5 ms·

At what point can a hostile housing market be considered a discrimination issue (on financial basis)?

foxyv 3y ago
When it is shown that landlords are discriminating based on a protected "Class" such as race, religion, etc... Otherwise they are just discriminating against the poor. Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels. The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing. The hands down best way to do that is to end R1 zoning, minimum offsets, and parking minimums. At least within 20 miles of major cities.
- mnd999 3y ago
  The private homebuilding sector is not going to build at the rate required to improve supply, because excess supply will cut into their margins. Deregulating will just allow them to build a ton of cheap low quality housing and still charge enormous amounts for it. Landlords would just pass that on. The solution is quality social housing, built by the state in large enough quantities to disrupt the market.
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    What do zoning changes have to do with quality of housing?
    - foxyv 3y ago
      R1 zoning prevents the creation of affordable housing. Since you can only fit maybe two or three households per acre, and land prices are sky high, the only affordable housing is in the middle of nowhere, 2 hours from anything. Something like this would be a huge improvement and reduce housing costs. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/6/toward-dynamic-zoning-codes https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/6/toward-dynamic-...
      - ecshafer 3y ago
        I agree with this. But the person i responded to was implying that relaxed zoning rules would leave more shoddy houses by developers. Despite building regulations being completely different than zoning.
        foxyv 3y ago
        Ahh! Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It makes no sense that zoning would affect building quality.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    This is being downvoted, but it’s actually what countries that have solved this problem have done. Even everyone’s favorite “no zoning, build, build, build” paradise Japan accomplished this by also building a large amount of public housing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danchi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danchi Housing didn’t become a depreciating asset there over night. It was the express result of the state intervening in the market.
    - mnd999 3y ago
      Sounds a bit too commie for the yanks.
      - foxyv 3y ago
        The younger generation is coming around. In a hundred years or so things may change, but until then we're stuck with our current political economic system. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/pp_2022-09-19_socialism-capitalism_00-06/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-decli...
    - davidw 3y ago
      It can be a 'yes, and' thing. You can do both. You can't build a bunch of Japan style public housing if you do not have Japan style zoning.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    If you convert 10 single-family-homes worth a million dollars each into a skyscraper with a thousand units there's plenty of room for profit, even if the thousand units are cheaper than the current median cost for a condo (or rental). Cities have been writing laws and zoning that prevent economies of scale from kicking in for decades. If they just stop doing that, we'll get more housing.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    > Deregulating will just allow them to build a ton of cheap low quality housing and still charge enormous amounts for it. You're stating this like it's a fact, but you haven't explained why. In a free market, competition is on the basis of price and quality.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    Allowing existing homeowners to increase their revenue by densifying housing will drive prices down. Although developers for single family dwellings will not be as happy about it, if you have a 1/3 Acre lot 10 miles from downtown S.F. which you can turn from a single family $3000 a month rental into a multi-unit $30,000 a month rental then you will be happy to do so. Even if it drives down the value of your $800/month rental in the middle of nowhere. Imagine if you are currently owning and occupying a house and have a chance to pay your mortgage by building a rental property on the unoccupied half of your lot. A lot of people would be very happy to do so if it were legalized. Edit: But you are totally right that socialized housing would be an excellent solution.
- bequanna 3y ago
  > Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels. The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing. That isn't the only way. We could eliminate the many tax benefits like: accelerated depreciation, 1031 exchange, step up cost basis for inherited property, etc.
  - bhickey 3y ago
    > step up cost basis for inherited property Heck, there's no policy justification for having the stepped-up basis at all.
    - deschutes 3y ago
