7 ms·

There is an incredibly large lobby group who is fully invested in house prices rising or at least not falling, namely homeowners. and since most politicians at

There is an incredibly large lobby group who is fully invested in house prices rising or at least not falling, namely homeowners. and since most politicians at a high level usually own one or more houses, they are fully invested in it as well.

jerlam 1y ago
It's a much bigger group than homeowners. Banks don't want housing prices to fall, since then homeowners start foreclosing and then banks lose interest payments and own undesired property. Cities don't want housing prices to fall, since they were counting on money from developers and property taxes.
- waldohatesyou 1y ago
  I don’t agree with this take, we’re overly simplifying the nature of housing here. It depends on the housing mix as well. If the vast majority of the pro-housing prices crowd is heavily invested in single family residential then they should favour widespread upzoning and deregulation of apartments because that would increase the value of their SFHs through two mechanisms: 1) presumably single family homes will be destroyed so any remaining single family homes become more valuable and 2) every single family home is now a potential townhouse or high density building which increases the value a developer would pay for it. Are there any serious objections to that line of reasoning?
  - jerlam 1y ago
    No, what you said is mostly correct; but I'm mostly talking about not having home prices go down, which is different but related. There are different kinds of homeowners. There are those who are flipping houses and directly betting that the values go up, which is the crowd that you're describing. But at least in my area of the world, the majority of the anti-housing crowd is just old and is more anti-change than anything else. Even if the value of their home skyrockets even more, they won't sell and move. Their complaints are more about noise, traffic, and "quality of life" than home values.
  - jollyllama 1y ago
    But assuming that the upzoning and deregulation doesn't happen, isn't their calculation correct?
  - prawn 1y ago
    I think the value of their main residence is a bigger driver than opportunities through zoning changes. It's easier to sit in your house year after year as it increases in value than it is to go through a redevelopment process, and have to move or end up with a less impressive residence. I'd guess that many would look for opportunities in denser suburbs elsewhere than agitate to change zoning closer to home. There are strong factors around character of a neighbourhood: I think people in valuable SFHs tend to resent people in units as one example. Housing prices have typically risen without the assistance of zoning changes.
- __turbobrew__ 1y ago
  Property taxes are relatively independent from the absolute value of the property. Only the relative value of a property to other properties in municipality determines property taxes.
  - jerlam 1y ago
    I live in California where property tax is fixed at 1% due to Prop 13, so I don't really know how it works anywhere else.
    - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
      Ok, I guess that is specific to California. Where I live it doesn’t work that way.
  - TJSomething 1y ago
    In Nevada, it's a percentage (approximately 0.5%, varying from city to city and with other conditions, like commercial usage) of its assessed value, which is 35% of taxable value. Taxable value is the market value of the bare land plus the replacement cost for all improvements on the land, less depreciation.
    - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
      Ok, but if real estate prices half the city can just double the tax from 0.5% to 1%? Correct?
      - tomrod 1y ago
        Yes, but every elected official will lose their job at that millage rate increase and you'll have riots.
        __turbobrew__ 1y ago
        Why? If the real estate prices half and the municipality doubles the tax rate, everyone pays the same amount of tax in dollars per year?
xnx 1y ago
> and since most politicians at a high level usually own one or more houses, That's a factor, but the bigger deal is that eligible homeowners ar 50% more likely to vote than eligible renters, and that doesn't even count that many renters are not event eligible to vote! https://nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turnout-disparities-2022-midterm-elections https://nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turn...
- brailsafe 1y ago
  > That's a factor, but the bigger deal is that eligible homeowners ar 50% more likely to vote than eligible renters, and that doesn't even count that many renters are not event eligible to vote! Even if the data seems to indicate that's true, I do see this statement thrown around a lot without much granularity into the groups counted. In your link, it's broken down into a few different groups, but in terms of renters vs owners I'm kind of less interested in proportion of people eligible to vote who fit into each broad category, and more interested in normalized categories. How many more people who didn't vote and are renters share a rental unit with someone they're not tied to long-term, or rent alone, compared to people who own alone or own in a long-term committed relationship where both people would be owners and likely to physically vote together, for example. As in, is there as significant of difference between households of the same structure, income level, age bracket, in terms of voter turnout (a couple sharing the status of renting or sharing the status of owning). I feel like you'd be much more likely to vote if your spouse that you split expenses and responsibilities with also votes, whereas your roommate might not give a damn and it has nothing much to do with you. Likewise if you own a 1 bedroom condo alone, does that show up as different than someone who rents a 1 bedroom condo alone?
lokar 1y ago
I never see the NIMBY movement really engage with what falling prices would mean in practice. It just seems impossible to be allowed for any really duration over a large area. I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation).
