7 ms·

> You only need one house to live in. Many people do not want to own a home, they would rather rent. Someone has to be the landlord for all those people, and t

by pdonis 4y ago

> You only need one house to live in. Many people do not want to own a home, they would rather rent. Someone has to be the landlord for all those people, and to all those someones, the home is an investment. You can only get rid of homes as investments if you get rid of renting.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
This line of reasoning is flawed. The government can build housing so that people have places to rent, in a way that isn’t “an investment” in the profit-seeking sense. That’s what they do in Vienna and it seems to work great. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl... And then in Singapore they have very high home ownership rates, so we could also be dramatically reducing the number of people who actually need to rent, reducing the need for private investment: https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/p...
- dionidium 4y ago
  I rented (by choice) for many years. I never once thought, "I wish the government were my landlord." The arrangement actually works pretty great just how it is. I was very happy to write that rent check every month and always felt like I got a good deal for my money, even when I lived in a very expensive market (NYC). In every case, I desired something that was very important to me and for which there's a lot of demand. I was happy, therefore, to pay for it.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    That the fact has not occurred to you personally does not mean such an arrangement in aggregate would not help solve the problem of housing as a profitable investment. Maybe you didn't think of this on your own accord, but I bet you WOULD have appreciated if the same unit was cheaper, and this would be the case if 50% of the housing in your market was public housing as is the case in Vienna, even if your unit was privately owned. Plus your single example of being satisfied with your landlord is not evidence that we should accept landlords across the board. My own landlord sucks at repairing things that need repair, and I find it very frustrating.
    - cgdub 4y ago
      There is public housing in NYC, and I can assure you that your landlord is better than NYCHA.
      - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
        The article I shared in my first comment in this chain addresses problems in NYC and compares that to Vienna and Singapore, which are much better. So please take a look if you would like to learn about alternatives. https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/p...
        dionidium 4y ago
        I actually know already about Vienna and Singapore. I have zero confidence we can copy that model here. Every time we've tried to do public housing it's been a disaster. At some point it's just who we are. If I keep striking out, it's no use to tell me to look to Mike Trout for an example of what's possible. I'm not Mike Trout. I will never be Mike Trout. I will never achieve what Mike Trout has achieved. If we're talking about my batting average, then Mike Trout's success is irrelevant. I need an approach at the plate that accounts for my skills and limitations.
- carom 4y ago
  Private parties can build housing too, if you let them.
dont__panic 4y ago
> Many people do not want to own a home I hate to go all "citation needed" on you, but I'm not sure this is true. Do I want to pay for upkeep of a property? Probably not. But since renting is basically equivalent to burning money in our economy, any responsible renter will eventually feel a pull towards ownership if only to stop the bleeding. I think we need a society where renting isn't so expensive AND owning a property isn't so heavily subsidized by tax breaks. The entire housing market is a massive bubble because of investors and speculation. At some point, that bubble prices people out, leading to homelessness and missed opportunities because people aren't willing or able to move. Much like freedom of car-free movement, housing ought to be a fundamental human right. Not a business or a place to hide your money.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > I hate to go all "citation needed" on you, but I'm not sure this is true. Given the number of people that rent in large cities all over the world for their entire lives, I don't know why you would find my claim doubtful. Many people seem to want to live in large, densely populated areas, and for most people that is always going to mean renting. > Much like freedom of car-free movement, housing ought to be a fundamental human right I disagree with this as a blanket statement; neither car-free movement nor housing as a basic right will ever work in areas that are not densely populated. And many people (including me) want to live in areas that are not densely populated. We are quite willing to pay the costs of doing that and don't need handouts. However, in densely populated areas, I think many people would agree with your statement--but I think they would also say that "housing as a human right", for them, means availability of affordable rentals, not home ownership.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    > Given the number of people that rent in large cities all over the world for their entire lives, I don't know why you would find my claim doubtful. How many could afford to buy though?
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    > Many people seem to want to live in large, densely populated areas, and for most people that is always going to mean renting. The "for most people that is always going to mean renting" is that part that we could change through large scale collective policy. That's what Singapore has done for example. No one doubts whether people want to live in cities. We are asking whether the model of private landlords is the best way to manage large quantities of housing in cites. Look at Singapore: "Eighty-two percent of Singapore’s residents live in HDB-built (Housing Development Board) apartments, of which there are more than 900,000. In contrast to both New York and Vienna, HDB encourages public housing residents to purchase their apartments. Nine out of ten HDB residents own their homes. The 50,000 rental units are, according to the HDB website, 'for the truly needy who have no other viable housing options.'" [1] So yes, people want to live in dense cities. It does NOT automatically follow that they will have to rent. This is a policy choice. [1] https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/p...
thomastjeffery 4y ago
And why do people prefer renting to ownership? Because it's cheaper? Because the home buying process is too difficult? Owning a home, even if its value is deprecating, is fundamentally still more attractive than renting. You get to recoup at least some of your investment, and you don't have property management invading your personal life. Most people simply can't afford to buy homes in the first place.
- tutorialmanager 4y ago
  I think many people enjoy the short term benefits of renting (spend money instead of saving for down payment) and undervalue the long term benefits of owning (lower housing cost when retired).
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    I'm sure many prefer it, but many also require it. Bundling the two groups is disingenuous. Making ownership more accessible would attract a lot of prospective buyers, and getting rid of the landlord role and land investment would likely have that effect.

