3 ms·

> The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it doesn't; it just uses your tax money to pay private companies to build houses). It should just make the b

> The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it doesn't; it just uses your tax money to pay private companies to build houses). It should just make the building and zoning rules simple enough that it's possible to make money from building houses and selling them, and let people get on with it. This is the modern wisdom in the west - it's the approach taken by many governments since the Reagan era (not just in the UK) and it's demonstrably unsuccessful in almost every metric except one: votes. Which is the only reason it continues. It panders to those who already hold assets, while doing very little to move the dial for those who need shelter. Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous.

xboxnolifes 3y ago
I cannot comment on other countries, but this is clearly not practiced in the US. The US has not simplified building and zoning rules or made them more permissive. The US follows the third option: do nothing and hope it fixes itself.
danem 3y ago
I'm confused... Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here? How exactly do you envision a government housing program to side-step all of the above issues? Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing? How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?
- lucideer 3y ago
  > Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here? Minus the leading language (as I presume these so-called "anti-development" politicians don't self-define as such), yes, this is what I'm arguing. > Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing? I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. Do NIMBYs exist? Of course. But their impact is overstated, and overconflated with genuine concerns: there are valid reasons to object to new developments, though these have a tendency to be lumped in with less valid objectors for political gain/expediency. > How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco? Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.
  - danem 3y ago
    > I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. I'm not familiar with Ireland or the UK, but for the US at least, this is absolutely false. I'm most familiar with San Francisco so let's look at that as an example. Why do you think it takes nearly 2 years to get permitting done for housing here? Why do you think you need to pay $100ks in fees just to break ground? Why do you think all of the housing built over the last 20 years has been located in one part of the city (SOMA)? Why do you think our Supervisors are so reluctant to adopt by-right zoning and ministerial review processes? Why was huge swaths of the city down-zoned in the 70s? Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change. > Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects. Absolutely. There are of course many factors, but a big one are the various road-blocks politicians put up, and the concessions (rents) they extract from projects for their preferred special interests. These are things that don't just go away once private developers are out of the mix. Have you ever stopped to think why the market hasn't been able to produce the necessary supply of housing? It's not because they aren't interested in making money.
    - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
      > Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change. I may get downvoted for this, but if I were to live in a nice neighborhood with a nice view I will be damned if I would say yes to any construction that I see it could ruin my neighborhood or take my view away. Yes, NIMBY attitude, but a lot of people desire to live in nice places.
brigandish 3y ago
> Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous. You say it's a failure but for those who own land or have tenants - including the average homeowner, it's a success. It's also a success for house builders, of course. From [1]: > In total 115 MPs across all parties are landlords, accounting for 18 per cent of the House of Commons. This compares to around three per cent of the UK adult population who are landlords. It's in their interests. On top of that, the supply is dwarfed by demand even before all that migration, which drives the "success" I outlined above, the high inward migration has kept wages low and reduced the need for the kind of large capital investment that would be needed to replace cheap labour. Again, the kind of wealthy people who are landowners benefit from this, perhaps in this instance not the average homeowner, though there was that woman on Question Time who wondered where they'd find people to make her Pret coffee[2]. The real failures here are the failure to understand the interests of all the parties involved: those with land (high migration drives demand, increases wealth and suppresses outgoings like wages and R&D), and the interests of those without (stronger negotiating position in labour market, lower demand for housing). The average Joe should oppose large scale unskilled migration with all their might, if they want a home, enough doctors, better working conditions etc. Strangely enough, the media, largely owned by very rich people or run by government aligned interests, seem to be against that. It's a mystery how so many people are called racists for being against migration levels unparalleled in history with so many deleterious effects. A total mystery. [1] https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/revealed--how-many-mps-are-landlords https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/reveale... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pret-coffee-brexit_uk_58b91536e4b0d2821b4d0d8c https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pre...
- okeuro49 3y ago
  > It's in their interests. More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve". Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.
  - brigandish 3y ago
gadders 3y ago
Migration at these levels is absolutely a new phenomenon.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Most men have the capability to build a house themselves and with help of friends. What is needed is the release of land, plain and simple. The landed gentry have enormous amounts of real estate and they want high prices to release any part - this is their retirement plan for them, their children, and children's children. Let workers buy land cheap and you will have a lower base level of housing cost, bringing the cost for all other housing down. Why would I want the government to rob me to build a house, when I could have built it myself if I hadn't been robbed?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  It's easy to just down-vote my post and move on. But stop for a moment and think about it: Why is the lifetime output of even a highly skilled professional worth just a tiny fraction of what a land owner in the same community is worth from doing nothing? The land owner can sell a tiny piece of his estate every 20 years and live his whole life without contributing anything. And on the opposite side, those who are not landed will have to work hard their whole life and usually with nothing to show for it. Go talk to everyday people and ask what their dream is. Except for winning the lottery, the dream of everybody is to buy real estate and live of rent and price increases. Not having a career, not creating a big and successful business. Those are fools errand and a waste of your life, because laws and governance are now all-in on making every aspect of the economy having the purpose of transferring wealth to the landed gentry.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