- kettlecorn 1y ago
  > I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation). If you read between the lines that seems to be what Canada's approach to house affordability is going to be. Their leaders are promising housing will be more "affordable" but that the goal isn't to decrease home prices.
  - typewithrhythm 1y ago
    They are going down the same path of making a lower quality product available, then using deceptive averages. I have not seen anything that would create a supply of equally desirable properties (compared with detached dwellings).
    - lokar 1y ago
      Most families being able to afford a detached SFH was a historical anomaly that came with massive costs, and won’t be sustainable long term.
      - typewithrhythm 1y ago
        The "anomaly" happened when we were less productive overall. What change made it possible, and why can't we go back? Western societies are naturally below replacement rate, getting back to sfh as the norm seems like the inevitable outcome without the significant efforts at the national policy level.
        h2zizzle 1y ago
munchler 1y ago
There's also a large lobby group that is fully invested in building new houses, namely real estate developers, and since most politicians at a high level usually need large campaign contributions, they are fully invested in it as well.
- brokencode 1y ago
  Are you suggesting that the problem with housing is that we are producing too much of it?
  - munchler 1y ago
    No, I'm suggesting that one problem with housing is wealthy real estate developers who have undue political influence.
    - jdkoeck 1y ago
      I wish they had more influence, then they’d be able to build more and prices would go down.
      - munchler 1y ago
        I'm all for building more housing, as long as it comes with the necessary infrastructure - schools, roads, parking, public transportation, etc. Where I live, developers seem to get government approval to build in locations where they can rake in a lot of money at high prices without having to worry about such things. (In fact, my local government is actually closing roads near new housing because "f#ck cars" is apparently a hip idea these days.)
        jdkoeck 1y ago
        Your own example seems to show that the culprit lies with local governance, not developers, wouldn’t you agree?
frollogaston 1y ago
That's fine. On one hand the other saying "no" too much will stagnate the local economy, on the other a city doesn't need to accommodate an infinite number of people moving there. Either extreme will hurt property values in the long run, so there's a balance. I've seen places sell themselves out, I've also seen suburban sprawls where naive homeowners feel good about holding a house 20 years only to make 30% gain. Nobody else should decide the balance but the residents who have semi-permanently set up their lives there. People considering where to move have no skin in the game, they can pick somewhere else if they don't like what they see or can't afford it. Developers at least have something to lose once they've set up shop, but they're still not raising families there. And by "should" I mean, I wouldn't buy a home in a place where homeowners don't have the most say. Those places do exist, and I'd only rent there temporarily.
- Gigachad 1y ago
  This has just lead to Boomers getting a death grip on every city. Young people are forced to pay out the nose to rent the scraps of housing left, and then also get taxed to pay out the pensions of the same boomers because they moved all of their cash out of the bank and stocks to put in to a 5 bedroom house in Sydney so now they qualify for welfare.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    What do you propose instead to allow younger people to buy homes, and if it were implemented, why would young people still want to buy a home under those rules?
    - Gigachad 1y ago
      I propose construction approvals be managed by a higher government level than the local council which has so far resulted in disastrous outcomes. At the state level, planning can be done for the benefit of the whole city. Entrenched groups of property owners holding inner city areas hostage won't be able to push young people to the outskirts where there is no PT, schools or facilities. Medium and high density buildings would be able to be built where they make the most sense, not just where there is the least political resistance. Young people want to live near jobs, transport, and entertainment. But those areas are currently locked up by property owners preventing construction of appropriate housing.
cheriot 1y ago
Many of the home owners would win in a freer market because their land would be worth more.
ponector 1y ago
Falling prices are bad for economy. Lending brokers, construction companies, material suppliers - all will be hurt if price falls. The best solution in my perspective is to have stagnant housing prices so eventually general inflation will make housing cheaper.
MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
> namely homeowners I'm a homeowner and rising house prices are terrible for me. Property taxes have doubled, and the prospect of switching neighborhoods (as one might consider doing for work, school, or other reasons) feels off the table given the high costs involved in the transaction, since agent fees are a percentage of the sale. But some homeowners are to blame, at the civic level, where those who are happy with the way things are reinforce the roadblocks against affordable housing. Minimum lot sizes and anti-apartment legislation dissuade the pesky low-income riff-raff from moving in.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
flustercan 1y ago
If we can keep the price of homes flat for 10 years then homeowners won't get hosed (still increasing equity by paying off principle) and homes get more affordable (assuming steady inflation and wage growth)

jerlam 1y ago

It's a much bigger group than homeowners. Banks don't want housing prices to fall, since then homeowners start foreclosing and then banks lose interest payments and own undesired property. Cities don't want housing prices to fall, since they were counting on money from developers and property taxes.

