3 ms·

Let me summarize all the problems here: 1. In most of the US it is quite literally illegal to build anything other than single-family homes ("SFHs"). This is a

by jmyeet 4y ago

Let me summarize all the problems here: 1. In most of the US it is quite literally illegal to build anything other than single-family homes ("SFHs"). This is a form of NIMBYism and reduces housing supply; 2. Part of (1) is that absolute necessity of car ownership in the US. This is by design to keep the riffraff (ie poor people) out; 3. We need robust public transit infrastructure to give people the option of living somewhere where they don't need a car to survive; 4. Pretty much anywhere you can build SFHs, you should be able to build multi-family dwellings ("MFDs"). Homeowners that own an extra unit or two on the same site as where they live is about the most ethical form of supply private rentals; 5. More states need to follow California's model of blocking a lot of NIMBYism at the state level. This requires towns to have an housing plan for affordable housing; 6. Ultra-luxury housing needs to be taxed punitively; 7. Cities and states need to be in the business in providing social housing as a significant supplier of housing. Americans in particularly have a kneejerk reaction against this as "socialism" or it'll be propagandized as slum housing. Vienna is about 60% social housing. Use that as a model; 8. Certain classes of housing should be illegal for corporations to buy. I'm fine with a corporation owning and running an apartment building with 200+ units with a management office onsite where they handle all the maintenance. I'm not OK with corporations constricting supply by buying up all the SFHs in a state. 9. We need to remove a lot of the tax benefits for investment property ownership (eg 1031 exchanges); 10. We need to remove a lot of beneficial tax treatment for home ownership period (eg Prop 13 in California caps property tax increases, inheriting property on a stepped up basis for CGT purposes); 11. AirBnB for anything other than a room in your house or a unit on your property (so you too have to live with the consequences) should be illegal. This isn't a demand side problem. It's a supply side problem but we also need to restrict certain types of demand (eg REITs buying residential housing en masse).

nineplay 4y ago
> Homeowners that own an extra unit or two on the same site as where they live is about the most ethical form of supply private rentals I'd never build or buy a MFD at least partly because I don't trust that the current vilification of landlords wouldn't eventually expand to MFD owners. MFD owners will still raise rents, they will still evict, they will still have disputes with tenants over maintenance and common-area rules. The righteous anger will still bubble up. Only an idiot would risk it.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  That's fine if you don't want to do that. Really. A lot of people (and, to be clear, I'm not saying you specifically here) fall into the trap when seeing things like this and they feel like it'll be forced on them like someone will come along and just build a second house on their hand and say "congrats, you're a landlord now". But plenty of people will do that. They will want the extra income. The problem is currently that's literally illegal in most of the US. As for evictions, these vary state by state but evictions are only really a huge problem with housing supply is so restricted. Yes there are some bad actors. But a lot of times eviction means homelessness for some people. I'd personally be OK with making it relatively easy to evict someone who is living on your property (as opposed to say living in an apartment building). But a very real problem with treating real estate as an investment is the owner profits by forcing negative externalities on their neighbours without having to suffer through them themselves (eg AirBnB). We need to clamp down on that.

by jmyeet 4y ago

nineplay 4y ago

> Homeowners that own an extra unit or two on the same site as where they live is about the most ethical form of supply private rentals I'd never build or buy a MFD at least partly because I don't trust that the current vilification of landlords wouldn't eventually expand to MFD owners. MFD owners will still raise rents, they will still evict, they will still have disputes with tenants over maintenance and common-area rules. The righteous anger will still bubble up. Only an idiot would risk it.

jmyeet 4y ago
That's fine if you don't want to do that. Really. A lot of people (and, to be clear, I'm not saying you specifically here) fall into the trap when seeing things like this and they feel like it'll be forced on them like someone will come along and just build a second house on their hand and say "congrats, you're a landlord now". But plenty of people will do that. They will want the extra income. The problem is currently that's literally illegal in most of the US. As for evictions, these vary state by state but evictions are only really a huge problem with housing supply is so restricted. Yes there are some bad actors. But a lot of times eviction means homelessness for some people. I'd personally be OK with making it relatively easy to evict someone who is living on your property (as opposed to say living in an apartment building). But a very real problem with treating real estate as an investment is the owner profits by forcing negative externalities on their neighbours without having to suffer through them themselves (eg AirBnB). We need to clamp down on that.