Keep cars out of cities

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Landlords are the best at explaining why there shouldn't be landlords

[Keyser_Soze]

She must have read Rich Dad Poor Dad

[Uaarkson]

When I try to admit to myself I’m basically a libertarian when it comes to housing policy, I always get hung up on shit like this. Raw capitalism can blow me.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

30 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

When I try to admit to myself I’m basically a libertarian when it comes to housing policy, I always get hung up on shit like this. Raw capitalism can blow me.

Only scarcity can produce such cash flow. Putting on my simplistic lolertarian hat, when you see excess profits, supply will surely follow, producing a race to the bottom benefiting the consumer (renter). But what if you legislate restricting the supply? It's literally rent seeking!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[thewhyteboar]

Cars contribute nothing to cities.

[CitizenVectron]

Right-wing paper advocates for...abolishing parks?

 

 

[Uaarkson]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Right-wing paper advocates for...abolishing parks?

 

 

imagine being this kind of person 

[thewhyteboar]

Privatizing parks lol. "If people want green spaces, they can simply visit their country clubs!"

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

This FEELS right even before seeing the data. One of the things I’ve noticed in recent years is despite the building of a TON of new housing, including lots of multi-family in the city itself, rents have gone up much faster than mortgages. It’s much easier to afford to buy a house than to rent, which obviously has the worst implications for very low income people.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This FEELS right even before seeing the data. One of the things I’ve noticed in recent years is despite the building of a TON of new housing, including lots of multi-family in the city itself, rents have gone up much faster than mortgages. It’s much easier to afford to buy a house than to rent, which obviously has the worst implications for very low income people.

Yeah. And poorer people are less likely to have money down for purchasing a home, so new homes for purchase don't directly help those with lower incomes. And without specific programs to attract and maintain rent properties for lower income folks, rents will go at the market price which doesn't care how poor or cost burdened you are.

 

The point I've made before is that building more housing via the market doesn't solve all of the problems, but it makes it more affordable for middle income folks (which is probably why it generates the most attention) so you need specific help for lower income folks and we need to direct public dollars in that direction.

[Jason]

Market Urbanism Report

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM

---

The Market Urbanism Report group's main purpose is to discuss how free-market policies would work in cities. But we double as somewhat of a professional network for planners, architects, real estate...

 

[Uaarkson]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[Jason]

28 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

It's all bad faith all the time with NIMBYs.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

@Jason

 

 

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

@Jason

 

 

 

[Fizzzzle]

I've seen some people say that Houston's housing availability has to do with the fact that they don't have typical zoning restrictions. This video goes into how they don't have zoning restrictions, but they still put a lot of things that normally ARE in zoning restrictions into their other ordinances. So they don't have zoning, but they also pretty much do. Like, the city itself enforces deed restrictions that prevent land use changes and controls things like building sizes.

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

I don't understand the people who think more homes won't help affordability

[Uaarkson]

34 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I don't understand the people who think more homes won't help affordability

 

I mean, without a radical shift in zoning/finance regulations, additional housing actually can hurt affordability. Especially when all that's being built is SFH McMansions and luxury apartments.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[Guest]

Equity gains are mostly fake when the prices go up nearly everywhere. If you sell your house, you now have to buy in the more expensive market so it’s not as though you pocket most of that. You would likely need to move to a completely different market if you want to capture any of those gains. “Equity increases” are mostly a topic to drive people to refi and cash out some that new value to keep them in debt to a larger degree for as long as possible

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Equity gains are mostly fake when the prices go up nearly everywhere. If you sell your house, you now have to buy in the more expensive market so it’s not as though you pocket most of that. You would likely need to move to a completely different market if you want to capture any of those gains. “Equity increases” are mostly a topic to drive people to refi and cash out some that new value to keep them in debt to a larger degree for as long as possible

There's other reasons too. Downsizing and leaving the ownership market (move in with family or partner, renting) probably the most common. But that so many people have staked so much into the idea that homes appreciate in value (and the idea of retirement is wrapped so much in the value of a home) is itself a problem.

[Anathema-]

12 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Equity gains are mostly fake when the prices go up nearly everywhere. If you sell your house, you now have to buy in the more expensive market so it’s not as though you pocket most of that. You would likely need to move to a completely different market if you want to capture any of those gains. “Equity increases” are mostly a topic to drive people to refi and cash out some that new value to keep them in debt to a larger degree for as long as possible

 

In my case my home has gone up much more than the average. Almost double. I'm looking at a place that hasn't gone up as much and now I can afford a real down payment. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

16 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There's other reasons too. Downsizing and leaving the ownership market (move in with family or partner, renting) probably the most common. But that so many people have staked so much into the idea that homes appreciate in value (and the idea of retirement is wrapped so much in the value of a home) is itself a problem.

Depending on the market.

In my area, downsizing doesn't allow you to "cash out" very much, and the rental market is similarly insane.  The people we bought from moved into Northern Ontario to be able to fund their retirement.

 

That said, my mother-in-law just remarried and is in the process of selling her house.  She bought it in the 70s for $26k, has put literally nothing into it [it's a complete dump], but it's valued at $1M due to the neighbourhood she lives in.  It will completely pay for her retirement.

[Uaarkson]

Ever inventive, New Yorkers move into RVs to avoid high city rents

WWW.NYDAILYNEWS.COM

---

Dozens of New Yorkers have traded a brick-and-mortar pad for a home on wheels because they can’t afford city rents.

This is what happens when you have a zoning/tax incentive structure that encourages landlords to sit on vacant properties and big developers to build nothing but luxury housing. The housing big coastal cities need to be building is functionally illegal 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Jason]

13 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

 

We can't do it because it's just (((greedy realtors))) wanting more houses to sell don't do a giveaway to them at the expense of the Real Residents.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

We can't do it because it's just (((greedy realtors))) wanting more houses to sell don't do a giveaway to them at the expense of the Real Residents.

The real solution is to simply "take" the vacant housing and give it to the unhoused. That will be a quick and easy way to get people off the street and make housing affordable

[Uaarkson]

24 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The real solution is to simply "take" the vacant housing and give it to the unhoused. That will be a quick and easy way to get people off the street and make housing affordable

Too bad the only thing more sacred than guns in this country is property rights.

[Jason]

25 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The real solution is to simply "take" the vacant housing and give it to the unhoused. That will be a quick and easy way to get people off the street and make housing affordable

 

Yes, even if it's decrepit housing in the middle of nowhere, housing expert Lee Carter said so. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Yes, even if it's decrepit housing in the middle of nowhere, housing expert Lee Carter said so.