waldohatesyou 1y ago
I don’t agree with this take, we’re overly simplifying the nature of housing here. It depends on the housing mix as well. If the vast majority of the pro-housing prices crowd is heavily invested in single family residential then they should favour widespread upzoning and deregulation of apartments because that would increase the value of their SFHs through two mechanisms: 1) presumably single family homes will be destroyed so any remaining single family homes become more valuable and 2) every single family home is now a potential townhouse or high density building which increases the value a developer would pay for it. Are there any serious objections to that line of reasoning?
- jerlam 1y ago
  No, what you said is mostly correct; but I'm mostly talking about not having home prices go down, which is different but related. There are different kinds of homeowners. There are those who are flipping houses and directly betting that the values go up, which is the crowd that you're describing. But at least in my area of the world, the majority of the anti-housing crowd is just old and is more anti-change than anything else. Even if the value of their home skyrockets even more, they won't sell and move. Their complaints are more about noise, traffic, and "quality of life" than home values.
- jollyllama 1y ago
  But assuming that the upzoning and deregulation doesn't happen, isn't their calculation correct?
- prawn 1y ago
  I think the value of their main residence is a bigger driver than opportunities through zoning changes. It's easier to sit in your house year after year as it increases in value than it is to go through a redevelopment process, and have to move or end up with a less impressive residence. I'd guess that many would look for opportunities in denser suburbs elsewhere than agitate to change zoning closer to home. There are strong factors around character of a neighbourhood: I think people in valuable SFHs tend to resent people in units as one example. Housing prices have typically risen without the assistance of zoning changes.
__turbobrew__ 1y ago
Property taxes are relatively independent from the absolute value of the property. Only the relative value of a property to other properties in municipality determines property taxes.
- jerlam 1y ago
  I live in California where property tax is fixed at 1% due to Prop 13, so I don't really know how it works anywhere else.
  - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
    Ok, I guess that is specific to California. Where I live it doesn’t work that way.
- TJSomething 1y ago
  In Nevada, it's a percentage (approximately 0.5%, varying from city to city and with other conditions, like commercial usage) of its assessed value, which is 35% of taxable value. Taxable value is the market value of the bare land plus the replacement cost for all improvements on the land, less depreciation.
  - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
    Ok, but if real estate prices half the city can just double the tax from 0.5% to 1%? Correct?
    - tomrod 1y ago
      Yes, but every elected official will lose their job at that millage rate increase and you'll have riots.
      - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
        Why? If the real estate prices half and the municipality doubles the tax rate, everyone pays the same amount of tax in dollars per year?

xnx 1y ago

> and since most politicians at a high level usually own one or more houses, That's a factor, but the bigger deal is that eligible homeowners ar 50% more likely to vote than eligible renters, and that doesn't even count that many renters are not event eligible to vote! https://nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turnout-disparities-2022-midterm-elections https://nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turn...

brailsafe 1y ago
> That's a factor, but the bigger deal is that eligible homeowners ar 50% more likely to vote than eligible renters, and that doesn't even count that many renters are not event eligible to vote! Even if the data seems to indicate that's true, I do see this statement thrown around a lot without much granularity into the groups counted. In your link, it's broken down into a few different groups, but in terms of renters vs owners I'm kind of less interested in proportion of people eligible to vote who fit into each broad category, and more interested in normalized categories. How many more people who didn't vote and are renters share a rental unit with someone they're not tied to long-term, or rent alone, compared to people who own alone or own in a long-term committed relationship where both people would be owners and likely to physically vote together, for example. As in, is there as significant of difference between households of the same structure, income level, age bracket, in terms of voter turnout (a couple sharing the status of renting or sharing the status of owning). I feel like you'd be much more likely to vote if your spouse that you split expenses and responsibilities with also votes, whereas your roommate might not give a damn and it has nothing much to do with you. Likewise if you own a 1 bedroom condo alone, does that show up as different than someone who rents a 1 bedroom condo alone?

lokar 1y ago

I never see the NIMBY movement really engage with what falling prices would mean in practice. It just seems impossible to be allowed for any really duration over a large area. I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation).

