6 ms·

It's practically impossible for US society to get out of treating housing as an investment. Americans believe in home ownership as evidence of prudence (hard wo

by pradn 4y ago

It's practically impossible for US society to get out of treating housing as an investment. Americans believe in home ownership as evidence of prudence (hard work + savings), acumen (housing always goes up so it's smart to buy a house!), and sense of security and achievement. These ideas aren't going to change any time soon. That's the ideological component. Home-owners also protect their investments because they're a very large group (including practically every politician) and constitute the donor class. It's currently hard to take small steps toward stabilizing housing prices and reducing homelessness. Housing is easy to talk about, just like inequality. But it's hard to see evidence of much political will to solve these problems. It will take a lot more housing inaccessibility, especially if it hits the currently affluent class.

davidw 4y ago
> But it's hard to see evidence of much political will to solve these problems. Disagree. The YIMBY movement is picking up steam in a big way. Here in Oregon, we re-legalized 4-plexes in our cities and the woman responsible, Tina Kotek, is now our governor. She's pushing another big housing bill. Our mayor in the city I live in regularly attends our YIMBY group meetups. It's gotten bad enough in enough places that there's a lot of interest in reform. Some good groups to check out: * https://yimbyaction.org/ https://yimbyaction.org/ * https://welcomingneighbors.us/ https://welcomingneighbors.us/
- nacho2sweet 4y ago
  I mean good luck but the YIMBY movement is a very pro investor movement. Decrepit old SFH selling for $1.6 million turned into a 4 plex here in Vancouver would see each unit in the 4 plex selling for $1.4+ million (maybe $1.1 for the basement suite). Friend bought in a converted old place 780 sqft attic suite $940k. It doesn't really make stuff affordable. It was sold here as "the missing middle" and they basically dragged a mouse over huge washes of neighbourhoods like SimCity and said you could do 5 unit conversions. Fixer-upper SFH become gut out conversion SFH and are priced based on the investment of the 5plex conversion and what those can be sold for.
  - davidw 4y ago
    Just because someplace is so deep in the housing debt hole doesn't mean the approach isn't a good one. Making more of something when you have a shortage is the way to fix it. 4 nice, brand new 1.4 million dollar homes is 1) more housing and 2) cheaper than a decrepit 1.6 million dollar home. It sounds like progress even if it hasn't fixed all the problems. Sounds like they need to just keep going down that path of legalizing housing. Where I lived in Italy, it was pretty normal to have 6/8/10 home buildings, and that was in a town of maybe 200K without any serious geographic constraints. BTW, nothing saying you can't also do some things to directly help people who can't afford a million dollar home. Subsidized housing is good too - just that it's tough to create enough of it, so we need to fix the broken market too.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    When you're ten feet deep in a hole you don't see out of it by climbing up one foot.
  - matchbok 4y ago
    Last time I checked 1.4 is less than 1.6 champ. The balance between those "evil investors" and affordable housing needs is not zero sum, no matter what people on twitter tell you.
  - spiznnx 4y ago
    New homes are going to be built at market prices. The market prices are high, but the new homes will push them down. A few years ago, $800k homes were consistently opposed on the basis that they aren't affordable to anyone, so not many were built. Now because so few were built, houses cost $1.6M. Will we repeat the same mistake, and oppose $1.4M homes on the basis that they aren't affordable? In 10 years we might be having the same discussion about $3M homes.
- pradn 4y ago
  That's great to see! I haven't been aware of this news. I do hope it doesn't become one more of those red state vs blue state ideological lines. "Come to Texas, we won't build a condo complex next to your American Dreams-style picket fence."
spaniard89277 4y ago
[flagged]
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Not sure that's a wise thing to suggest. Both in terms of what you can say on a public forum and in terms of whether it would actually be useful.
- davidw 4y ago
  Before you go smashing things, you could do some of the basics like electing pro-housing people, show up at public hearings to say 'yes!' to housing, write letters to the editor and all that kind of thing. It's pretty effective.
  - majani 4y ago
    This is one of those areas where the "proper channels" are heavily compromised though
    - davidw 4y ago
      I've been having success with these things locally. We don't always win, but we have made a lot of progress.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  That sounds extreme. Rates go up, go down, but it does not seem quite as dire as online rhetoric would have you believe [0]. Certainly we can try to encourage the trends to head back up, but violence won't accomplish that. [0] https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf
- mulmen 4y ago
