4 ms·

This isn't a distribution problem. We don't have enough pie (houses). We need more houses. Not a campaign to distribute a massive shortage slightly more even

This isn't a distribution problem. We don't have enough pie (houses). We need more houses. Not a campaign to distribute a massive shortage slightly more evenly.

majormajor 2y ago
What's the reason that, with office occupancies down in so many places, there isn't a big push for conversion of commercial zoning to residential multi-family? Incentive programs to reward converting vacant spaces? Penalty taxes for holding vacant office space instead of selling it to someone who will figure out something to do with it?
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  Because most skyscrapers can't be converted to housing efficiently. It would cost more to convert them then you could sell the units for. The people who own those buildings are desperate to fill them. They'd convert if it made sense. They aren't part of some evil cabal to have commercial buildings sit empty to push up residential property prices.
  - leehuffman 2y ago
    Why is everyone (ok, fine, mostly economics & tech people) convinced this is such a wildly viable slam dunk of an idea? Have y'all ever opened up a wall before and seen the electrical, plumbing, etc mechanical bits that make up a home? Any idea of what it'd cost to chop up that office space and feed every individual piece the necessary bits? It's outrageous that we're even talking about this idea still. It'd require wildddddd tax advantages & federal spends in order to execute on it in any sense of the overarching idea.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Houses are like a million dollars. Some plumbing is maybe 10k?
      - ericd 2y ago
        Have you talked with contractors recently? It costs a lot more than you seem to think it does.
      - nradov 2y ago
        Are you joking? Regular houses are nowhere near a million dollars in most of the country.
        mdp2021 2y ago
        But where do you need to live? 237 cities does not mean "very special places". See (hours fresh article): > A Thursday report from Zillow indicates that a typical starter home is now worth $1 million or more in 237 cities, up from 84 cities in 2019, underscoring America’s ongoing home affordability crisis https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/more-starter-homes-cost-one-million-dollars https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/more-starter-hom...
        nradov 2y ago
        You don't "need" to live anywhere in particular. Many of those 237 cities are part of larger high-cost metro areas. Move to the Columbus, OH area (or something like that). There are plenty of affordable homes for sale there. Or buy cheap vacant land and build whatever you want. The unemployment rate is low so it's not hard to find a job. Some people are just too picky about location and only want to complain or find excuses instead of doing something to improve their situation.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        I'm talking about the places with housing shortages where it might make sense to spend money converting an office block.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > What's the reason that, with office occupancies down in so many places, there isn't a big push for conversion of commercial zoning to residential multi-family? Zoning simply doesn't allow for that in the overwhelming majority of places. > Incentive programs to reward converting vacant spaces? How about making it legal first? > Penalty taxes for holding vacant office space instead of selling it to someone who will figure out something to do with it? Or just have land value taxation. All of those things simply miss the underlying structural issues. We know the structural issue. People need to stop thinking in these 'could we do this little micro adjustment, or this little micro adjustment' as if that solves anything. We know how to solve this, its not really up for debate. Endlessly arguing about micro-optimization. Its like in IT when people argue about some minor optimization in the compiler when their are 100x more blocked by IO.
dontlikeyoueith 2y ago
There are more empty second homes than homeless people in my state. By a factor of 10. It's a distribution problem.
- Plasmoid 2y ago
  Only if you have such a loose definition of vacant where it includes people who haven't yet moved into their newly acquired house.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    Or the recreational properties. My 2 bedroom 80+ year old cabin that isn't fit for winter season gets used every weekend in the summer for 4 months but counts as vacant for my province, mevermind that it is W hours from any major non agricultural employment opportunitiesx
- Aunche 2y ago
  Homeless people make up about .2% of the US, so multiplied by 10 and that's 2%. If your country only has 1.02 people's worth of food per person, that's more of a shortage than a distribution problem. The same goes for housing.
- pxmpxm 2y ago
  I would venture a guess you've never owned a property to conflate "empty second home" with that "free housing for homeless" insinuation, as if those two concepts are in any way related. Pretty sure that housing isn't the only place where you see redistribution as the solution though, that pattern always holds strong.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  This is a cute fact completely devoid of meaning. If your homeless population is 0.1% of the population, only 1% of the housing stock needs to be second homes for this to be true. If you think only the top 1% should be able to afford a second home, then you must think we should be artificially poor. The top 1% in this country are VERY wealthy. The top 10% can EASILY afford a modest vacation home if that's a priority. The solution isn't to take their homes in Big Bear and give them to homeless people in San Jose. It's to build more houses in San Jose so that starter condos don't cost $800k...

