There really is something fundamentally American about NIMBY-ism. Anywhere that change needs to happen to fix suffering it's always the same response.
In defiance of the single-family zoning laws that dictate the look of most U.S. neighborhoods, Kendall Yards has houses next to townhomes next to apartments, with retail and office mixed in.
...
“I think it’s awesome — I have friends there, and we go down there to the farmers’ market and walk around,” said John Schram, a co-chair of the neighborhood council in Spokane’s Comstock neighborhood. “That’s just not my vision of what I want for me. My concern is that I move into a neighborhood because of the way that it was designed when I got there, and when somebody else comes in and wants to change that I’m going to be concerned.”
He added: “I have nothing against duplexes and triplexes, just not next to my house.”
There really is something fundamentally American about NIMBY-ism. Anywhere that change needs to happen to fix suffering it's always the same response.
It's rampant, even in liberal areas. "Yes that's definitely a problem, and we should definitely fix it. Just don't change anything that affects me personally". Ann Arbor MI has had a housing...
It's rampant, even in liberal areas. "Yes that's definitely a problem, and we should definitely fix it. Just don't change anything that affects me personally".
Ann Arbor MI has had a housing problem for years, largely due to students (not blaming them, just saying they are the major source of demand). Nobody wants apartments built next to their house. So instead people buy houses and rent them out to students.
Meanwhile, people in search of affordable long-term housing are pushed further and further out from the city center.
I'm renting and not buying (because lol Seattle) but I just signed a lease and this describes my rental-hunting mindset perfectly. I work from home full-time now. so I want a 2nd bedroom that can...
Goldilocks urbanity
a single-family house on a quiet street that was close enough to downtown that he could walk to a good brewery.
I'm renting and not buying (because lol Seattle) but I just signed a lease and this describes my rental-hunting mindset perfectly.
I work from home full-time now. so I want a 2nd bedroom that can be a home office. but I also want to be able to walk somewhere so that I can pick up something for lunch, or meet friends for drinks after work.
I'm in Canada and reading this article is feeling like a deja-vu of what has been happening in many Canadian provinces, where people fleeing out of HCOL cities end up displacing others in the...
I'm in Canada and reading this article is feeling like a deja-vu of what has been happening in many Canadian provinces, where people fleeing out of HCOL cities end up displacing others in the process. Skyrocketing housing prices is seeming to be a trend in tons of countries in the western world, and what I am struggling to figure out is whether this is a bubble (as it was in the 2000s in the US), or is this a new normal. It's definitely an important topic to me as I do not own any property yet and I hope to buy my own place in the next few years.
It's bad in the US, but Canada is on an entirely different level. (BC and Southern Ontario, mainly) Area Sept 2016 Median Price ($) Sept 2020 Median Price ($) Sept 2021 Median Price ($) London...
I'm also in favor of that, but it doesn't seem that it would solve the issue framed in this particular article? To the degree that the issue in a given smaller city is that people with more assets...
I'm also in favor of that, but it doesn't seem that it would solve the issue framed in this particular article? To the degree that the issue in a given smaller city is that people with more assets have just bought up the housing stock, multiple house ownership isn't the driving issue, it's just a mismatch between the assets available to out of towners and locals.
Making the control of multiple residences illegal has a huge number of challenges, too. Does it apply to corporations? What about nested groups of LLC's, none of which own more than a single property but who are in turn owned by a single person or larger company? (That's already fairly standard with investment property.) Does that inherently ban residential property investment by anyone who already owns a house? What about houses under construction? At what point is it illegal to own them if you're constructing them for sale? At the moment they're habitable? If so, do you have to have a buyer purchase it before the moment of habitability? None of these questions are inherently dealbreakers, but it's a challenging change to make.
None of this is to say that I don't consider the trend of large investment companies buying up housing stock to be an issue. It's a huge concern. I'm just aware of how big the challenges inherent in solving it are.
