4 ms·

Edit: Let me rephrase to be less strict, and express this as my personal belief rather than an absolute truth. Edit 2: Genuinely appreciate the discussions on

Edit: Let me rephrase to be less strict, and express this as my personal belief rather than an absolute truth. Edit 2: Genuinely appreciate the discussions on this. (Besides the one or two comments that got moderated away) I think many of the responses here are emblematic of what HN can be, where people who disagree can still come together and talk through their different lenses. I believe we need to decommodify housing and provide additional support for tenants, as well as build more housing stock. IME, it's not as simple as 'build more', because the interests and incentives don't align -- adding new housing stock devalues existing stock, so there's pressure to keep the commodity cost high. Some combination of the following would achieve my goal of chipping away at the power of landlords, and reduce the power of landlords over tenants. 1) Build more housing stock 2) Remove single family zoning and allow density (congrats to Washington state for pursuing this) 3) Rent control 4) Guaranteed legal support for tenants 5) Affordable foreclosure insurance 6) Funded community land trusts 7) Social housing, specifically distributed low rise, well maintained 8) Cooperative ownership of apartment buildings 9) Vacancy taxes 10) Good cause eviction laws 11) Stiffer penalties for failure to keep apartments in livable condition 12) Right of first refusal laws (tenant opportunity to purchase) Teachers are not the only ones impacted by this -- all the members of our communities are unable to live in them. My barista, bookshop worker, teacher, and firefighter don't live in my neighborhood. We then need to invest huge effort into getting people in and out of this community.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
abeppu 4y ago
> 8) Cooperative ownership of apartment buildings Functionally, how are these different from condo buildings? Is it about whether the owner is also definitely a resident?
- betaby 4y ago
  They are not that different. Some (all?) Canada provinces and definitely NYC have both types.
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  A co-op ownership of a building typically is not seeking to profit from the tenants in the building. They may charge fees to cover the maintenance and upkeep of the building and sustain their administration. Some condos operate similarly -- everyone buying a condo, with minimal fees paid to the developer to cover the maintenance of the building, with the developer making the bulk of their income from the sale of the units.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. I'm a big proponent of co-ops, for housing and other endeavors, but co-ops can seek to make a profit. Not in the sense of a return to investors or owners, but they may have other objectives in mind. The co-op owned apartment building May seek to purchase an additional building for example, and charge tenants more than the cost of maintenance.
    - EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
      For sure. Hence "typically". In the usual case, the coop is designed to be operated by the tenants, who are not operating it as a profit seeking venture and it's run democratically. It's not impossible that what you say is also true -- I'm sure there are housing coops that are run as you describe.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I guess I'm debating which is more typical. Most coops I know are part of a system with aspirations to expand.
mjevans 4y ago
9) Vacancy taxes: Also high taxes and oversight on properties used as rentals. In specific, a home lived in by the owner for at least 35% of a tax year (or unlivable due to disasters/etc) should be taxed at a low rate, while any OTHER home should be taxed at a much higher rate and inspected as a rental unit, including being kept ahead of minimum rental code (which would be a more stringent baseline than minimum code). 13) new builds expressly purchasable only by first time home buyers
- thfuran 4y ago
  Why 35% and not 55%?
  - mjevans 4y ago
    This allows for 'winter' / 'summer' homes (snowbirds) as well as moving, but is SLIGHTLY larger than 1/3rd which makes it impossible to have more than two homes, while allowing the maximum chronological allowance for moving and the minimum requirement for using such a vacation home or log cabin etc. This is selected to minimize friction from those who vote but don't actually use their properties as rentals.
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  Sounds reasonable to me. I'd maybe use a slightly different designation for primary residence (e.g. you can choose one residence to be your primary residence, which you must occupy for 35% of the year). And I'm sure #13 would run into legal hot water, but heck, if it gets people housed, I'd give it a shot.
burlesona 4y ago