This isn't a distribution problem. We don't have enough pie (houses). We need more houses. Not a campaign to distribute a massive shortage slightly more evenly.

majormajor 2y ago

What's the reason that, with office occupancies down in so many places, there isn't a big push for conversion of commercial zoning to residential multi-family? Incentive programs to reward converting vacant spaces? Penalty taxes for holding vacant office space instead of selling it to someone who will figure out something to do with it?

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Because most skyscrapers can't be converted to housing efficiently. It would cost more to convert them then you could sell the units for. The people who own those buildings are desperate to fill them. They'd convert if it made sense. They aren't part of some evil cabal to have commercial buildings sit empty to push up residential property prices.
- leehuffman 2y ago
  Why is everyone (ok, fine, mostly economics & tech people) convinced this is such a wildly viable slam dunk of an idea? Have y'all ever opened up a wall before and seen the electrical, plumbing, etc mechanical bits that make up a home? Any idea of what it'd cost to chop up that office space and feed every individual piece the necessary bits? It's outrageous that we're even talking about this idea still. It'd require wildddddd tax advantages & federal spends in order to execute on it in any sense of the overarching idea.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Houses are like a million dollars. Some plumbing is maybe 10k?
    - ericd 2y ago
      Have you talked with contractors recently? It costs a lot more than you seem to think it does.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Are you joking? Regular houses are nowhere near a million dollars in most of the country.
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        But where do you need to live? 237 cities does not mean "very special places". See (hours fresh article): > A Thursday report from Zillow indicates that a typical starter home is now worth $1 million or more in 237 cities, up from 84 cities in 2019, underscoring America’s ongoing home affordability crisis https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/more-starter-homes-cost-one-million-dollars https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/business/more-starter-hom...
        nradov 2y ago
        You don't "need" to live anywhere in particular. Many of those 237 cities are part of larger high-cost metro areas. Move to the Columbus, OH area (or something like that). There are plenty of affordable homes for sale there. Or buy cheap vacant land and build whatever you want. The unemployment rate is low so it's not hard to find a job. Some people are just too picky about location and only want to complain or find excuses instead of doing something to improve their situation.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        I'm talking about the places with housing shortages where it might make sense to spend money converting an office block.
panick21_ 2y ago
> What's the reason that, with office occupancies down in so many places, there isn't a big push for conversion of commercial zoning to residential multi-family? Zoning simply doesn't allow for that in the overwhelming majority of places. > Incentive programs to reward converting vacant spaces? How about making it legal first? > Penalty taxes for holding vacant office space instead of selling it to someone who will figure out something to do with it? Or just have land value taxation. All of those things simply miss the underlying structural issues. We know the structural issue. People need to stop thinking in these 'could we do this little micro adjustment, or this little micro adjustment' as if that solves anything. We know how to solve this, its not really up for debate. Endlessly arguing about micro-optimization. Its like in IT when people argue about some minor optimization in the compiler when their are 100x more blocked by IO.

dontlikeyoueith 2y ago

There are more empty second homes than homeless people in my state. By a factor of 10. It's a distribution problem.

Plasmoid 2y ago
Only if you have such a loose definition of vacant where it includes people who haven't yet moved into their newly acquired house.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Or the recreational properties. My 2 bedroom 80+ year old cabin that isn't fit for winter season gets used every weekend in the summer for 4 months but counts as vacant for my province, mevermind that it is W hours from any major non agricultural employment opportunitiesx
Aunche 2y ago
Homeless people make up about .2% of the US, so multiplied by 10 and that's 2%. If your country only has 1.02 people's worth of food per person, that's more of a shortage than a distribution problem. The same goes for housing.
pxmpxm 2y ago
I would venture a guess you've never owned a property to conflate "empty second home" with that "free housing for homeless" insinuation, as if those two concepts are in any way related. Pretty sure that housing isn't the only place where you see redistribution as the solution though, that pattern always holds strong.
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
This is a cute fact completely devoid of meaning. If your homeless population is 0.1% of the population, only 1% of the housing stock needs to be second homes for this to be true. If you think only the top 1% should be able to afford a second home, then you must think we should be artificially poor. The top 1% in this country are VERY wealthy. The top 10% can EASILY afford a modest vacation home if that's a priority. The solution isn't to take their homes in Big Bear and give them to homeless people in San Jose. It's to build more houses in San Jose so that starter condos don't cost $800k...