4 ms·

Let's not "save" them, which is just an attempt to bail out the landlords who have been gouging the rents and manipulating building codes and laws, sabotaging r

Let's not "save" them, which is just an attempt to bail out the landlords who have been gouging the rents and manipulating building codes and laws, sabotaging rail, and doing everything in their power to keep rents artificially high. Step 1: Let all the landlords go bankrupt. The buildings will be repossessed and owned by creditors, but still there. Step 2: New people buy them for a fraction of even the current price, and redevelop them. Or nobody buys them, and we get an empty lot. Any other plan is an attempt to transfer wealth from the people to the landlord class to save their skin. Hard pass, let them use their 75 years of ill gotten rents.

germinalphrase 2y ago
“ New people buy them for a fraction of even the current price, and redevelop them. Or nobody buys them, and we get an empty lot” If no one truly buys them, you don’t get an empty lot. You get abandoned, dilapidated buildings and all the associated social/environmental problems that comes with that.
- pseudocomposer 2y ago
  Or the city could just invoke eminent domain, buy it at a very low price if the owner can’t demonstrate it having a high market price, restore the building and democratically choose an equitable process to rent it or sell it, hopefully favoring existing citizens. But of course, we’d have to be a lot more aggressive about invoking eminent domain for this to be effective. To that end, it would make sense to also establish policies ensuring it’s easy to invoke it fairly and transparently - ie, easily allowing other parties to bid against the city for higher prices in cases where eminent domain is to be used this way (stipulating that those parties also take measures to restore the building, etc).
  - cm2187 2y ago
    Your city will rather go bankrupt. Just take Detroit as a guide.
  - eep_social 2y ago
    That sounds like privatizing the losses and socializing the profits and we just can’t have that here in the good ol’ US of A /s
jan3024 2y ago
I am a landlord and I honestly don’t understand how this knowledge isn’t better known. It’s free money, if you’re not taking it I am.
some_random 2y ago
That's working great for St. Louis! Empty husks of building that have sat empty and unmaintained for years being bought for cents on the dollar is definitely a sign of a healthy city
- marssaxman 2y ago
  The world could definitely use more places like City Museum, which would never have happened otherwise.
- NegativeLatency 2y ago
  St. Louis has paved 27% of its downtown core, maybe we stop designing our cities for cars and design them for people, if we want them to not be empty. https://parkingreform.org/parking-lot-map/ https://parkingreform.org/parking-lot-map/
  - some_random 2y ago
    First off, St. Louis isn't empty because of muh car centric infrastructure, it's empty because of deindustrialization. Secondly, parking lots are in fact a better use of space than empty, dilapidated office buildings.
    - NegativeLatency 2y ago
      Lots of buildings across the country have actually been torn down to become parking, I'm not an expert on St. Louis urban development but it seems like many buildings were torn down there and replaced with parking lots that make the area worse. Then there's fewer people, and the cycle of dilapidation and abandonment continues. https://www.stlmag.com/history/looking-back-over-a-decade-at-st-louis-significant-architectural-losses/ https://www.stlmag.com/history/looking-back-over-a-decade-at... https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/ipjho8/save_historic_buildings_from_being_demoed_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/ipjho8/save_histor...
