4 ms·

Here are some laws that partially curtail housing as investment: - ban anyone non-resident in the country from owning property - create an exponential propert

by rcarr 4y ago

Here are some laws that partially curtail housing as investment: - ban anyone non-resident in the country from owning property - create an exponential property tax. 0% for first home, 2% for second home, 4% for third home, 8% for fourth home etc to discourage mass renting. - to make the point above easier to enforce, make it illegal for companies to own residential property other than a few exceptions such as developer companies holding newly built property that they’re selling, banks holding repossessions etc. All property must be owned by an individual citizen. - Mandate that developers build >50% affordable housing. Earmark this housing for first time buyers only. Non compliance means the developer is shut down and loses their license. - Mandate that developers build on their land or else have it seized by the government to avoid developers land banking and waiting it out for a change of administration which would reverse all the above rules so developers can go back to raking in absurd profits.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Mandate that developers build >50% affordable housing. Earmark this housing for first time buyers only. This is a trap. It sounds good on paper. In practice, every bureaucratic busybody wants to define affordability to deliver to their constituents. This dramatically raises construction costs. It’s a current cost adjuvant in New York and San Francisco. A simple first-time homebuyer (or single homeowner) requirement should suffice in segregating the market.
- rcarr 4y ago
  > This is a trap. It sounds good on paper. In practice, every bureaucratic busybody wants to define affordability to deliver to their constituents. It’s a trap if you let it be a trap. You define affordability using median earnings of the area in question. The properties built are then sold for no more than 3.5x that amount.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > You define affordability using median earnings of the area in question. The properties built are then sold for no more than 3.5x that amount. Let me introduce you to the myriad of definitions of income and area, and how dare you suggest we include public subsidies or salaries in the calculation, also, why aren’t we creating a special category for [things]. These floating variables immediately corrupt. You can fight political nature, or you can write good policy.
    - rcarr 4y ago
      > Let me introduce you to the myriad of definitions of income and area, and how dare you suggest we include public subsidies or salaries in the calculation, also, why aren’t we creating a special category for [things]. These floating variables immediately corrupt. You can fight political nature, or you can write good policy. This is why, at the national level, you have someone who sets these definitions using common sense. All of these are completely surmountable problems - the only thing lacking is political will to do it and defeatist attitudes.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > why, at the national level, you have someone who sets these definitions using common sense You’re going to federalise house pricing? And again, you’re depending on commonsensical bureaucracy. That’s a losing move. Especially when rules-based systems are available. Put another way: if you empowered such a panel, there would be political opportunity in using its own rules to re-orient its mission.
        rcarr 4y ago
        > You’re going to federalise house pricing? And again, you’re depending on commonsensical bureaucracy. That’s a losing move. Especially when rules-based systems are available. Put another way: if you empowered such a panel, there would be political opportunity in using its own rules to re-orient its mission. It is if we take a defeatist attitude. Would you be saying the same thing if you knew it was the founding fathers who were going to be writing the laws or if it was Abraham Lincoln in charge? At some point in time, everyone just decided to get completely defeatist about politics and what is possible to achieve and nothing will change until that attitude is overcome. As societies, we’ve become weirdly tolerant of deception and corruption - I assume as a result of the financial crisis and lack of punishment for those involved. Personally, I think the only antidote is to start getting really fucking tough on white collar crime - and that means long jail sentences for offenders. We also need to start rooting out all the nonsense we’ve allowed to creep into the system and stop allowing people to exploit technicalities that fly in the spirit of the law for their own personal gain. Maybe this means expanding the laws as written to include stated aims of the written law to allow for easier interpretation by juries in disputed cases. At the minute, we just allow people to exploit loopholes and shrug our shoulders saying “fair enough” when everyone can see plain as day that the spirit of the law is being flouted even if it is technically legal. Im not saying people should be jailed for this kind of behaviour like they should if they’re outright engaging in fraud, but we definitely should not be ruling in their favour. Also I’m in the UK, not the US. The same problem exists in all English speaking countries.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  > A simple first-time homebuyer (or single homeowner) requirement should suffice in segregating the market. How do you ensure people aren’t using human or corporate straw buyers to take advantage of this?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > How do you ensure people aren’t using human or corporate straw buyers to take advantage of this? You can’t. Plenty of countries have no-foreigner and first-time only requirements, and they’re flagrantly violated throughout. There isn’t a demand-side solution to housing I’ve seen. That said, there are better and worse ideas, and the affordable-housing gimmick is among the worst.
    - rcarr 4y ago
      I agree you can’t stop it entirely. But when you catch someone doing it, you seize the property and then stick them in a jail cell for 20 years. You break the law, you face the consequences.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > when you catch someone doing it, you seize the property and then stick them in a jail cell for 20 years Every country with these rules does this. What happens is the political opposition winds up in jail and then people riot and burn things. Also, when the stakes are that high, law enforcement loses fidelity.
        rcarr 4y ago
        To be quite frank mate, if that’s what needs to happen to make housing affordable again then that’s what needs to happen. If it wasn’t for bloodshed and civil war, black people in America would still be slaves and France would still be run by tyrannical monarchs. I think it should obviously be the absolute last resort, but if the ruling classes are determined to send their countries back into feudalism for their own gain rather than share the country with a fair housing system, then maybe that’s what should happen. People aren’t asking for mansions here, they’re asking for a simple roof over their head without having to pay over 50% of their salary in rent. There’s not much difference in threatening homelessness and having a gun to one’s head. Access to shelter is a fundamental necessity of life and it’s got to be one of the only things in life worth fighting for. And a bully will take everything they can get unless you stand up to them and fight back.
ascotan 4y ago
You forgot about people building homes to be used as airbnb's.

