Housing Unaffordability is the Result of Artificial Scarcity (Zoning)

Aug 18, 2022 11:10 PM

ShutUpOtis

Views

134386

Likes

1555

Dislikes

50

"Using the 1/3rd rule, $3,000 a month means you need an annual income of $108,000. The average household income in 2014 was $53,657. When you must make double the national average household income to afford to live on your own, you have an affordable housing problem."

From Strong Towns: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/4/20/affordable-housing#:~:text=Unaffordable%20housing%20is%20the%20result,increasing%20the%20supply%20of%20housing.

On vacancies: https://imgur.com/gallery/1Hfkmre & https://imgur.com/gallery/Gij6iE0

Housing unaffordability is the result of low interest rates which boosts commodity prices. Low rates for a long time leads to this spiral up

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

If only we could zone for residents that are saints and wouldn't immediately oppose new developments once they get theirs.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Supply IS an issue, it’s hard to fill supply in a cost effective manner with all the hoops and fees the government imposes on new builds

4 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

The artificial part of the scarcity is voters in rural and suburban areas insisting on veto power over all new housing development

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Artificial housing scarcity has been holding our entire civilization back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZxzBcxB7Zc

4 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

One of the big issues is no one wants dense housing in their neighborhood. They worry it will push down the value of their house.

4 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

I own a house and rent rooms out. I haven't raised rent more than $2 a year in 10 years but utilities doubled. I can't make it cheaper.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

One thing that gets forgotten is the single people. Households income normally means two types of incomes coming in, harder single earner

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The idea that rising prices 'curb demand' for *having a place to sleep* feels sociopathic. Humans. Need. Homes.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I live on SSDI at slightly over 10k a yr. House me, at whatever 30% a month would be. I'll wait.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Funny: The right-wing-whacko party: white deaths outnumber births and they stand to lose majority in a few years. All this is to force (1/3)

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

the next baby boom (RvW, ban contraception, crossing state lines, etc. and pump up the population in white areas. Boneheads dont get (2/3)

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

that people don't procreate as much when they can't afford to live to begin with. Its weird watching the trainwreck here. (3/3)

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Smith warned us. Land is a natural monopoly. Any increase in worker productivity will be offset by increases to rent.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

friendly reminder that 100% of Senators and 96.5% of Representatives in Congress own property they rent out.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

You can’t just build more houses either. It’s complicated. Really we need to regulate the monopolistic tendencies.

4 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Rent control would go a LONG way, as would punishing more than a couple homes owned by 1 person with inescapable taxes, unlike now.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

raising home prices doesn't curb demand, it just means more people are forced to live on the curb.

4 years ago | Likes 220 Dislikes 5

Like, I thought I was having a stroke reading that. That logic should never fucking apply to houses, food, or necessities.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And THEN homeowners use zoning laws to block homeless shelters because they lower their home value. Neat huh!

4 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Elasticity

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I can understand why you wouldn't want them near industrial areas. Or places where people would inevitably complain about the noise.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I guess the downvoter never heard of superfund sites. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Most people criticising zoning regulations are more against regulation stoping densification than regulation stoping building houses in

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It's not about not enough houses/appartements, "only" about affordable ones. Big companies should get sued if they not rent vacant houses.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

4 years ago (deleted Oct 21, 2024 11:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

see, small problem is they can build affordable houses, but selling them as affordable..ah....then they cant make ALL THE MONEY /s

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Strongtowns wrote a book, it's good.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

literally all you need to do is tax the shit out of people with multiple properties, and cut down on the loopholes

4 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

Building a wood frame house costs $200-$250/sf & most people don’t just want a 1,000sf home.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Land. Value. Tax. This one thing would change the game.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

$3000 a month after taxes. You need a lot more than $108,000

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Land Value Tax solves this

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

House flipping should be highly limited, taxed and regulated. Seen entire neighborhoods sell for $200k/unit $50k in upgrade. List for $800k

4 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

My current neighborhood is like this, minus the upgrades. I plowed sweat and money in to mine and neighbors selling for 750K or more /1

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When they haven't even touched anything since the 70s.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, they do pay taxes on the gains. If you didnt live in the house as primary residence or lived there less than 2 years, you pay CG tax.