In some US states there is the "homestead exemption," which gives favorable tax treatment to people's first homes. If you think landlords and businesses are the problem, something like this might...
In some US states there is the "homestead exemption," which gives favorable tax treatment to people's first homes. If you think landlords and businesses are the problem, something like this might be what you want?
But this isn't going to help renters. Rather the opposite.
I'm interested in your thoughts on why it wouldn't help renters? In my experience having worked with numerous property owners and property management firms, the more detached a property owner is...
I'm interested in your thoughts on why it wouldn't help renters? In my experience having worked with numerous property owners and property management firms, the more detached a property owner is from the day to day experience at their property, the less empathy they have for their tenants. The less they care about the tenants, the more they treat being a landlord as a wholly extractive process, trying to make as much money off of the property as possible.
So far I haven't said anything about scale. I've seen people running big malls and apartment buildings care more about their tenants' experience than someone who rents out a single house. But scale does change things. The more properties you hold, the less you can treat the individuals as individual people and the more you have to just have some general principles, at best. So I do think that considering restrictions on how much housing stock can be controlled by a given organization has some merit, but I'm clear that it would cause downsides in disincentivizing skilled property management and construction, especially as we need way more housing stock (and specifically densely built apartment buildings and condos) than we currently have.
I just meant that it's a tax break for homeowners, not rentals. If more people buy houses to live in themselves, there will be fewer houses for rent, and homeowners tend to be richer than renters....
I just meant that it's a tax break for homeowners, not rentals. If more people buy houses to live in themselves, there will be fewer houses for rent, and homeowners tend to be richer than renters. (Unless new housing is built.)
I don't think I have enough experience to generalize about landlords, but "it depends on context" is usually a good bet. Different people have different personalities and it's not clear to me that an amateur will do a better job than a professional. If the property manager is good then maybe it doesn't matter that you never see the owner? Also, being more hands-off might be good if the alternative is someone who's stricter about rules than you like?
I'm not following. Even assuming unchanging levels of housing stock, unless people are buying more than one house, isn't each new homeowner is one less renter?
I just meant that it's a tax break for homeowners, not rentals. If more people buy houses to live in themselves, there will be fewer houses for rent, and homeowners tend to be richer than renters. (Unless new housing is built.)
I'm not following. Even assuming unchanging levels of housing stock, unless people are buying more than one house, isn't each new homeowner is one less renter?
That's true if you assume no migration. However, the article is about smaller cities where people from somewhere else are moving in. It doesn't help locally to know that the new homeowners sold...
That's true if you assume no migration. However, the article is about smaller cities where people from somewhere else are moving in. It doesn't help locally to know that the new homeowners sold their houses in other places.
That's a good point. I was assuming that an increased level of housing availability would slow down or stop these forced migrations, but there's no guarantee of that.
That's a good point. I was assuming that an increased level of housing availability would slow down or stop these forced migrations, but there's no guarantee of that.
Given that the rise in costs in those lower CoL areas is due to people with higher incomes purchasing homes and moving there, this isn't a bubble the way that 2008 was. Bubbles pop when people or...
Given that the rise in costs in those lower CoL areas is due to people with higher incomes purchasing homes and moving there, this isn't a bubble the way that 2008 was. Bubbles pop when people or companies who purchased homes then need to resell them at a lower cost to get out from under their own liabilities, and that's not the shape of this trend. You're not likely to see a couple who moved from Seattle to Spokane for a lower cost of living sell their house for a loss.
Agreed, I don't think it's a bubble that will pop. Here in Michigan house prices are also going a bit nuts. I expect it will calm down in the next few years as the rush to relocate calms a bit....
Agreed, I don't think it's a bubble that will pop. Here in Michigan house prices are also going a bit nuts. I expect it will calm down in the next few years as the rush to relocate calms a bit.
However I think that the overall migration will continue, and it will be interesting to see what cities continue to grow as people start reprioritizing what they're looking for. With proximity to work being less important, what takes it's place in priority? What cities have that thing? And what cities will try and create it?
