7 ms·

> towns can't find employees all because housing is out of reach for the working and lower-middle class. Why not simply increase the supply?

josefresco 4y ago
It's a geographically limited space which limits sprawl and there's a lot of density laws and zoning that limit height. Lastly, NIMBYs block and delay affordable housing developments for a variety of reasons: "traffic" "change the character of the neighborhood" etc. Just getting "accessory dwelling" allowances was a battle for each town in the region.
Jasper_ 4y ago
The supply was fine before multi-home owners and property management companies took up most of it and jacked up the prices. Increasing the supply would only increase the wealth of the homeowners, it won't lower prices. Increasing the supply means building new buildings, and that often means building huge lots of five-over-ones, priced as luxury apartments in a growing market. The people building the new supply expect to make a profit, and in a market with growing prices, they aren't selling for less than what they think they can get out of it. We see this in big cities where vacancies are at an all-time high (aka a lot more supply), but prices aren't going down.
- tayne 4y ago
  I do real estate for a living and this opinion is like a zombie that never dies no matter how many times it is proven wrong. You are putting forward that landlords acted collectively to increase the price of realestate. This is obviously wrong. The price of homes is determined by the market. It doesn’t matter who owns those homes, they are worth what the market says they are. Landlords do not control the market and even if they banded together in a conspiracy to increase the price of homes, they couldn’t because the vast majority of homes are owned by regular people. The high price of housing is caused by a shortage. If you don’t believe me then watch the 60 minutes segment about it. There’s no conspiracy. If there weren’t landlords building new stock it would be even worse. It’s so ironic that the hive mind spits in the face of the only people building new housing; the only people making the problem better.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Nice try. Landlords and homeowners and the finance industry don't control the market... they just form a political bloc that controls zoning and taxes and transportation infrastructure and central finance, and these knobs in turn control the market. For some reason, they always vote for policies that pump their holdings. Can't imagine why. These policies do create problems, though, and it's not only reasonable to attribute the problems back to the people who voted for them, it's unreasonable to do anything else. "It's just the market!" is on par with "Look, a squirrel!" in terms of critical thinking.
    - tayne 4y ago
      Again, landlords aren’t a big enough group or coordinated enough to do anything. There’s no landlord lobby. Homeowners are a different story. It’s them who stop us from building more. But yea, it’s just the market and there’s no conspiracy and landlords are the last people to blame. Your comment on my cognitive abilities is a petty insult and is not allowed on this platform.
      - satokema 4y ago
        "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge." The landlords don't need to conspire - they know what's good for them and the politicians either own property themselves or are connected enough to landlords to help them out. None of these parties have an immediate interest in the lower class affording housing or maintaining the community fabric in the long term - especially the faceless incorporated ones.
      - cudgy 4y ago
        Blackrock doesn’t have any lobbyists? Apartment consortiums don’t have lobbyists?
        imtringued 4y ago
        Homeowners outnumber them and local politicians listen to them more than to some far away group of people in NYC. Really it is quite simple, homeowners vote in tax cuts for themselves which also apply to landlords.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > We see this in big cities where vacancies are at an all-time high (aka a lot more supply), but prices aren't going down. Where?
- nostrademons 4y ago
