtledove 4y ago
    https://mynorthwest.com/3284239/ross-gov-inslee-plan-move-beyond-single-family-zoning-homeless-crisis/ https://mynorthwest.com/3284239/ross-gov-inslee-plan-move-be... Yes, Washington State is considering this. Yes, it's back on the drawing board, but it's very much in active discussion at the state level.
    - b112 4y ago
      Interesting, I get it now. They have "area zoning", which says "only single family homes may exist here". Thus, changing this won't ban single family dwellings. Only enable other types of dwellings. A strange concept, but OK. Understood, thanks.
- qeternity 4y ago
  Oh my, clearly you’ve never lived in these places. I used to live in Singapore: it’s one of the most overheated housing markets in the world. All of the things you mention exist in the US to much larger degrees (do you know how much the US spends on social housing??) You are slinging insults to other commenters but you are really out of your depth here and have picked a couple of things and hailed them as solutions. You know not what you speak of. Source: American expat currently living in London, previously Singapore.

turtledove 4y ago

The government would pay to do it. Or there would be taxes or rents paid to developers in accordance to the number of people housed x the quality of the housing. Or people like me would rent units because housing is important, and rent their space at cost. We can choose to pay for housing for everyone, we just have to adjust the formulas we use to decide who benefits.

notch656a 4y ago
>The government would pay to do it. That's just a loopback to where you started. When government pays, you pay.
- turtledove 4y ago
  Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Hilarious how your system gets more and more complex requiring more and more rules. You’re basically taking a market that has an artificially constrained supply and trying to replace it with an entirely planned system. Why?
    - turtledove 4y ago
      Why? Because the current system leads to poverty, inequity, homelessness, waste, inefficiency, etc. And to be clear, I've proposed a system of adjusted incentives followed by but not necessarily required to be followed by a more planned system.
      - refurb 4y ago

dvh 4y ago

You build apartment and sell it to people for profit.

cycrutchfield 4y ago
No, profit is icky and illegal apparently.
- turtledove 4y ago
  Profiting from housing, yes, is not something I personally consider moral. But also, I believe that we don't need to meet my fairly radical moral stance to make housing more affordable and attainable for all. We can make incremental progress here by just tweaking incentives. We can go further by reducing profits. It's not some binary all or nothing affair.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Well then, feel free to buy a house and sell it at cost. Don't worry about all that money you put into the home over the years to improve or maintain it, either. Oh, and to add to the utter inanity of what you're proposing, make sure that you sell it at your purchase cost and not the 200%ish extra that they tack on to a 30 year loan at 4% interest. Go ahead. Chalk it up to a personal experiment and let us know how it turns out in 30 years.
    - turtledove 4y ago
      Improving and maintaining a house is "at cost". And I've done what you describe. I was a landlord for a decade. I paid back each of my tenants all the profit I made from them, thousands and thousands of dollars per tenant. Adjusted upwards by the amount the property had appreciated. I now rent in a sliding scale, capped at the cost of the unit. Granted, it's only been ten years, not the thirty you suggest, but it's worked out great. Nearly every tenant has used their time with me to build a nest egg or savings that enabled them to move into a house they owned.