I may have mentioned this before, but I’ve given up on the idea of owning my own home. I rent from my partner who owns his house, but even if we split, I’d go back to renting from somebody else...
I may have mentioned this before, but I’ve given up on the idea of owning my own home. I rent from my partner who owns his house, but even if we split, I’d go back to renting from somebody else (or move into my trailer and travel full time).
Me too. My wife and I talked for years about purchasing a house, but at this point a mortgage locally is 4x the monthly cost of our (thankfully rent-controlled) apartment. If we wanted to buy we'd...
Me too. My wife and I talked for years about purchasing a house, but at this point a mortgage locally is 4x the monthly cost of our (thankfully rent-controlled) apartment. If we wanted to buy we'd have to move away from all of our social supports, and that's not happening.
Interesting. So the only people who rent in your area are the people either without sufficient assets for a down payment or who don't intend to put down roots? That feels like a whole different world.
Interesting. So the only people who rent in your area are the people either without sufficient assets for a down payment or who don't intend to put down roots? That feels like a whole different world.
To echo what @Loire said, it's been the case across the UK for well over a decade, even after accounting for insurance and maintenance. Down payments (a particularly vicious cycle given that the...
To echo what @Loire said, it's been the case across the UK for well over a decade, even after accounting for insurance and maintenance. Down payments (a particularly vicious cycle given that the inflated rent prevents saving), the stricter income rules for mortgages (slightly more understandable from the bank's perspective, definitely still a solvable problem), the fact that for some insane reason rent payments don't build your credit score - as with so many things, buying a place is basically only open to those with enough money that they least need the discount.
London's a particularly extreme example, as you'd probably expect. It's 20% cheaper to own, with that difference representing an extra £384/month (over $500).
There really is something fundamentally American about NIMBY-ism. Anywhere that change needs to happen to fix suffering it's always the same response.
It's rampant, even in liberal areas. "Yes that's definitely a problem, and we should definitely fix it. Just don't change anything that affects me personally".
Ann Arbor MI has had a housing problem for years, largely due to students (not blaming them, just saying they are the major source of demand). Nobody wants apartments built next to their house. So instead people buy houses and rent them out to students.
Meanwhile, people in search of affordable long-term housing are pushed further and further out from the city center.
I'm renting and not buying (because lol Seattle) but I just signed a lease and this describes my rental-hunting mindset perfectly.
I work from home full-time now. so I want a 2nd bedroom that can be a home office. but I also want to be able to walk somewhere so that I can pick up something for lunch, or meet friends for drinks after work.
I'm in Canada and reading this article is feeling like a deja-vu of what has been happening in many Canadian provinces, where people fleeing out of HCOL cities end up displacing others in the process. Skyrocketing housing prices is seeming to be a trend in tons of countries in the western world, and what I am struggling to figure out is whether this is a bubble (as it was in the 2000s in the US), or is this a new normal. It's definitely an important topic to me as I do not own any property yet and I hope to buy my own place in the next few years.
It's bad in the US, but Canada is on an entirely different level. (BC and Southern Ontario, mainly)
That increase is shocking. It's the deathknell of home ownership for so many people.
I'd favor making it illegal to own more than some number of houses as well as banning empty houses.
I'm also in favor of that, but it doesn't seem that it would solve the issue framed in this particular article? To the degree that the issue in a given smaller city is that people with more assets have just bought up the housing stock, multiple house ownership isn't the driving issue, it's just a mismatch between the assets available to out of towners and locals.
Making the control of multiple residences illegal has a huge number of challenges, too. Does it apply to corporations? What about nested groups of LLC's, none of which own more than a single property but who are in turn owned by a single person or larger company? (That's already fairly standard with investment property.) Does that inherently ban residential property investment by anyone who already owns a house? What about houses under construction? At what point is it illegal to own them if you're constructing them for sale? At the moment they're habitable? If so, do you have to have a buyer purchase it before the moment of habitability? None of these questions are inherently dealbreakers, but it's a challenging change to make.