by rcarr 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Mandate that developers build >50% affordable housing. Earmark this housing for first time buyers only. This is a trap. It sounds good on paper. In practice, every bureaucratic busybody wants to define affordability to deliver to their constituents. This dramatically raises construction costs. It’s a current cost adjuvant in New York and San Francisco. A simple first-time homebuyer (or single homeowner) requirement should suffice in segregating the market.

rcarr 4y ago
> This is a trap. It sounds good on paper. In practice, every bureaucratic busybody wants to define affordability to deliver to their constituents. It’s a trap if you let it be a trap. You define affordability using median earnings of the area in question. The properties built are then sold for no more than 3.5x that amount.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > You define affordability using median earnings of the area in question. The properties built are then sold for no more than 3.5x that amount. Let me introduce you to the myriad of definitions of income and area, and how dare you suggest we include public subsidies or salaries in the calculation, also, why aren’t we creating a special category for [things]. These floating variables immediately corrupt. You can fight political nature, or you can write good policy.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    > Let me introduce you to the myriad of definitions of income and area, and how dare you suggest we include public subsidies or salaries in the calculation, also, why aren’t we creating a special category for [things]. These floating variables immediately corrupt. You can fight political nature, or you can write good policy. This is why, at the national level, you have someone who sets these definitions using common sense. All of these are completely surmountable problems - the only thing lacking is political will to do it and defeatist attitudes.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > why, at the national level, you have someone who sets these definitions using common sense You’re going to federalise house pricing? And again, you’re depending on commonsensical bureaucracy. That’s a losing move. Especially when rules-based systems are available. Put another way: if you empowered such a panel, there would be political opportunity in using its own rules to re-orient its mission.
      - rcarr 4y ago
        > You’re going to federalise house pricing? And again, you’re depending on commonsensical bureaucracy. That’s a losing move. Especially when rules-based systems are available. Put another way: if you empowered such a panel, there would be political opportunity in using its own rules to re-orient its mission. It is if we take a defeatist attitude. Would you be saying the same thing if you knew it was the founding fathers who were going to be writing the laws or if it was Abraham Lincoln in charge? At some point in time, everyone just decided to get completely defeatist about politics and what is possible to achieve and nothing will change until that attitude is overcome. As societies, we’ve become weirdly tolerant of deception and corruption - I assume as a result of the financial crisis and lack of punishment for those involved. Personally, I think the only antidote is to start getting really fucking tough on white collar crime - and that means long jail sentences for offenders. We also need to start rooting out all the nonsense we’ve allowed to creep into the system and stop allowing people to exploit technicalities that fly in the spirit of the law for their own personal gain. Maybe this means expanding the laws as written to include stated aims of the written law to allow for easier interpretation by juries in disputed cases. At the minute, we just allow people to exploit loopholes and shrug our shoulders saying “fair enough” when everyone can see plain as day that the spirit of the law is being flouted even if it is technically legal. Im not saying people should be jailed for this kind of behaviour like they should if they’re outright engaging in fraud, but we definitely should not be ruling in their favour. Also I’m in the UK, not the US. The same problem exists in all English speaking countries.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
> A simple first-time homebuyer (or single homeowner) requirement should suffice in segregating the market. How do you ensure people aren’t using human or corporate straw buyers to take advantage of this?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > How do you ensure people aren’t using human or corporate straw buyers to take advantage of this? You can’t. Plenty of countries have no-foreigner and first-time only requirements, and they’re flagrantly violated throughout. There isn’t a demand-side solution to housing I’ve seen. That said, there are better and worse ideas, and the affordable-housing gimmick is among the worst.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    I agree you can’t stop it entirely. But when you catch someone doing it, you seize the property and then stick them in a jail cell for 20 years. You break the law, you face the consequences.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > when you catch someone doing it, you seize the property and then stick them in a jail cell for 20 years Every country with these rules does this. What happens is the political opposition winds up in jail and then people riot and burn things. Also, when the stakes are that high, law enforcement loses fidelity.
      - rcarr 4y ago
        To be quite frank mate, if that’s what needs to happen to make housing affordable again then that’s what needs to happen. If it wasn’t for bloodshed and civil war, black people in America would still be slaves and France would still be run by tyrannical monarchs. I think it should obviously be the absolute last resort, but if the ruling classes are determined to send their countries back into feudalism for their own gain rather than share the country with a fair housing system, then maybe that’s what should happen. People aren’t asking for mansions here, they’re asking for a simple roof over their head without having to pay over 50% of their salary in rent. There’s not much difference in threatening homelessness and having a gun to one’s head. Access to shelter is a fundamental necessity of life and it’s got to be one of the only things in life worth fighting for. And a bully will take everything they can get unless you stand up to them and fight back.

ascotan 4y ago

You forgot about people building homes to be used as airbnb's.