by pdonis 4y ago

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

This line of reasoning is flawed. The government can build housing so that people have places to rent, in a way that isn’t “an investment” in the profit-seeking sense. That’s what they do in Vienna and it seems to work great. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl... And then in Singapore they have very high home ownership rates, so we could also be dramatically reducing the number of people who actually need to rent, reducing the need for private investment: https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/p...

dionidium 4y ago
I rented (by choice) for many years. I never once thought, "I wish the government were my landlord." The arrangement actually works pretty great just how it is. I was very happy to write that rent check every month and always felt like I got a good deal for my money, even when I lived in a very expensive market (NYC). In every case, I desired something that was very important to me and for which there's a lot of demand. I was happy, therefore, to pay for it.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  That the fact has not occurred to you personally does not mean such an arrangement in aggregate would not help solve the problem of housing as a profitable investment. Maybe you didn't think of this on your own accord, but I bet you WOULD have appreciated if the same unit was cheaper, and this would be the case if 50% of the housing in your market was public housing as is the case in Vienna, even if your unit was privately owned. Plus your single example of being satisfied with your landlord is not evidence that we should accept landlords across the board. My own landlord sucks at repairing things that need repair, and I find it very frustrating.
  - cgdub 4y ago
    There is public housing in NYC, and I can assure you that your landlord is better than NYCHA.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      The article I shared in my first comment in this chain addresses problems in NYC and compares that to Vienna and Singapore, which are much better. So please take a look if you would like to learn about alternatives. https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/p...
      - dionidium 4y ago
        I actually know already about Vienna and Singapore. I have zero confidence we can copy that model here. Every time we've tried to do public housing it's been a disaster. At some point it's just who we are. If I keep striking out, it's no use to tell me to look to Mike Trout for an example of what's possible. I'm not Mike Trout. I will never be Mike Trout. I will never achieve what Mike Trout has achieved. If we're talking about my batting average, then Mike Trout's success is irrelevant. I need an approach at the plate that accounts for my skills and limitations.
carom 4y ago
Private parties can build housing too, if you let them.

dont__panic 4y ago

> Many people do not want to own a home I hate to go all "citation needed" on you, but I'm not sure this is true. Do I want to pay for upkeep of a property? Probably not. But since renting is basically equivalent to burning money in our economy, any responsible renter will eventually feel a pull towards ownership if only to stop the bleeding. I think we need a society where renting isn't so expensive AND owning a property isn't so heavily subsidized by tax breaks. The entire housing market is a massive bubble because of investors and speculation. At some point, that bubble prices people out, leading to homelessness and missed opportunities because people aren't willing or able to move. Much like freedom of car-free movement, housing ought to be a fundamental human right. Not a business or a place to hide your money.

pdonis 4y ago
> I hate to go all "citation needed" on you, but I'm not sure this is true. Given the number of people that rent in large cities all over the world for their entire lives, I don't know why you would find my claim doubtful. Many people seem to want to live in large, densely populated areas, and for most people that is always going to mean renting. > Much like freedom of car-free movement, housing ought to be a fundamental human right I disagree with this as a blanket statement; neither car-free movement nor housing as a basic right will ever work in areas that are not densely populated. And many people (including me) want to live in areas that are not densely populated. We are quite willing to pay the costs of doing that and don't need handouts. However, in densely populated areas, I think many people would agree with your statement--but I think they would also say that "housing as a human right", for them, means availability of affordable rentals, not home ownership.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > Given the number of people that rent in large cities all over the world for their entire lives, I don't know why you would find my claim doubtful. How many could afford to buy though?
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  > Many people seem to want to live in large, densely populated areas, and for most people that is always going to mean renting. The "for most people that is always going to mean renting" is that part that we could change through large scale collective policy. That's what Singapore has done for example. No one doubts whether people want to live in cities. We are asking whether the model of private landlords is the best way to manage large quantities of housing in cites. Look at Singapore: "Eighty-two percent of Singapore’s residents live in HDB-built (Housing Development Board) apartments, of which there are more than 900,000. In contrast to both New York and Vienna, HDB encourages public housing residents to purchase their apartments. Nine out of ten HDB residents own their homes. The 50,000 rental units are, according to the HDB website, 'for the truly needy who have no other viable housing options.'" [1] So yes, people want to live in dense cities. It does NOT automatically follow that they will have to rent. This is a policy choice. [1] https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore https://charterforcompassion.org/shareable-community-ideas/p...

thomastjeffery 4y ago

And why do people prefer renting to ownership? Because it's cheaper? Because the home buying process is too difficult? Owning a home, even if its value is deprecating, is fundamentally still more attractive than renting. You get to recoup at least some of your investment, and you don't have property management invading your personal life. Most people simply can't afford to buy homes in the first place.

tutorialmanager 4y ago
I think many people enjoy the short term benefits of renting (spend money instead of saving for down payment) and undervalue the long term benefits of owning (lower housing cost when retired).
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  I'm sure many prefer it, but many also require it. Bundling the two groups is disingenuous. Making ownership more accessible would attract a lot of prospective buyers, and getting rid of the landlord role and land investment would likely have that effect.