kettlecorn 1y ago
> I think a more realistic (but depressing) goal is modest loss to inflation (so prices go up by 1-2% less then inflation). If you read between the lines that seems to be what Canada's approach to house affordability is going to be. Their leaders are promising housing will be more "affordable" but that the goal isn't to decrease home prices.
- typewithrhythm 1y ago
  They are going down the same path of making a lower quality product available, then using deceptive averages. I have not seen anything that would create a supply of equally desirable properties (compared with detached dwellings).
  - lokar 1y ago
    Most families being able to afford a detached SFH was a historical anomaly that came with massive costs, and won’t be sustainable long term.
    - typewithrhythm 1y ago
      The "anomaly" happened when we were less productive overall. What change made it possible, and why can't we go back? Western societies are naturally below replacement rate, getting back to sfh as the norm seems like the inevitable outcome without the significant efforts at the national policy level.
      - h2zizzle 1y ago

munchler 1y ago

There's also a large lobby group that is fully invested in building new houses, namely real estate developers, and since most politicians at a high level usually need large campaign contributions, they are fully invested in it as well.

brokencode 1y ago
Are you suggesting that the problem with housing is that we are producing too much of it?
- munchler 1y ago
  No, I'm suggesting that one problem with housing is wealthy real estate developers who have undue political influence.
  - jdkoeck 1y ago
    I wish they had more influence, then they’d be able to build more and prices would go down.
    - munchler 1y ago
      I'm all for building more housing, as long as it comes with the necessary infrastructure - schools, roads, parking, public transportation, etc. Where I live, developers seem to get government approval to build in locations where they can rake in a lot of money at high prices without having to worry about such things. (In fact, my local government is actually closing roads near new housing because "f#ck cars" is apparently a hip idea these days.)
      - jdkoeck 1y ago
        Your own example seems to show that the culprit lies with local governance, not developers, wouldn’t you agree?

frollogaston 1y ago

That's fine. On one hand the other saying "no" too much will stagnate the local economy, on the other a city doesn't need to accommodate an infinite number of people moving there. Either extreme will hurt property values in the long run, so there's a balance. I've seen places sell themselves out, I've also seen suburban sprawls where naive homeowners feel good about holding a house 20 years only to make 30% gain. Nobody else should decide the balance but the residents who have semi-permanently set up their lives there. People considering where to move have no skin in the game, they can pick somewhere else if they don't like what they see or can't afford it. Developers at least have something to lose once they've set up shop, but they're still not raising families there. And by "should" I mean, I wouldn't buy a home in a place where homeowners don't have the most say. Those places do exist, and I'd only rent there temporarily.

Gigachad 1y ago
This has just lead to Boomers getting a death grip on every city. Young people are forced to pay out the nose to rent the scraps of housing left, and then also get taxed to pay out the pensions of the same boomers because they moved all of their cash out of the bank and stocks to put in to a 5 bedroom house in Sydney so now they qualify for welfare.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  What do you propose instead to allow younger people to buy homes, and if it were implemented, why would young people still want to buy a home under those rules?
  - Gigachad 1y ago
    I propose construction approvals be managed by a higher government level than the local council which has so far resulted in disastrous outcomes. At the state level, planning can be done for the benefit of the whole city. Entrenched groups of property owners holding inner city areas hostage won't be able to push young people to the outskirts where there is no PT, schools or facilities. Medium and high density buildings would be able to be built where they make the most sense, not just where there is the least political resistance. Young people want to live near jobs, transport, and entertainment. But those areas are currently locked up by property owners preventing construction of appropriate housing.

cheriot 1y ago

Many of the home owners would win in a freer market because their land would be worth more.

ponector 1y ago

Falling prices are bad for economy. Lending brokers, construction companies, material suppliers - all will be hurt if price falls. The best solution in my perspective is to have stagnant housing prices so eventually general inflation will make housing cheaper.

MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago

> namely homeowners I'm a homeowner and rising house prices are terrible for me. Property taxes have doubled, and the prospect of switching neighborhoods (as one might consider doing for work, school, or other reasons) feels off the table given the high costs involved in the transaction, since agent fees are a percentage of the sale. But some homeowners are to blame, at the civic level, where those who are happy with the way things are reinforce the roadblocks against affordable housing. Minimum lot sizes and anti-apartment legislation dissuade the pesky low-income riff-raff from moving in.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

flustercan 1y ago

If we can keep the price of homes flat for 10 years then homeowners won't get hosed (still increasing equity by paying off principle) and homes get more affordable (assuming steady inflation and wage growth)