I cannot comment on other countries, but this is clearly not practiced in the US. The US has not simplified building and zoning rules or made them more permissive. The US follows the third option: do nothing and hope it fixes itself.

danem 3y ago

I'm confused... Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here? How exactly do you envision a government housing program to side-step all of the above issues? Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing? How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?

lucideer 3y ago
> Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here? Minus the leading language (as I presume these so-called "anti-development" politicians don't self-define as such), yes, this is what I'm arguing. > Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing? I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. Do NIMBYs exist? Of course. But their impact is overstated, and overconflated with genuine concerns: there are valid reasons to object to new developments, though these have a tendency to be lumped in with less valid objectors for political gain/expediency. > How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco? Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.
- danem 3y ago
  > I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. I'm not familiar with Ireland or the UK, but for the US at least, this is absolutely false. I'm most familiar with San Francisco so let's look at that as an example. Why do you think it takes nearly 2 years to get permitting done for housing here? Why do you think you need to pay $100ks in fees just to break ground? Why do you think all of the housing built over the last 20 years has been located in one part of the city (SOMA)? Why do you think our Supervisors are so reluctant to adopt by-right zoning and ministerial review processes? Why was huge swaths of the city down-zoned in the 70s? Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change. > Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects. Absolutely. There are of course many factors, but a big one are the various road-blocks politicians put up, and the concessions (rents) they extract from projects for their preferred special interests. These are things that don't just go away once private developers are out of the mix. Have you ever stopped to think why the market hasn't been able to produce the necessary supply of housing? It's not because they aren't interested in making money.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    > Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change. I may get downvoted for this, but if I were to live in a nice neighborhood with a nice view I will be damned if I would say yes to any construction that I see it could ruin my neighborhood or take my view away. Yes, NIMBY attitude, but a lot of people desire to live in nice places.

brigandish 3y ago

> Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous. You say it's a failure but for those who own land or have tenants - including the average homeowner, it's a success. It's also a success for house builders, of course. From [1]: > In total 115 MPs across all parties are landlords, accounting for 18 per cent of the House of Commons. This compares to around three per cent of the UK adult population who are landlords. It's in their interests. On top of that, the supply is dwarfed by demand even before all that migration, which drives the "success" I outlined above, the high inward migration has kept wages low and reduced the need for the kind of large capital investment that would be needed to replace cheap labour. Again, the kind of wealthy people who are landowners benefit from this, perhaps in this instance not the average homeowner, though there was that woman on Question Time who wondered where they'd find people to make her Pret coffee[2]. The real failures here are the failure to understand the interests of all the parties involved: those with land (high migration drives demand, increases wealth and suppresses outgoings like wages and R&D), and the interests of those without (stronger negotiating position in labour market, lower demand for housing). The average Joe should oppose large scale unskilled migration with all their might, if they want a home, enough doctors, better working conditions etc. Strangely enough, the media, largely owned by very rich people or run by government aligned interests, seem to be against that. It's a mystery how so many people are called racists for being against migration levels unparalleled in history with so many deleterious effects. A total mystery. [1] https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/revealed--how-many-mps-are-landlords https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/reveale... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pret-coffee-brexit_uk_58b91536e4b0d2821b4d0d8c https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pre...

okeuro49 3y ago
> It's in their interests. More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve". Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.
- brigandish 3y ago

gadders 3y ago

Migration at these levels is absolutely a new phenomenon.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Most men have the capability to build a house themselves and with help of friends. What is needed is the release of land, plain and simple. The landed gentry have enormous amounts of real estate and they want high prices to release any part - this is their retirement plan for them, their children, and children's children. Let workers buy land cheap and you will have a lower base level of housing cost, bringing the cost for all other housing down. Why would I want the government to rob me to build a house, when I could have built it myself if I hadn't been robbed?

carlosjobim 3y ago
It's easy to just down-vote my post and move on. But stop for a moment and think about it: Why is the lifetime output of even a highly skilled professional worth just a tiny fraction of what a land owner in the same community is worth from doing nothing? The land owner can sell a tiny piece of his estate every 20 years and live his whole life without contributing anything. And on the opposite side, those who are not landed will have to work hard their whole life and usually with nothing to show for it. Go talk to everyday people and ask what their dream is. Except for winning the lottery, the dream of everybody is to buy real estate and live of rent and price increases. Not having a career, not creating a big and successful business. Those are fools errand and a waste of your life, because laws and governance are now all-in on making every aspect of the economy having the purpose of transferring wealth to the landed gentry.