      People who have houses like it. Doesn't mean it's good policy.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    Even without those tax benefits, I still made $60k in equity just by owning my own house. Probably more in the time since I last checked. There just is too much money and not enough houses.
    - bequanna 3y ago
      Supply and demand. Decrease the benefits for owning an investment property, then the number of people purchasing investment properties will be lower and prices will likely fall.
- geodel 3y ago
  > Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels Yeah same for health, education, insurance, internet, medicine etc.
- fragmede 3y ago
  No, the best way is to build housing. As long as we try make developers build housing through whatever incentives we can invent, they'll always be an investment. Developers aren't going to make new housing out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a business deal, an investment with an expected ROI. Making it a less attractive investment is going to end up with less of it being made. If the government builds housing, or subsidizes it (improving ROI for developers), we'll have more housing.
  - davidw 3y ago
    OP is talking mostly about housing being considered an 'investment' for the average homeowner, I think. Homeowners, on paper at least, are the biggest beneficiaries of the housing crisis: https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-from-the-housing-market-graph-of-the-week/ https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-f... Granted, those are paper gains, but still, better to have that option than to be priced out of the market completely, as many are.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - triceratops 3y ago
    GP said > The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing And gave some examples of reduced regulation (zoning, parking) that would make it easier to build. They didn't say anything about government subsidies. You said > No, the best way is to build housing Aren't you both saying the same thing? I think you might have stopped reading at "don't make housing such a good investment" and not considered the substance of their argument.
  - salamanderss 3y ago
    And yet when I actually go building the only place I could afford it was to go to a place with no code or safety inspections. This make HN mind melt, many folks here want to maintain the house crushing regulatory machine because all said they'd rather an extra homeless guy freeze behind a dumpster than elevate risk of fire spreading to their home.
  - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- coding123 3y ago
  People don't understand this yet: The only way to increase the housing supply is to increase the price of the house. So you're left with a death spiral. Build to lower prices, but the actual building is costing more than what people are willing to pay for a house, let alone the markup needed to justify KB homes (or others) to get involved at all. Sure they're building, and you can go to job sites, but they're not going to charge what you think they will at the end. Long gone are those signs that say NEW HOMES LOW $400s!!! And if you do, they're undesirably small condos. The sales cycles are extended or, unfortunately, they're just going to keep selling at the $800 prices you're seeing for a new home.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    The problem is that it is illegal to build more housing in cities because of zoning restrictions. No matter what the price.
lukas099 3y ago
I don't think ever. If the rich and poor could afford the same things, money would have lost all meaning.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  Rich people can still stand out with their fancy watches & flashy sun glasses. Shelter shouldn't be a status symbol.
  - lsmeducation 3y ago
    And I'd even add that shelter is also one of those things we shouldn't just let the free market sort out (as it has been, and we all see how that's been going).
    - conqrr 3y ago
      Wholly agree. Basic necessities Food, Water, Shelter, HealthCare etc should not be left to the whims of the free market. It isn't even hard to fix in the US where land is still plenty but artificially controlled by regulations as opposed to heavily population density places like Japan.
      - lukas099 3y ago
        It's interesting that you decry the free market, but explicitly agree that regulations (market distortions) are what's preventing abundant housing.
    - prewett 3y ago
      We've tried public housing in the past, and it hasn't gone so well, so I'm not sure that's a great solution, either.
      - lukas099 3y ago
        It's a pipe dream to expect public housing to meet the demand for shelter in a political climate like that of the USA. That said, I'll still take as much public housing as I can get in my city.
Nasrudith 3y ago
Possibly when they refuse to accept a buyer offering the listed price, absent a higher bidder because of perception of wealth.
xyzelement 3y ago
When you sell the thing you sell (say, your labor) - do you try to sell it to the highest bidder (ie, prefer high salary) or do you not "discriminate" in this way?

