3 ms·

> the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Relying on that is the root problem. I could technically afford the new hous

> the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Relying on that is the root problem. I could technically afford the new house, but in the end I couldn't find a good reason to tie up that much capital for something that does the same thing as what I've already got, only shinier. If the price were more reasonable then I'd make the move and then someone else could move into my much cheaper used house. But, as things sit, I occupy the cheap house instead, leaving the next guy out in the cold. Trouble is that just because I can afford it doesn't mean I am willing to be a buyer. The price still has to make sense. I am not alone in this. It has been well reported that people are now staying in their "starter homes" instead of upgrading like past generations used to.

ghaff 4mo ago
There is a lot of cost and effort associated with moving into (or building) a new house. Honestly, where I live isn't huge but it's probably a bit more than I need at this point. But, absent a real shift such as buying an urban condo, it makes more sense to just hold onto the paid-off exurban house for the time being.
epistasis 4mo ago
And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied, so there are slightly wealthier people who are actually paying to alleviate the housing shortage crisis with their higher rents. Yet the same people lobbying to block the building of these new apartments are still saying that "nobody lives there" because it doesn't fit their mental model of the world.
- win311fwg 4mo ago
  > And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied Too expensive housing doesn't get build.
  - epistasis 4mo ago
    Well, occasionally a developer does mess up! So it sits empty for a year or two, then prices fall to the true price, and only that individual developer lost out. The city still got its property tax, an empty new building for a year or two is no worse than an empty lot for anybody, etc. etc. etc. But people that claim to hate developers find this sort of situation, a developer that built too expensive housing and ends up eating a loss, much worse than the current state of people being displaced all the time.

ghaff 4mo ago

There is a lot of cost and effort associated with moving into (or building) a new house. Honestly, where I live isn't huge but it's probably a bit more than I need at this point. But, absent a real shift such as buying an urban condo, it makes more sense to just hold onto the paid-off exurban house for the time being.

epistasis 4mo ago

And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied, so there are slightly wealthier people who are actually paying to alleviate the housing shortage crisis with their higher rents. Yet the same people lobbying to block the building of these new apartments are still saying that "nobody lives there" because it doesn't fit their mental model of the world.

win311fwg 4mo ago
> And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied Too expensive housing doesn't get build.
- epistasis 4mo ago
  Well, occasionally a developer does mess up! So it sits empty for a year or two, then prices fall to the true price, and only that individual developer lost out. The city still got its property tax, an empty new building for a year or two is no worse than an empty lot for anybody, etc. etc. etc. But people that claim to hate developers find this sort of situation, a developer that built too expensive housing and ends up eating a loss, much worse than the current state of people being displaced all the time.