I think many of these ideas are sound but IMO your hostility towards “landlords” is misplaced. This isn’t the right forum to get into all the nuance, but the fact is we have an extremely non-competitive “landlord” and “developer” market, and almost all the perversions that we deal with originate in how much corruption, graft, ring-kissing, and (consequently) capital it takes to build anything. The main issue I disagree with you on: rent control has been shown repeatedly to help existing renters at the expense of all future renters, which increases income inequality, in the long run is a wealth transfer from the young to the old, and lastly disincentivizes property maintenance leading to substandard living conditions. It also decreases economic mobility and incentivizes people who get rent control to do things like not have kids even though they would like to have kids, because they have an amazing deal on a 1bd apartment and needing more space would basically force them to start life over in a far off place. If we had a robust free market for housing, like we do for cars, there would be lots of cheap “used housing” available and landlords would not have pricing power, they would have to make an effort to be a good landlord to have a tenant. You can see this with hotels (in areas where they aren’t over-restricted), where poorly run hotels are driven out of business by well-run hotels, including plenty of low cost hotels.
- dataflow 4y ago
  > rent control has been shown repeatedly to help existing renters at the expense of all future renters, which increases income inequality I'd love a link to some sources showing this.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Basically any paper on rent control. Here's one on berlin's implementation. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4047633 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4047633 People who were already there get a deal, everyone else pays much more.
    - dataflow 4y ago
      Are all forms of rent control like this? Including rent stabilization or whatever else they're called? Because my impression was that at least some forms of it keep the rent low even if the tenant changes, in exchange for lower taxes or such.
blockwriter 4y ago
What is foreclosure insurance?
gruez 4y ago
>3) Rent control hard disagree. it basically ends up being a transfer of wealth from new residents (who have to pay higher rents) to older residents (who have locked in lower rents). >5) Affordable foreclosure insurance What exactly is insured here? >12) Right of first refusal laws (tenant opportunity to purchase) What problem is this intended to solve? If someone is renting, how likely is he going to be able to pony up cash to buy the house that's about to be sold?
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  Good questions! I'll answer in reverse order -- Typically RoFR laws do require tenants to seek financial support from a lender or developer. The tenants front some of the capital, get a loan for some of the capital, and offer some incentive for a developer. This is typically for people whose multi-unit apartment building is being sold, where there's the possibility for the tenants to band together to create a co-op. These programs are also sometimes eligible for government assistance -- essentially helping subsidize communities into owning their own housing. > What exactly is insured here? Typically the lender is protected at the owner's expense. Rates can be quite high, and increase the cost of living, pricing people out of housing. > Rent control You disagree that rent control reduces the power of landlords? Do you think it has a positive effect or no effect for the power of landlords?
joe_the_user 4y ago
Social housing, specifically distributed low rise, well maintained Why "low rise"? High rise is more efficient. High rise has a bad reputation but all the reputation stuff has been pretty coordinated by those who don't want public housing at all. And sure, well maintained. I'm in favor of rent control but with enough dense housing, rent control won't be fighting supply and demand.
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  The reason I prefer low rise (especially in the 3-6 floors range) is because they require less specialized service. Maintaining the systems for a 40 story building requires specialists in hvac, elevators, plumbing, fire suppression, window washing, painting, siding, etc. that are simply less available than the folks who know how to get up on a ladder and just fix it. Low rise also decentralizes services needed to support social housing, and allows local communities to build relationships that are less adversarial with the housing. (Which, imo, might be a uniquely American view that social housing is for the poor only.) So, in the initial rollouts, I think it makes it appear more palatable to American communities. Now, I agree, high rise is more efficient across other axes. And I'd take well maintained high rise social housing over the current status quo. I have preferences here, but I don't believe that high rises are wrong. Just not my preference.
  - orwin 4y ago
    Low-rise is also cheaper, and easier to insulate. I think the sweet spot is 4 floors, but 2 to 5 is okay, and even midrise can be made beautiful. If people are interested in what beautiful midrise social housing look like, check out Le Plessis-Robinson near Paris
human_person 4y ago
I think there is a simpler solution. 1. Land ownership should be an exclusively human right. Any ‘vampire’ entity (such as a corporation) that doesn’t naturally die shouldn’t be able to endlessly accumulate land. 2. The property tax rate should double for each additional property you own.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Regarding Point 2. If I buy an uninhabited plot of land out in the desert or Forest where no one wants it, why should I pay higher taxes?
- EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
  I bought forestland that is uninhabitable and remote. I am restoring it to healthy forest. When I die, I want to ensure that it continues to be forest land. The best way to do that is via a conservation trust. I appreciate your sentiment, but I worry it edges out cases like mine.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