When it is shown that landlords are discriminating based on a protected "Class" such as race, religion, etc... Otherwise they are just discriminating against the poor. Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels. The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing. The hands down best way to do that is to end R1 zoning, minimum offsets, and parking minimums. At least within 20 miles of major cities.

mnd999 3y ago
The private homebuilding sector is not going to build at the rate required to improve supply, because excess supply will cut into their margins. Deregulating will just allow them to build a ton of cheap low quality housing and still charge enormous amounts for it. Landlords would just pass that on. The solution is quality social housing, built by the state in large enough quantities to disrupt the market.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  What do zoning changes have to do with quality of housing?
  - foxyv 3y ago
    R1 zoning prevents the creation of affordable housing. Since you can only fit maybe two or three households per acre, and land prices are sky high, the only affordable housing is in the middle of nowhere, 2 hours from anything. Something like this would be a huge improvement and reduce housing costs. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/6/toward-dynamic-zoning-codes https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/6/toward-dynamic-...
    - ecshafer 3y ago
      I agree with this. But the person i responded to was implying that relaxed zoning rules would leave more shoddy houses by developers. Despite building regulations being completely different than zoning.
      - foxyv 3y ago
        Ahh! Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It makes no sense that zoning would affect building quality.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  This is being downvoted, but it’s actually what countries that have solved this problem have done. Even everyone’s favorite “no zoning, build, build, build” paradise Japan accomplished this by also building a large amount of public housing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danchi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danchi Housing didn’t become a depreciating asset there over night. It was the express result of the state intervening in the market.
  - mnd999 3y ago
    Sounds a bit too commie for the yanks.
    - foxyv 3y ago
      The younger generation is coming around. In a hundred years or so things may change, but until then we're stuck with our current political economic system. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/pp_2022-09-19_socialism-capitalism_00-06/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-decli...
  - davidw 3y ago
    It can be a 'yes, and' thing. You can do both. You can't build a bunch of Japan style public housing if you do not have Japan style zoning.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  If you convert 10 single-family-homes worth a million dollars each into a skyscraper with a thousand units there's plenty of room for profit, even if the thousand units are cheaper than the current median cost for a condo (or rental). Cities have been writing laws and zoning that prevent economies of scale from kicking in for decades. If they just stop doing that, we'll get more housing.
- triceratops 3y ago
  > Deregulating will just allow them to build a ton of cheap low quality housing and still charge enormous amounts for it. You're stating this like it's a fact, but you haven't explained why. In a free market, competition is on the basis of price and quality.
- foxyv 3y ago
  Allowing existing homeowners to increase their revenue by densifying housing will drive prices down. Although developers for single family dwellings will not be as happy about it, if you have a 1/3 Acre lot 10 miles from downtown S.F. which you can turn from a single family $3000 a month rental into a multi-unit $30,000 a month rental then you will be happy to do so. Even if it drives down the value of your $800/month rental in the middle of nowhere. Imagine if you are currently owning and occupying a house and have a chance to pay your mortgage by building a rental property on the unoccupied half of your lot. A lot of people would be very happy to do so if it were legalized. Edit: But you are totally right that socialized housing would be an excellent solution.
bequanna 3y ago
> Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels. The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing. That isn't the only way. We could eliminate the many tax benefits like: accelerated depreciation, 1031 exchange, step up cost basis for inherited property, etc.
- bhickey 3y ago
  > step up cost basis for inherited property Heck, there's no policy justification for having the stepped-up basis at all.
  - deschutes 3y ago
    People who have houses like it. Doesn't mean it's good policy.
- foxyv 3y ago
  Even without those tax benefits, I still made $60k in equity just by owning my own house. Probably more in the time since I last checked. There just is too much money and not enough houses.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    Supply and demand. Decrease the benefits for owning an investment property, then the number of people purchasing investment properties will be lower and prices will likely fall.
geodel 3y ago
> Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels Yeah same for health, education, insurance, internet, medicine etc.
fragmede 3y ago
No, the best way is to build housing. As long as we try make developers build housing through whatever incentives we can invent, they'll always be an investment. Developers aren't going to make new housing out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a business deal, an investment with an expected ROI. Making it a less attractive investment is going to end up with less of it being made. If the government builds housing, or subsidizes it (improving ROI for developers), we'll have more housing.
- davidw 3y ago
  OP is talking mostly about housing being considered an 'investment' for the average homeowner, I think. Homeowners, on paper at least, are the biggest beneficiaries of the housing crisis: https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-from-the-housing-market-graph-of-the-week/ https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2021/03/16/who-benefits-f... Granted, those are paper gains, but still, better to have that option than to be priced out of the market completely, as many are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- triceratops 3y ago
  GP said > The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing And gave some examples of reduced regulation (zoning, parking) that would make it easier to build. They didn't say anything about government subsidies. You said > No, the best way is to build housing Aren't you both saying the same thing? I think you might have stopped reading at "don't make housing such a good investment" and not considered the substance of their argument.
- salamanderss 3y ago
  And yet when I actually go building the only place I could afford it was to go to a place with no code or safety inspections. This make HN mind melt, many folks here want to maintain the house crushing regulatory machine because all said they'd rather an extra homeless guy freeze behind a dumpster than elevate risk of fire spreading to their home.
- 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
coding123 3y ago
People don't understand this yet: The only way to increase the housing supply is to increase the price of the house. So you're left with a death spiral. Build to lower prices, but the actual building is costing more than what people are willing to pay for a house, let alone the markup needed to justify KB homes (or others) to get involved at all. Sure they're building, and you can go to job sites, but they're not going to charge what you think they will at the end. Long gone are those signs that say NEW HOMES LOW $400s!!! And if you do, they're undesirably small condos. The sales cycles are extended or, unfortunately, they're just going to keep selling at the $800 prices you're seeing for a new home.
- foxyv 3y ago
  The problem is that it is illegal to build more housing in cities because of zoning restrictions. No matter what the price.

lukas099 3y ago

I don't think ever. If the rich and poor could afford the same things, money would have lost all meaning.

dfxm12 3y ago
Rich people can still stand out with their fancy watches & flashy sun glasses. Shelter shouldn't be a status symbol.
- lsmeducation 3y ago
  And I'd even add that shelter is also one of those things we shouldn't just let the free market sort out (as it has been, and we all see how that's been going).
  - conqrr 3y ago
    Wholly agree. Basic necessities Food, Water, Shelter, HealthCare etc should not be left to the whims of the free market. It isn't even hard to fix in the US where land is still plenty but artificially controlled by regulations as opposed to heavily population density places like Japan.
    - lukas099 3y ago
      It's interesting that you decry the free market, but explicitly agree that regulations (market distortions) are what's preventing abundant housing.
  - prewett 3y ago
    We've tried public housing in the past, and it hasn't gone so well, so I'm not sure that's a great solution, either.
    - lukas099 3y ago
      It's a pipe dream to expect public housing to meet the demand for shelter in a political climate like that of the USA. That said, I'll still take as much public housing as I can get in my city.

Nasrudith 3y ago

Possibly when they refuse to accept a buyer offering the listed price, absent a higher bidder because of perception of wealth.

xyzelement 3y ago

When you sell the thing you sell (say, your labor) - do you try to sell it to the highest bidder (ie, prefer high salary) or do you not "discriminate" in this way?