4 ms·

One thing we always collectively fail at addressing is how to classify housing in a special category of goods, where simple free-market rules don't apply. Thing

by mihaic 4y ago

One thing we always collectively fail at addressing is how to classify housing in a special category of goods, where simple free-market rules don't apply. Things like rent-control are in this direction, yet we never articulate what the goals are and the compromises we're willing to make. Allowing the next generations a good start in life means that everyone that wanted houses to be a great investment need to take a loss, there's simply no way around this and we should collectively accept this. I'd also be for completely different taxation levels depending on if this is your first, second or third home (properly handling even if first buying before selling within x months, so you only have a single home), if you're a company, if you're a foreign citizen that merely wants to snatch some random safe property. Some problems really need a complex, evolving and carefully weighed solution, and housing really has been shamefully abused so that the haves screw other the not-yet-haves.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Taking a bath on a home sale isn't the only solution. Make it easier for people to build houses. The majority of old houses were built by the first owner. They bought land and built a house the way they wanted not following thousands of regulations dictating how a home must be built. If you build a shitty house, well, good luck selling it. If it falls down thats your own damn fault. All of the ways we have learned over time that houses can be built better should just be shared knowledge and recommendations for somebody wanting to build a house. Every requirement a builder must follow means it costs more to build and less people are capable of following all the rules. Where I live if you build something that doesn't follow code you get fined for every infraction. That's a disincentive for people to build. Remove costly regulations and you get more houses.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  > Taking a bath on a home sale isn't the only solution. Make it easier for people to build houses. The majority of old houses were built by the first owner. They bought land and built a house the way they wanted not following thousands of regulations dictating how a home must be built. If you build a shitty house, well, good luck selling it. If it falls down thats your own damn fault. All of the ways we have learned over time that houses can be built better should just be shared knowledge and recommendations for somebody wanting to build a house. Every requirement a builder must follow means it costs more to build and less people are capable of following all the rules. Where I live if you build something that doesn't follow code you get fined for every infraction. That's a disincentive for people to build. > Remove costly regulations and you get more houses. There's a YouTube channel.. our little homestead I think is the name. They built separate studio apartments for each of their kids on the same lot. They used earth bags and the costs for one was 5k, the other 8k and they're pretty amazing for being something sturdy and safe to live in, and being made of dirt and mud I think they're probably fire proof too. This is what I want to do. I'd also like to help other's do that through a collective or something where everyone builds their own home and helps others build theirs.
- d3ad1ysp0rk 4y ago
  If you know anything about building a house you'll know that; 1) not everything shitty is visible, and 2) not everything shitty can be understood by homeowners, otherwise we'd need no codes/minimums (we'd all be perfect architects/building scientists/craftspeople). I could get behind removing almost all zoning, but code is just sensible.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    Code is an accumulation of things we have learned to make a house last longer and be generally safer. That doesn't mean a house that isn't built to code is less effective as a house. Infact most houses older that 20 years old will no longer be up to the current code. I have built a house. If somebody is building a house for their self they will make it as safe and sturdy as they are able. Somebody building a house to sell will cut cost wherever possible to make more profit. I would be fine if building code was administered more like Underwriters Laboratory. Let people build however they want but give the option to certify it is up to the code at the time it was built. Not all homes would be certified but there would be more homes. Over the long run the majority of homes would be certified due to the higher value certification would carry. Penalizing undesired behavior is much less effective than incentiving the desired behavior.

by mihaic 4y ago

tastyfreeze 4y ago

Taking a bath on a home sale isn't the only solution. Make it easier for people to build houses. The majority of old houses were built by the first owner. They bought land and built a house the way they wanted not following thousands of regulations dictating how a home must be built. If you build a shitty house, well, good luck selling it. If it falls down thats your own damn fault. All of the ways we have learned over time that houses can be built better should just be shared knowledge and recommendations for somebody wanting to build a house. Every requirement a builder must follow means it costs more to build and less people are capable of following all the rules. Where I live if you build something that doesn't follow code you get fined for every infraction. That's a disincentive for people to build. Remove costly regulations and you get more houses.

gremlinsinc 4y ago
> Taking a bath on a home sale isn't the only solution. Make it easier for people to build houses. The majority of old houses were built by the first owner. They bought land and built a house the way they wanted not following thousands of regulations dictating how a home must be built. If you build a shitty house, well, good luck selling it. If it falls down thats your own damn fault. All of the ways we have learned over time that houses can be built better should just be shared knowledge and recommendations for somebody wanting to build a house. Every requirement a builder must follow means it costs more to build and less people are capable of following all the rules. Where I live if you build something that doesn't follow code you get fined for every infraction. That's a disincentive for people to build. > Remove costly regulations and you get more houses. There's a YouTube channel.. our little homestead I think is the name. They built separate studio apartments for each of their kids on the same lot. They used earth bags and the costs for one was 5k, the other 8k and they're pretty amazing for being something sturdy and safe to live in, and being made of dirt and mud I think they're probably fire proof too. This is what I want to do. I'd also like to help other's do that through a collective or something where everyone builds their own home and helps others build theirs.
d3ad1ysp0rk 4y ago
If you know anything about building a house you'll know that; 1) not everything shitty is visible, and 2) not everything shitty can be understood by homeowners, otherwise we'd need no codes/minimums (we'd all be perfect architects/building scientists/craftspeople). I could get behind removing almost all zoning, but code is just sensible.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Code is an accumulation of things we have learned to make a house last longer and be generally safer. That doesn't mean a house that isn't built to code is less effective as a house. Infact most houses older that 20 years old will no longer be up to the current code. I have built a house. If somebody is building a house for their self they will make it as safe and sturdy as they are able. Somebody building a house to sell will cut cost wherever possible to make more profit. I would be fine if building code was administered more like Underwriters Laboratory. Let people build however they want but give the option to certify it is up to the code at the time it was built. Not all homes would be certified but there would be more homes. Over the long run the majority of homes would be certified due to the higher value certification would carry. Penalizing undesired behavior is much less effective than incentiving the desired behavior.