  Calls to violence are unacceptable. This is irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric. Society is not so broken as to justify violent revolution. This will not make any living person's life better. Participate in your local government. If you must, move somewhere with laws that better align with your values, or where you have a better chance of driving the change you want to see. Violence is not the answer.
nerdponx 4y ago
I am optimistic that if we can at least stop prices from increasing faster than growth in real wages, at least the rest of the economy can eventually catch up. > It will take a lot more housing inaccessibility, especially if it hits the currently affluent class. This is already happening. The millennial children of the youngest upper-middle-class Baby Boomers are bordering on being unable to afford the kinds of houses that they grew up in, at the same ages as their parents, without significant intergenerational financial assistance that their parents did not need or have access to.
owenmarshall 4y ago
I'd agree, it's a structural problem. The mortgage interest deduction is my favorite example. It is a hugely regressive tax break which has been targeted across the political spectrum. Seriously, when was the last time you can remember the Cato Institute agreeing with Barack Obama on tax policy? But I can't see how it ever goes away: it would definitely increase taxes on voters, so what politician signs up for it? It'll probably turn into a culture war third rail like SALT deductions first.
- pradn 4y ago
  The SALT tax cap in the Trump-era tax reform was both progressive (less state subsidies for property taxes on high-value homes), and hit Democratic-leaning states harder (since they tend to have higher home prices). So movement toward a less regressive taxing regime. But I don't expect an across-the-board reduction in the mortgage interest deduction. The same ideological components to home ownership are at play. And construction is a very large employer as well.
grecy 4y ago
> It's practically impossible for US society to get out of treating housing as an investment All the reasons you listed are valid and true, but I don't think that changes anything. Yes, individuals see housing as a sign of success, and security and happiness. That's great. Companies should not be allowed to invest in housing, only individuals. Everything after the 1st home should be heavily, heavily taxed to seriously impact owning multiple homes to the point it makes no sense. If a person wants to invest in real estate, there is plenty of commercial real estate for that purpose. Leave houses for people that need a place to live.
gautamdivgi 4y ago
School districts are connected to housing. As long as schools are “locally funded”, you will always have a rush for houses in the better schools. The problem with housing is lack of public transport as well. You could get houses farther away from the city. But the lack it public transport makes commutes terrible. If you want a great school district things get really pricey. But if you’re single or don’t have kids I’m not sure if you want to pay the taxes. More than anything if we need to improve housing I would focus on public transport more than anything else.
- pradn 4y ago
  School districts being connected to housing, and therefore to class, is one of the other features of America that seem permanent. Schools have become more segregated since an integration peak in the 70s. This issue too, has deep ideological roots: the right of parents to provide for their children, to raise them the way they wish. We're the only major country that does this.
majani 4y ago
Also, aesthetically, you have to admit, most YIMBY cities are ugly AF compared to NIMBY cities. Aesthetics are very important to human beings; people love pretty things.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  I don't admit. I think high density cities look much nicer than suburbia.
  - majani 4y ago
    Maybe some look good in high density cities in select areas of Europe which are helped by well preserved ancient architecture, but that's not replicable elsewhere. Go to more modern, large, genuine YIMBY cities where anything goes like Tokyo and Lagos and they are quite an eyesore
    - filleduchaos 4y ago
      I don't think anybody has ever described Lagos as a "YIMBY city" with a straight face. the imposition of an American context doesn't even make any sense in the first place, considering how differently land and land ownership works in Nigeria.
  - pradn 4y ago
    It really depends on urban density. I'm only familiar with big cities in the USA. There's few new buildings in the West Village in Manhattan, with beautiful red-brick townhomes that fetch multi-millions. And new ones tend to adhere to some of the features of existing buildings. On the other hand, Seattle has some exquisite old homes with stunning curb appeal - and a whole lot of plain old looking buildings that were probably the cheaply made ones in the 1950s. So age is only one factor. The new construction in SLU or the UDistrict in Seattle or Williamsburg in NYC is all cookie-cutter boxy panels - not particularly pleasing to most I think. I can't think of new parts of any town I've been to in the US I've loved. Happy to hear if anyone has any though! Most would agree Berlin isn't as pretty as Cologne.
- 4y ago