  But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money (in taxes, mortgages, maintenance) and not bringing any in, and you can't spend more than you make forever. Rents go down when landlords go bankrupt. That's what happened in 2009-2010. It took about 4 years after peak homebuilding, and 2.5 years after peak home prices, and about 12-18 months after the financial crisis started. Real estate tends to lag financial markets by about that time period. But it does happen - eventually markets respond to supply and demand, and firms that try to buck the trend get swept out of the market.
  - tmnvix 4y ago
    > But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money Owners make money leaving properties vacant all the time. In fact, in many markets capital gains have been much more significant than rental income for a long time now.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      In a lot of cities and countries you pay less taxes if your property is considered unsuited for rental or is just an empty plot of land. There is an incredible financial incentive to avoid providing housing as much as possible.
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      Not in a down market. Everybody's a genius in a bull market, where you make money just because your assets went up in value. In a bear market, where your assets go down in value, anyone without cash flow goes bankrupt.
      - cudgy 4y ago
        A 13 year old would have made money in real estate over the last 5 years. One could have literally selected a property at random and made money, even one that was trashed.
- jsmith45 4y ago
  Be careful with vacancy numbers. Some sources seem to include houses that should not be considered part of the housing supply. There are people who own vacant houses that they have zero interest in renting, and are not looking to sell. This could be a vacation home for a billionaire that they seldom get around to visiting, but want to have ready for them, and just have staff check in periodically. Renting it when not in use may be uninteresting (have to lock up their belongings, arrange some form of management company, have insurance concerns (if somebody realizes they are renting from a billionaire, they might get "hurt", hoping for a big quick payday) etc.) Similarly there are vacant houses own by speculators that have zero interest in renting out the unit, and are not currently looking to sell, since the market isn't right yet. This is among many other scenarios where vacant does not mean available to rent or purchase (well at least not at anything close to market rates. Some of these people may reconsider if offered way above market rates, but that generally only happens if a property is uniquely valuable to just that one buyer.)
  - 2fast4you 4y ago
    I think all of those cases should be reported as vacancies. Those are shelters going unused, that other people could be using. And I think they're relevant to the current discussion because those unused homes are taking up the extra supply, increasing price
1270018080 4y ago
That's always the answer. For some reason it's makes some people on here angry, but the only long term viable solution to expensive housing is to end NIMBYism and draconian zoning laws. Anything else is a short-term half-measure, including affordable housing, rent controls, etc. If you want to actually solve the housing crisis, you just have to build more housing. It really is that simple.
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  > For some reason it's makes some people on here angry It's because some people here own real estate and don't want to see YIMBY policies that would cause their rental income to fall
- Geonode 4y ago
  Or maybe there's an ideal size for a given area based on geography and maybe many areas are already at that size.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Stop inviting more people then, why do you hog all the jobs and then complain that people are coming to the place with all the jobs?
  - 1270018080 4y ago
    A single family home is never the ideal size for any amount of geography.
    - Geonode 4y ago
      A single family home is the ideal, period. Ideally with ten or more acres. Some people would increase density until we're all living in Blade Runner hoping it would make rents drop.
      - 1270018080 4y ago
        If your goal is for housing to be affordable for the average person, a single family home is never the ideal for any piece of geography. It just comes down to priorities.