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  What you are advocating for is the system that has gotten us to the point where nobody can afford housing. You let rich interests create a situation where they make more and more money for doing nothing. In this case, sitting on downtown real estate. They use the money to manipulate the system to tilt the economy more and more in their favor. They kill off attempts to introduce rail. They fight against increasing capacity for housing or office space, because when demand goes up and supply stays the same they get higher rent for doing literally nothing but continue to own the same properties. They bribe politicians to force you back into the office downtown for no reason. This is literally called rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Landlords have been doing this for thousands of years to the point it is a fundamental economic principle. Then, when they get in trouble, and they might lose some money, you have to bail them out or they will ruin your cities. They are going to ruin the cities either way. If you bail them out they will take the money and then do none of the things they were supposed to do in exchange. They are only going to do whatever puts the most money in their pocket, and they play a long game. Here is a counter proposal: - Tax any vacant building at a rate high enough that any owner will be forced to put the building into use or sell it to someone who will. This applies both to buildings that are 'abandoned' as well as just sitting empty due to lack of tenants. - Tie property tax rates directly to the rate of supply. Whenever an action is taken that artificially increases property values, increase the rates to offset that increase. If the planning commission kills a new apartment building that would increase the number of beds in part of the city by 1%, increase tax rates by 1% (1% of the current rate). This will penalize existing landlords (and homeowners) for rent-seeking and NIMBY. This can be done at the state level and the funds can be earmarked for low income housing and job programs, or parks. - Offer tax incentives for things that lower property values but increase quality of life. These would include housing programs, railroads and stations, high density housing, etc. This would help balance out the rent seeking behavior of landlords and de-align their group interests. For example, if I own a large apartment complex and there is a proposal to build another large complex next door to mine, I am opposed to it. More housing will lower my rents. However, if I get a permanent tax cut when the new complex is built, it will not take much of a difference in tax rate for my profits to increase (since the lowering of marginal rents will very small from one building and spread over a wide area, whereas the tax benefit is concentrated in the area where I benefit). Landlords would then be forced to use their influence to try to steer new development to be near their own properties, rather than using their combined influence to kill all development.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tensor 2y ago
What an utterly hostile and naive view. We need rental buildings and thus we need landlords. There are many many scenarios where one may want to rent instead of buy. You need a place only for a few years, you need a place while you explore to decide where to buy, you don't have the money to buy yet, etc. If your next suggestion is that all landlords be government run or run as a coop, no freaking thanks to the first and while coops are great I don't think only coops is a good solution. If you want only wealthy homeowners and the rest of the population living in communism style housing, very hard disagree.
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  No, I'm fine with landlords until they capture regulators and legislators and turn economic competition into stagnation for profit.
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  You also don't know anything about co-ops. Frankly I think you are completely uneducated on any of this stuff. Go look up GHI in Greenbelt, Maryland. It's one of the oldest and largest co-ops in the USA. Housing in GHI is a fraction of the cost of the surrounding neighborhood, and the cause is that you cannot rent out GHI units. Only owners can live in their own units, which means speculators and landlords are simply banned from bidding up the costs. As a result, the cost to buy a unit there is a fraction of what it is right next door, maintenance on the units is better, crime is lower, services are better. It's a 100% walk able community that is run democratically. It's really a model for how housing could be built all across the country, but I guess you are the expert, we should keep doing what we do now and just let a couple billionaires complete a monopoly on having a roof, and hope that they only ask for 100% of our income and not more.