by pradn 4y ago

davidw 4y ago

> But it's hard to see evidence of much political will to solve these problems. Disagree. The YIMBY movement is picking up steam in a big way. Here in Oregon, we re-legalized 4-plexes in our cities and the woman responsible, Tina Kotek, is now our governor. She's pushing another big housing bill. Our mayor in the city I live in regularly attends our YIMBY group meetups. It's gotten bad enough in enough places that there's a lot of interest in reform. Some good groups to check out: * https://yimbyaction.org/ https://yimbyaction.org/ * https://welcomingneighbors.us/ https://welcomingneighbors.us/

nacho2sweet 4y ago
I mean good luck but the YIMBY movement is a very pro investor movement. Decrepit old SFH selling for $1.6 million turned into a 4 plex here in Vancouver would see each unit in the 4 plex selling for $1.4+ million (maybe $1.1 for the basement suite). Friend bought in a converted old place 780 sqft attic suite $940k. It doesn't really make stuff affordable. It was sold here as "the missing middle" and they basically dragged a mouse over huge washes of neighbourhoods like SimCity and said you could do 5 unit conversions. Fixer-upper SFH become gut out conversion SFH and are priced based on the investment of the 5plex conversion and what those can be sold for.
- davidw 4y ago
  Just because someplace is so deep in the housing debt hole doesn't mean the approach isn't a good one. Making more of something when you have a shortage is the way to fix it. 4 nice, brand new 1.4 million dollar homes is 1) more housing and 2) cheaper than a decrepit 1.6 million dollar home. It sounds like progress even if it hasn't fixed all the problems. Sounds like they need to just keep going down that path of legalizing housing. Where I lived in Italy, it was pretty normal to have 6/8/10 home buildings, and that was in a town of maybe 200K without any serious geographic constraints. BTW, nothing saying you can't also do some things to directly help people who can't afford a million dollar home. Subsidized housing is good too - just that it's tough to create enough of it, so we need to fix the broken market too.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  When you're ten feet deep in a hole you don't see out of it by climbing up one foot.
- matchbok 4y ago
  Last time I checked 1.4 is less than 1.6 champ. The balance between those "evil investors" and affordable housing needs is not zero sum, no matter what people on twitter tell you.
- spiznnx 4y ago
  New homes are going to be built at market prices. The market prices are high, but the new homes will push them down. A few years ago, $800k homes were consistently opposed on the basis that they aren't affordable to anyone, so not many were built. Now because so few were built, houses cost $1.6M. Will we repeat the same mistake, and oppose $1.4M homes on the basis that they aren't affordable? In 10 years we might be having the same discussion about $3M homes.
pradn 4y ago
That's great to see! I haven't been aware of this news. I do hope it doesn't become one more of those red state vs blue state ideological lines. "Come to Texas, we won't build a condo complex next to your American Dreams-style picket fence."

spaniard89277 4y ago

[flagged]

lordnacho 4y ago
Not sure that's a wise thing to suggest. Both in terms of what you can say on a public forum and in terms of whether it would actually be useful.
davidw 4y ago
Before you go smashing things, you could do some of the basics like electing pro-housing people, show up at public hearings to say 'yes!' to housing, write letters to the editor and all that kind of thing. It's pretty effective.
- majani 4y ago
  This is one of those areas where the "proper channels" are heavily compromised though
  - davidw 4y ago
    I've been having success with these things locally. We don't always win, but we have made a lot of progress.
rootusrootus 4y ago
That sounds extreme. Rates go up, go down, but it does not seem quite as dire as online rhetoric would have you believe [0]. Certainly we can try to encourage the trends to head back up, but violence won't accomplish that. [0] https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf
mulmen 4y ago
Calls to violence are unacceptable. This is irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric. Society is not so broken as to justify violent revolution. This will not make any living person's life better. Participate in your local government. If you must, move somewhere with laws that better align with your values, or where you have a better chance of driving the change you want to see. Violence is not the answer.