josefresco 4y ago

It's a geographically limited space which limits sprawl and there's a lot of density laws and zoning that limit height. Lastly, NIMBYs block and delay affordable housing developments for a variety of reasons: "traffic" "change the character of the neighborhood" etc. Just getting "accessory dwelling" allowances was a battle for each town in the region.

Jasper_ 4y ago

The supply was fine before multi-home owners and property management companies took up most of it and jacked up the prices. Increasing the supply would only increase the wealth of the homeowners, it won't lower prices. Increasing the supply means building new buildings, and that often means building huge lots of five-over-ones, priced as luxury apartments in a growing market. The people building the new supply expect to make a profit, and in a market with growing prices, they aren't selling for less than what they think they can get out of it. We see this in big cities where vacancies are at an all-time high (aka a lot more supply), but prices aren't going down.

tayne 4y ago
I do real estate for a living and this opinion is like a zombie that never dies no matter how many times it is proven wrong. You are putting forward that landlords acted collectively to increase the price of realestate. This is obviously wrong. The price of homes is determined by the market. It doesn’t matter who owns those homes, they are worth what the market says they are. Landlords do not control the market and even if they banded together in a conspiracy to increase the price of homes, they couldn’t because the vast majority of homes are owned by regular people. The high price of housing is caused by a shortage. If you don’t believe me then watch the 60 minutes segment about it. There’s no conspiracy. If there weren’t landlords building new stock it would be even worse. It’s so ironic that the hive mind spits in the face of the only people building new housing; the only people making the problem better.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Nice try. Landlords and homeowners and the finance industry don't control the market... they just form a political bloc that controls zoning and taxes and transportation infrastructure and central finance, and these knobs in turn control the market. For some reason, they always vote for policies that pump their holdings. Can't imagine why. These policies do create problems, though, and it's not only reasonable to attribute the problems back to the people who voted for them, it's unreasonable to do anything else. "It's just the market!" is on par with "Look, a squirrel!" in terms of critical thinking.
  - tayne 4y ago
    Again, landlords aren’t a big enough group or coordinated enough to do anything. There’s no landlord lobby. Homeowners are a different story. It’s them who stop us from building more. But yea, it’s just the market and there’s no conspiracy and landlords are the last people to blame. Your comment on my cognitive abilities is a petty insult and is not allowed on this platform.
    - satokema 4y ago
      "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge." The landlords don't need to conspire - they know what's good for them and the politicians either own property themselves or are connected enough to landlords to help them out. None of these parties have an immediate interest in the lower class affording housing or maintaining the community fabric in the long term - especially the faceless incorporated ones.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      Blackrock doesn’t have any lobbyists? Apartment consortiums don’t have lobbyists?
      - imtringued 4y ago
        Homeowners outnumber them and local politicians listen to them more than to some far away group of people in NYC. Really it is quite simple, homeowners vote in tax cuts for themselves which also apply to landlords.
908B64B197 4y ago
> We see this in big cities where vacancies are at an all-time high (aka a lot more supply), but prices aren't going down. Where?
nostrademons 4y ago
But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money (in taxes, mortgages, maintenance) and not bringing any in, and you can't spend more than you make forever. Rents go down when landlords go bankrupt. That's what happened in 2009-2010. It took about 4 years after peak homebuilding, and 2.5 years after peak home prices, and about 12-18 months after the financial crisis started. Real estate tends to lag financial markets by about that time period. But it does happen - eventually markets respond to supply and demand, and firms that try to buck the trend get swept out of the market.
- tmnvix 4y ago
  > But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money Owners make money leaving properties vacant all the time. In fact, in many markets capital gains have been much more significant than rental income for a long time now.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    In a lot of cities and countries you pay less taxes if your property is considered unsuited for rental or is just an empty plot of land. There is an incredible financial incentive to avoid providing housing as much as possible.
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    Not in a down market. Everybody's a genius in a bull market, where you make money just because your assets went up in value. In a bear market, where your assets go down in value, anyone without cash flow goes bankrupt.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      A 13 year old would have made money in real estate over the last 5 years. One could have literally selected a property at random and made money, even one that was trashed.
jsmith45 4y ago
Be careful with vacancy numbers. Some sources seem to include houses that should not be considered part of the housing supply. There are people who own vacant houses that they have zero interest in renting, and are not looking to sell. This could be a vacation home for a billionaire that they seldom get around to visiting, but want to have ready for them, and just have staff check in periodically. Renting it when not in use may be uninteresting (have to lock up their belongings, arrange some form of management company, have insurance concerns (if somebody realizes they are renting from a billionaire, they might get "hurt", hoping for a big quick payday) etc.) Similarly there are vacant houses own by speculators that have zero interest in renting out the unit, and are not currently looking to sell, since the market isn't right yet. This is among many other scenarios where vacant does not mean available to rent or purchase (well at least not at anything close to market rates. Some of these people may reconsider if offered way above market rates, but that generally only happens if a property is uniquely valuable to just that one buyer.)
- 2fast4you 4y ago
  I think all of those cases should be reported as vacancies. Those are shelters going unused, that other people could be using. And I think they're relevant to the current discussion because those unused homes are taking up the extra supply, increasing price

1270018080 4y ago

That's always the answer. For some reason it's makes some people on here angry, but the only long term viable solution to expensive housing is to end NIMBYism and draconian zoning laws. Anything else is a short-term half-measure, including affordable housing, rent controls, etc. If you want to actually solve the housing crisis, you just have to build more housing. It really is that simple.

lalaland1125 4y ago
> For some reason it's makes some people on here angry It's because some people here own real estate and don't want to see YIMBY policies that would cause their rental income to fall
Geonode 4y ago
Or maybe there's an ideal size for a given area based on geography and maybe many areas are already at that size.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Stop inviting more people then, why do you hog all the jobs and then complain that people are coming to the place with all the jobs?
- 1270018080 4y ago
  A single family home is never the ideal size for any amount of geography.
  - Geonode 4y ago
    A single family home is the ideal, period. Ideally with ten or more acres. Some people would increase density until we're all living in Blade Runner hoping it would make rents drop.
    - 1270018080 4y ago
      If your goal is for housing to be affordable for the average person, a single family home is never the ideal for any piece of geography. It just comes down to priorities.