abeppu 4y ago

> 8) Cooperative ownership of apartment buildings Functionally, how are these different from condo buildings? Is it about whether the owner is also definitely a resident?

betaby 4y ago
They are not that different. Some (all?) Canada provinces and definitely NYC have both types.
EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
A co-op ownership of a building typically is not seeking to profit from the tenants in the building. They may charge fees to cover the maintenance and upkeep of the building and sustain their administration. Some condos operate similarly -- everyone buying a condo, with minimal fees paid to the developer to cover the maintenance of the building, with the developer making the bulk of their income from the sale of the units.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. I'm a big proponent of co-ops, for housing and other endeavors, but co-ops can seek to make a profit. Not in the sense of a return to investors or owners, but they may have other objectives in mind. The co-op owned apartment building May seek to purchase an additional building for example, and charge tenants more than the cost of maintenance.
  - EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
    For sure. Hence "typically". In the usual case, the coop is designed to be operated by the tenants, who are not operating it as a profit seeking venture and it's run democratically. It's not impossible that what you say is also true -- I'm sure there are housing coops that are run as you describe.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I guess I'm debating which is more typical. Most coops I know are part of a system with aspirations to expand.

mjevans 4y ago

9) Vacancy taxes: Also high taxes and oversight on properties used as rentals. In specific, a home lived in by the owner for at least 35% of a tax year (or unlivable due to disasters/etc) should be taxed at a low rate, while any OTHER home should be taxed at a much higher rate and inspected as a rental unit, including being kept ahead of minimum rental code (which would be a more stringent baseline than minimum code). 13) new builds expressly purchasable only by first time home buyers

thfuran 4y ago
Why 35% and not 55%?
- mjevans 4y ago
  This allows for 'winter' / 'summer' homes (snowbirds) as well as moving, but is SLIGHTLY larger than 1/3rd which makes it impossible to have more than two homes, while allowing the maximum chronological allowance for moving and the minimum requirement for using such a vacation home or log cabin etc. This is selected to minimize friction from those who vote but don't actually use their properties as rentals.
EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
Sounds reasonable to me. I'd maybe use a slightly different designation for primary residence (e.g. you can choose one residence to be your primary residence, which you must occupy for 35% of the year). And I'm sure #13 would run into legal hot water, but heck, if it gets people housed, I'd give it a shot.

burlesona 4y ago

I think many of these ideas are sound but IMO your hostility towards “landlords” is misplaced. This isn’t the right forum to get into all the nuance, but the fact is we have an extremely non-competitive “landlord” and “developer” market, and almost all the perversions that we deal with originate in how much corruption, graft, ring-kissing, and (consequently) capital it takes to build anything. The main issue I disagree with you on: rent control has been shown repeatedly to help existing renters at the expense of all future renters, which increases income inequality, in the long run is a wealth transfer from the young to the old, and lastly disincentivizes property maintenance leading to substandard living conditions. It also decreases economic mobility and incentivizes people who get rent control to do things like not have kids even though they would like to have kids, because they have an amazing deal on a 1bd apartment and needing more space would basically force them to start life over in a far off place. If we had a robust free market for housing, like we do for cars, there would be lots of cheap “used housing” available and landlords would not have pricing power, they would have to make an effort to be a good landlord to have a tenant. You can see this with hotels (in areas where they aren’t over-restricted), where poorly run hotels are driven out of business by well-run hotels, including plenty of low cost hotels.