4 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Most flippers on a big enough budget can basically nullify CG tax through borrowing against their profits, or claiming profits on next house

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or apply self Roth IRA's, or have their REIT registered in the Caimans and pay a "licensing" fee to themselves for the CG tax value

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Artificial Scarcity is one of the defining characteristics of modern capitalism

4 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Literally every economic system is controlled by scarcity. It's a fundamental physical reality

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

"Artificial" is the keyword: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

4 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Unfortunately, there's also artificial demand: people want to pick where they live. Unless you want to turn everything into HDH apartments.

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

I live in a medium density mix use neighbourhood and it is awesome. Those are banned in most place in the US. You have less choices

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

than me 'cause of law stoping densification.The problem isn't people choosing where they want to live, it's zooning laws limiting the choice

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

and yes, I know there are people who are advocating that everyone live in high density urban areas, like prisoners in cells. Not for me.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I recently read that Wall Street owns 1 in 7 homes.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Landlords are parasites.

4 years ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 19

Especially land speculation

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

My parasites sent me this letter last week.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

"Kind slaveowners prove that owning slaves isn't an inherently evil practice!"

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

The idea that all landlords are parasites is ridiculous. Some people literally don't want to buy every home they live in.

4 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

So naturally giving free money to someone who has more than one house is the best solution. Genius!

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Blanket statements are silly. A landlord has responsibility and costs on the living unit they don't occupy. For many it's nothing like free$

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Who pays for those costs?

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

By that logic everyone gets free money. You go to a restaurant, the waiter, the cook, all get free money because you pay the costs.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Housing scalpers.

4 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

So...this is pretty fucking simple. Primary residence. Reduced taxes. Secondary....welcome to the ass fucking.

4 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 6

Additionally will you live in a high demand area 2/3 yr or more? No can't buy it then. If you own it you gotta sell it.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You know, I don't care if you have a 2nd house. I care if you own a building. Or a block of buildings. Or half the downtown of a small city.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can already sell primary residence and exclude hundreds of thousands from taxes on that. Not so for 2ndary+

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Depending on where you are, your corp can claim vacant secondary houses as company asset losses and get massive tax breaks for them too.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's already how it works.

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 9

Nah, not nearly ass-fuckingly enough.

4 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Corporation in something besides a multi dwelling unit? Tax equal to the property value. Make it unprofitable to lease a necessity.

4 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

People talk that trash *now*, but in 2008-2012 they were begging for landlords to buy and fix up all the decrepit properties.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I wasn't. I was wanting to see the market roll and scale back and scale back some more. Than houses either collapse or Freddy fannie

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I bought decrepit houses 10 years ago and busted my ass fixing them up. Now they say I'm evil for wanting to collect rent.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I see what you are saying. I myself don't think you are evil for having the vision for doing it and the risk you took on.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where I have a challenge is with corporation that have swaddled and nestled up right next to the corner stone of the economy pushing ownersh

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because even then houses where unaffordable to thoes who actually wanted to live in them.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Liverpool UK sold houses for £1 because repair costs where more than the house was worth. Sensibly it came with a mandatory 2yr primary res

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

S.Korea tried that last year, and it's incredible how much conservative newspapers drummed it up as "hurting the poor & new homebuyers".

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

New home buyers as in "those building new homes off the equity in their rental properties." A sympathetic group to be sure.

4 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The problem with that is that residences are primarily taxed through property taxes, which are local. This means that some communities>

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

would be screwed out of tax $ they need to function because people claim them as "primary residence" & choose different place for secondary.

4 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So if both places were owned by the people living in them both communities would be screwed? No, the mill rate and grants account for this.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Your secondary or rental residence simply over contributes to the communities civic budget. The primary residence doesn't undercobtribute.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There is plenty of supply. Big issue is corporations and such sitting on these properties

4 years ago | Likes 108 Dislikes 6

Citation needed. Prove it.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

there's really not. It's been illegal to build affordable homes for almost 30 years now.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

In my province in Canada it's rich Asians buying it all. Check this out. Goes to 2020. My house up 39% 2020

4 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Crazy rich Asians.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This was a big problem in Vancouver last time I visited (2018). I assume nothing much has changed.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Browsing random?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah, no, was linked from another post and I didn't notice the comment dates until you asked

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Haha yes that happens

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

4 years ago (deleted Aug 22, 2022 3:52 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

4 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0