germinalphrase 2y ago

“ New people buy them for a fraction of even the current price, and redevelop them. Or nobody buys them, and we get an empty lot” If no one truly buys them, you don’t get an empty lot. You get abandoned, dilapidated buildings and all the associated social/environmental problems that comes with that.

pseudocomposer 2y ago
Or the city could just invoke eminent domain, buy it at a very low price if the owner can’t demonstrate it having a high market price, restore the building and democratically choose an equitable process to rent it or sell it, hopefully favoring existing citizens. But of course, we’d have to be a lot more aggressive about invoking eminent domain for this to be effective. To that end, it would make sense to also establish policies ensuring it’s easy to invoke it fairly and transparently - ie, easily allowing other parties to bid against the city for higher prices in cases where eminent domain is to be used this way (stipulating that those parties also take measures to restore the building, etc).
- cm2187 2y ago
  Your city will rather go bankrupt. Just take Detroit as a guide.
- eep_social 2y ago
  That sounds like privatizing the losses and socializing the profits and we just can’t have that here in the good ol’ US of A /s

jan3024 2y ago

I am a landlord and I honestly don’t understand how this knowledge isn’t better known. It’s free money, if you’re not taking it I am.

some_random 2y ago

That's working great for St. Louis! Empty husks of building that have sat empty and unmaintained for years being bought for cents on the dollar is definitely a sign of a healthy city

marssaxman 2y ago
The world could definitely use more places like City Museum, which would never have happened otherwise.
NegativeLatency 2y ago
St. Louis has paved 27% of its downtown core, maybe we stop designing our cities for cars and design them for people, if we want them to not be empty. https://parkingreform.org/parking-lot-map/ https://parkingreform.org/parking-lot-map/
- some_random 2y ago
  First off, St. Louis isn't empty because of muh car centric infrastructure, it's empty because of deindustrialization. Secondly, parking lots are in fact a better use of space than empty, dilapidated office buildings.
  - NegativeLatency 2y ago
    Lots of buildings across the country have actually been torn down to become parking, I'm not an expert on St. Louis urban development but it seems like many buildings were torn down there and replaced with parking lots that make the area worse. Then there's fewer people, and the cycle of dilapidation and abandonment continues. https://www.stlmag.com/history/looking-back-over-a-decade-at-st-louis-significant-architectural-losses/ https://www.stlmag.com/history/looking-back-over-a-decade-at... https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/ipjho8/save_historic_buildings_from_being_demoed_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/ipjho8/save_histor...
ltbarcly3 2y ago
What you are advocating for is the system that has gotten us to the point where nobody can afford housing. You let rich interests create a situation where they make more and more money for doing nothing. In this case, sitting on downtown real estate. They use the money to manipulate the system to tilt the economy more and more in their favor. They kill off attempts to introduce rail. They fight against increasing capacity for housing or office space, because when demand goes up and supply stays the same they get higher rent for doing literally nothing but continue to own the same properties. They bribe politicians to force you back into the office downtown for no reason. This is literally called rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Landlords have been doing this for thousands of years to the point it is a fundamental economic principle. Then, when they get in trouble, and they might lose some money, you have to bail them out or they will ruin your cities. They are going to ruin the cities either way. If you bail them out they will take the money and then do none of the things they were supposed to do in exchange. They are only going to do whatever puts the most money in their pocket, and they play a long game. Here is a counter proposal: - Tax any vacant building at a rate high enough that any owner will be forced to put the building into use or sell it to someone who will. This applies both to buildings that are 'abandoned' as well as just sitting empty due to lack of tenants. - Tie property tax rates directly to the rate of supply. Whenever an action is taken that artificially increases property values, increase the rates to offset that increase. If the planning commission kills a new apartment building that would increase the number of beds in part of the city by 1%, increase tax rates by 1% (1% of the current rate). This will penalize existing landlords (and homeowners) for rent-seeking and NIMBY. This can be done at the state level and the funds can be earmarked for low income housing and job programs, or parks. - Offer tax incentives for things that lower property values but increase quality of life. These would include housing programs, railroads and stations, high density housing, etc. This would help balance out the rent seeking behavior of landlords and de-align their group interests. For example, if I own a large apartment complex and there is a proposal to build another large complex next door to mine, I am opposed to it. More housing will lower my rents. However, if I get a permanent tax cut when the new complex is built, it will not take much of a difference in tax rate for my profits to increase (since the lowering of marginal rents will very small from one building and spread over a wide area, whereas the tax benefit is concentrated in the area where I benefit). Landlords would then be forced to use their influence to try to steer new development to be near their own properties, rather than using their combined influence to kill all development.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tensor 2y ago

What an utterly hostile and naive view. We need rental buildings and thus we need landlords. There are many many scenarios where one may want to rent instead of buy. You need a place only for a few years, you need a place while you explore to decide where to buy, you don't have the money to buy yet, etc. If your next suggestion is that all landlords be government run or run as a coop, no freaking thanks to the first and while coops are great I don't think only coops is a good solution. If you want only wealthy homeowners and the rest of the population living in communism style housing, very hard disagree.

ltbarcly3 2y ago
No, I'm fine with landlords until they capture regulators and legislators and turn economic competition into stagnation for profit.
ltbarcly3 2y ago
You also don't know anything about co-ops. Frankly I think you are completely uneducated on any of this stuff. Go look up GHI in Greenbelt, Maryland. It's one of the oldest and largest co-ops in the USA. Housing in GHI is a fraction of the cost of the surrounding neighborhood, and the cause is that you cannot rent out GHI units. Only owners can live in their own units, which means speculators and landlords are simply banned from bidding up the costs. As a result, the cost to buy a unit there is a fraction of what it is right next door, maintenance on the units is better, crime is lower, services are better. It's a 100% walk able community that is run democratically. It's really a model for how housing could be built all across the country, but I guess you are the expert, we should keep doing what we do now and just let a couple billionaires complete a monopoly on having a roof, and hope that they only ask for 100% of our income and not more.