dataflow 4y ago
> rent control has been shown repeatedly to help existing renters at the expense of all future renters, which increases income inequality I'd love a link to some sources showing this.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Basically any paper on rent control. Here's one on berlin's implementation. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4047633 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4047633 People who were already there get a deal, everyone else pays much more.
  - dataflow 4y ago
    Are all forms of rent control like this? Including rent stabilization or whatever else they're called? Because my impression was that at least some forms of it keep the rent low even if the tenant changes, in exchange for lower taxes or such.

blockwriter 4y ago

What is foreclosure insurance?

gruez 4y ago

>3) Rent control hard disagree. it basically ends up being a transfer of wealth from new residents (who have to pay higher rents) to older residents (who have locked in lower rents). >5) Affordable foreclosure insurance What exactly is insured here? >12) Right of first refusal laws (tenant opportunity to purchase) What problem is this intended to solve? If someone is renting, how likely is he going to be able to pony up cash to buy the house that's about to be sold?

EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
Good questions! I'll answer in reverse order -- Typically RoFR laws do require tenants to seek financial support from a lender or developer. The tenants front some of the capital, get a loan for some of the capital, and offer some incentive for a developer. This is typically for people whose multi-unit apartment building is being sold, where there's the possibility for the tenants to band together to create a co-op. These programs are also sometimes eligible for government assistance -- essentially helping subsidize communities into owning their own housing. > What exactly is insured here? Typically the lender is protected at the owner's expense. Rates can be quite high, and increase the cost of living, pricing people out of housing. > Rent control You disagree that rent control reduces the power of landlords? Do you think it has a positive effect or no effect for the power of landlords?

joe_the_user 4y ago

Social housing, specifically distributed low rise, well maintained Why "low rise"? High rise is more efficient. High rise has a bad reputation but all the reputation stuff has been pretty coordinated by those who don't want public housing at all. And sure, well maintained. I'm in favor of rent control but with enough dense housing, rent control won't be fighting supply and demand.

EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
The reason I prefer low rise (especially in the 3-6 floors range) is because they require less specialized service. Maintaining the systems for a 40 story building requires specialists in hvac, elevators, plumbing, fire suppression, window washing, painting, siding, etc. that are simply less available than the folks who know how to get up on a ladder and just fix it. Low rise also decentralizes services needed to support social housing, and allows local communities to build relationships that are less adversarial with the housing. (Which, imo, might be a uniquely American view that social housing is for the poor only.) So, in the initial rollouts, I think it makes it appear more palatable to American communities. Now, I agree, high rise is more efficient across other axes. And I'd take well maintained high rise social housing over the current status quo. I have preferences here, but I don't believe that high rises are wrong. Just not my preference.
- orwin 4y ago
  Low-rise is also cheaper, and easier to insulate. I think the sweet spot is 4 floors, but 2 to 5 is okay, and even midrise can be made beautiful. If people are interested in what beautiful midrise social housing look like, check out Le Plessis-Robinson near Paris

human_person 4y ago

I think there is a simpler solution. 1. Land ownership should be an exclusively human right. Any ‘vampire’ entity (such as a corporation) that doesn’t naturally die shouldn’t be able to endlessly accumulate land. 2. The property tax rate should double for each additional property you own.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Regarding Point 2. If I buy an uninhabited plot of land out in the desert or Forest where no one wants it, why should I pay higher taxes?
EngManagerIsMe 4y ago
I bought forestland that is uninhabitable and remote. I am restoring it to healthy forest. When I die, I want to ensure that it continues to be forest land. The best way to do that is via a conservation trust. I appreciate your sentiment, but I worry it edges out cases like mine.