None of this is to say that I don't consider the trend of large investment companies buying up housing stock to be an issue. It's a huge concern. I'm just aware of how big the challenges inherent in solving it are.
In some US states there is the "homestead exemption," which gives favorable tax treatment to people's first homes. If you think landlords and businesses are the problem, something like this might be what you want?
But this isn't going to help renters. Rather the opposite.
I'm interested in your thoughts on why it wouldn't help renters? In my experience having worked with numerous property owners and property management firms, the more detached a property owner is from the day to day experience at their property, the less empathy they have for their tenants. The less they care about the tenants, the more they treat being a landlord as a wholly extractive process, trying to make as much money off of the property as possible.
So far I haven't said anything about scale. I've seen people running big malls and apartment buildings care more about their tenants' experience than someone who rents out a single house. But scale does change things. The more properties you hold, the less you can treat the individuals as individual people and the more you have to just have some general principles, at best. So I do think that considering restrictions on how much housing stock can be controlled by a given organization has some merit, but I'm clear that it would cause downsides in disincentivizing skilled property management and construction, especially as we need way more housing stock (and specifically densely built apartment buildings and condos) than we currently have.
I just meant that it's a tax break for homeowners, not rentals. If more people buy houses to live in themselves, there will be fewer houses for rent, and homeowners tend to be richer than renters. (Unless new housing is built.)
I don't think I have enough experience to generalize about landlords, but "it depends on context" is usually a good bet. Different people have different personalities and it's not clear to me that an amateur will do a better job than a professional. If the property manager is good then maybe it doesn't matter that you never see the owner? Also, being more hands-off might be good if the alternative is someone who's stricter about rules than you like?
I'm not following. Even assuming unchanging levels of housing stock, unless people are buying more than one house, isn't each new homeowner is one less renter?
That's true if you assume no migration. However, the article is about smaller cities where people from somewhere else are moving in. It doesn't help locally to know that the new homeowners sold their houses in other places.
That's a good point. I was assuming that an increased level of housing availability would slow down or stop these forced migrations, but there's no guarantee of that.
Given that the rise in costs in those lower CoL areas is due to people with higher incomes purchasing homes and moving there, this isn't a bubble the way that 2008 was. Bubbles pop when people or companies who purchased homes then need to resell them at a lower cost to get out from under their own liabilities, and that's not the shape of this trend. You're not likely to see a couple who moved from Seattle to Spokane for a lower cost of living sell their house for a loss.
Agreed, I don't think it's a bubble that will pop. Here in Michigan house prices are also going a bit nuts. I expect it will calm down in the next few years as the rush to relocate calms a bit.
However I think that the overall migration will continue, and it will be interesting to see what cities continue to grow as people start reprioritizing what they're looking for. With proximity to work being less important, what takes it's place in priority? What cities have that thing? And what cities will try and create it?
I may have mentioned this before, but I’ve given up on the idea of owning my own home. I rent from my partner who owns his house, but even if we split, I’d go back to renting from somebody else (or move into my trailer and travel full time).
Me too. My wife and I talked for years about purchasing a house, but at this point a mortgage locally is 4x the monthly cost of our (thankfully rent-controlled) apartment. If we wanted to buy we'd have to move away from all of our social supports, and that's not happening.
Interesting. So the only people who rent in your area are the people either without sufficient assets for a down payment or who don't intend to put down roots? That feels like a whole different world.
To echo what @Loire said, it's been the case across the UK for well over a decade, even after accounting for insurance and maintenance. Down payments (a particularly vicious cycle given that the inflated rent prevents saving), the stricter income rules for mortgages (slightly more understandable from the bank's perspective, definitely still a solvable problem), the fact that for some insane reason rent payments don't build your credit score - as with so many things, buying a place is basically only open to those with enough money that they least need the discount.
London's a particularly extreme example, as you'd probably expect. It's 20% cheaper to own, with that difference representing an extra £384/month (over $500).