3 ms·

> Get rid of zoning, stop financializing homes as a financial asset, and this problem will go away. While I don’t disagree with you, you’re saying this like it

> Get rid of zoning, stop financializing homes as a financial asset, and this problem will go away. While I don’t disagree with you, you’re saying this like it is the easy part. It’s probably political career suicide for anyone who proposed getting rid of zoning and there isn’t really any way to stop homes from being a financial asset (because what would then be the point of home ownership)? Big building projects can take a decade or more so you wouldn’t likely see enough new housing stock to make a real difference in home prices for a generation or two. Mortgage rate increases have done nothing more than stall and slightly decrease home prices but now you have a higher mortgage payment. Currently, people who have a “starter home” or townhouse etc have no incentive to move up in house size which because of higher rates. This was previously very important for younger or less well off people to be able to afford something to own. I think a new mechanism needs to be developed that could incentivize people to sell their homes.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Big building projects can take a decade or more so you wouldn’t likely see enough new housing stock to make a real difference in home prices for a generation or two This is a problem of permitting. Let developers build and you’ll see housing within two years.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  You might see some amount of housing but you’re missing materials, labor, land availability, risk aversion, and probably a few other things.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> what would then be the point of home ownership having a place to live? Trading off potentially greater financial returns elsewhere for whatever one perceives as the benefits of actual ownership? It's not as if actual home ownership has made the USA so much better than the countries around the world where more people choose to rent.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Sure but being a homeowner can require huge amounts of money be spent on maintenance and upkeep that isn’t required of renters. Homeowners gladly (or grudgingly) spend a lot of money and time/effort in order to protect their investment.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Certainly, and that's one reason people choose to be renters. People in other parts of the world where real estate doesn't always/ever appreciate in value the way it has in the Anglosphere over the last 40 years also have to spend a lot of money and time/effort ... and they do it anyway.
quantified 3y ago
By definition owning a home means them being a financial asset, so that part of the post was on its face meaningless. I expect that the point was "investment asset" which is just not possible, prices go up and down. Unfortunately for all, up too much for too long and the market seizes. Blame the money laundering and asset parking for the market shifts, no one wants to spend all the money they do. Then spread the greed all around to everyone who didn't sell for a lower price a long time ago.
Izikiel43 3y ago
> because what would then be the point of home ownership Having a place to live in which you can do anything you may want to it? And not pay rent?
drewcoo 3y ago
> It’s probably political career suicide for anyone who proposed getting rid of zoning Where I live, local developers run local politics. The developers would rejoice! If it happened to be political suicide for anyone along the way, I'm sure they could find new politicians to run.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Big building projects can take a decade or more so you wouldn’t likely see enough new housing stock to make a real difference in home prices for a generation or two This is a problem of permitting. Let developers build and you’ll see housing within two years.

lotsoweiners 3y ago
You might see some amount of housing but you’re missing materials, labor, land availability, risk aversion, and probably a few other things.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

> what would then be the point of home ownership having a place to live? Trading off potentially greater financial returns elsewhere for whatever one perceives as the benefits of actual ownership? It's not as if actual home ownership has made the USA so much better than the countries around the world where more people choose to rent.

lotsoweiners 3y ago
Sure but being a homeowner can require huge amounts of money be spent on maintenance and upkeep that isn’t required of renters. Homeowners gladly (or grudgingly) spend a lot of money and time/effort in order to protect their investment.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Certainly, and that's one reason people choose to be renters. People in other parts of the world where real estate doesn't always/ever appreciate in value the way it has in the Anglosphere over the last 40 years also have to spend a lot of money and time/effort ... and they do it anyway.

quantified 3y ago

By definition owning a home means them being a financial asset, so that part of the post was on its face meaningless. I expect that the point was "investment asset" which is just not possible, prices go up and down. Unfortunately for all, up too much for too long and the market seizes. Blame the money laundering and asset parking for the market shifts, no one wants to spend all the money they do. Then spread the greed all around to everyone who didn't sell for a lower price a long time ago.

Izikiel43 3y ago

> because what would then be the point of home ownership Having a place to live in which you can do anything you may want to it? And not pay rent?

drewcoo 3y ago

> It’s probably political career suicide for anyone who proposed getting rid of zoning Where I live, local developers run local politics. The developers would rejoice! If it happened to be political suicide for anyone along the way, I'm sure they could find new politicians to run.