nerdponx 4y ago

I am optimistic that if we can at least stop prices from increasing faster than growth in real wages, at least the rest of the economy can eventually catch up. > It will take a lot more housing inaccessibility, especially if it hits the currently affluent class. This is already happening. The millennial children of the youngest upper-middle-class Baby Boomers are bordering on being unable to afford the kinds of houses that they grew up in, at the same ages as their parents, without significant intergenerational financial assistance that their parents did not need or have access to.

owenmarshall 4y ago

I'd agree, it's a structural problem. The mortgage interest deduction is my favorite example. It is a hugely regressive tax break which has been targeted across the political spectrum. Seriously, when was the last time you can remember the Cato Institute agreeing with Barack Obama on tax policy? But I can't see how it ever goes away: it would definitely increase taxes on voters, so what politician signs up for it? It'll probably turn into a culture war third rail like SALT deductions first.

pradn 4y ago
The SALT tax cap in the Trump-era tax reform was both progressive (less state subsidies for property taxes on high-value homes), and hit Democratic-leaning states harder (since they tend to have higher home prices). So movement toward a less regressive taxing regime. But I don't expect an across-the-board reduction in the mortgage interest deduction. The same ideological components to home ownership are at play. And construction is a very large employer as well.

grecy 4y ago

> It's practically impossible for US society to get out of treating housing as an investment All the reasons you listed are valid and true, but I don't think that changes anything. Yes, individuals see housing as a sign of success, and security and happiness. That's great. Companies should not be allowed to invest in housing, only individuals. Everything after the 1st home should be heavily, heavily taxed to seriously impact owning multiple homes to the point it makes no sense. If a person wants to invest in real estate, there is plenty of commercial real estate for that purpose. Leave houses for people that need a place to live.

gautamdivgi 4y ago

School districts are connected to housing. As long as schools are “locally funded”, you will always have a rush for houses in the better schools. The problem with housing is lack of public transport as well. You could get houses farther away from the city. But the lack it public transport makes commutes terrible. If you want a great school district things get really pricey. But if you’re single or don’t have kids I’m not sure if you want to pay the taxes. More than anything if we need to improve housing I would focus on public transport more than anything else.

pradn 4y ago
School districts being connected to housing, and therefore to class, is one of the other features of America that seem permanent. Schools have become more segregated since an integration peak in the 70s. This issue too, has deep ideological roots: the right of parents to provide for their children, to raise them the way they wish. We're the only major country that does this.

majani 4y ago

Also, aesthetically, you have to admit, most YIMBY cities are ugly AF compared to NIMBY cities. Aesthetics are very important to human beings; people love pretty things.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
I don't admit. I think high density cities look much nicer than suburbia.
- majani 4y ago
  Maybe some look good in high density cities in select areas of Europe which are helped by well preserved ancient architecture, but that's not replicable elsewhere. Go to more modern, large, genuine YIMBY cities where anything goes like Tokyo and Lagos and they are quite an eyesore
  - filleduchaos 4y ago
    I don't think anybody has ever described Lagos as a "YIMBY city" with a straight face. the imposition of an American context doesn't even make any sense in the first place, considering how differently land and land ownership works in Nigeria.
- pradn 4y ago
  It really depends on urban density. I'm only familiar with big cities in the USA. There's few new buildings in the West Village in Manhattan, with beautiful red-brick townhomes that fetch multi-millions. And new ones tend to adhere to some of the features of existing buildings. On the other hand, Seattle has some exquisite old homes with stunning curb appeal - and a whole lot of plain old looking buildings that were probably the cheaply made ones in the 1950s. So age is only one factor. The new construction in SLU or the UDistrict in Seattle or Williamsburg in NYC is all cookie-cutter boxy panels - not particularly pleasing to most I think. I can't think of new parts of any town I've been to in the US I've loved. Happy to hear if anyone has any though! Most would agree Berlin isn't as pretty as Cologne.
4y ago