It sounds easy doesn't it? But housing prices have exploded all over the Western world and that includes, for example, the Netherlands where there are most assuredly houses for lower income...
It sounds easy doesn't it? But housing prices have exploded all over the Western world and that includes, for example, the Netherlands where there are most assuredly houses for lower income families. So called "Sociale Huur" or Social Rent housing with a rent cap and a maximum income limit eligibility.
These houses do not inherently have racist undertones, they're simply not sufficient for our rising costs of living. Though if there's anything to remark it's that there's not enough of them. Lots of new housing here is luxury housing (because those sell better of course), and not enough social rent housing. Because of that some local municipal governments are setting requirements of having a certain percentage of new housing projects be social rent housing.
Long story short, there is no easy solution to housing. If there was, it'd be solved.
In addition to more construction, implementing strong rent control would help a lot, as it'd be easier to save money to buy a house when you're not wasting 1/3 of your paycheck every month....
In addition to more construction, implementing strong rent control would help a lot, as it'd be easier to save money to buy a house when you're not wasting 1/3 of your paycheck every month. There's a reason we use the term "rent seeking" as a perjorative.
Making it less profitable to be a landlord would also make it less likely for people to pursue it as a form of income, possibly leaving more properties on the market.
Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that many politicians have friends/family that are landlords, so they're not exactly incentivised to push for changes...
Rent control helps the people who get the rent control at the expense of anyone who isn’t already in place, who’s prices go up. I’m of the opinion that a land value tax used to fund government...
Rent control helps the people who get the rent control at the expense of anyone who isn’t already in place, who’s prices go up.
I’m of the opinion that a land value tax used to fund government built housing (that the government could sell to first time buyers at a discount) is the best way to go without the downsides of rent control.
That’s mostly because of synonyms. Economic rent != the rent you pay for your apartment. Price ceilings won’t accomplish anything. You’ll just have more exacerbated housing shortages. It’s been...
There's a reason we use the term "rent seeking" as a perjorative.
That’s mostly because of synonyms. Economic rent != the rent you pay for your apartment.
Price ceilings won’t accomplish anything. You’ll just have more exacerbated housing shortages. It’s been tried many times.
They are synonymous because they are the same word. Yes there is a more detailed definition for use within economics, but the “rent” in the phrase “rent seeking” is exactly the same as the word...
They are synonymous because they are the same word. Yes there is a more detailed definition for use within economics, but the “rent” in the phrase “rent seeking” is exactly the same as the word you would describe payments for an apartment. Renting has a long history of exploitation, which is why there are so many laws regarding it in most of the world. Beyond that, the economics term is very clearly modeled to describe the kind of rent that people pay to use things they don’t own.
Rent control doesn't work in the long run. We have two provinces with it in Canada but the majority dont. What happens in those two provinces is that COSTS go up significantly like they have in...
Rent control doesn't work in the long run. We have two provinces with it in Canada but the majority dont. What happens in those two provinces is that COSTS go up significantly like they have in the last two years, but the landlord can only raise rent by the controlled amount, usually 1 to 3%.
When that happens, things get overlooked, usually maintenance items. Several years like that and eventually landlords are SO far behind that they either "renovict" the tenants to completely update the rental but with a new, much higher rent or they just sell their units. Either way, another 'affordable' rental is gone and the market gets even tighter for the ones that are left.
It only works on paper, not in real life.
What WOULD discourage me, as a real estate investor and landlord, from buying more property would be a progressive tax on my homes. If I was taxed at 15% on the income from the first but 30% on the second and 45% on the third, there is a good chance I wouldnt have a third rental.
It would also help if corporations were banned from being single family homes as rental stock.
And there should be a ban on foreign ownership of Canadian homes. Its an open secret that a ton of homes in Vancouver are owned by offshore Chinese investors. If you dont live here and have Canadian citizenship you shouldnt be able to buy homes here.
I think you have been here long enough to know not to personally attack people like that. It's not even an insinuation; you've just straight up told them they aren't a useful member of society.
I think you have been here long enough to know not to personally attack people like that. It's not even an insinuation; you've just straight up told them they aren't a useful member of society.
If we rely on people to choose to be a "contributing (rather than extractive) member of society" then someone less thoughtful will simply take their place. I would prefer we structure our society...
If we rely on people to choose to be a "contributing (rather than extractive) member of society" then someone less thoughtful will simply take their place.
I would prefer we structure our society in such a way that rewards constructive actions and dissuades extractive strategies.
Their suggestion of a tax structure seems to be a good faith suggestion of how that might be done.
So... It's not so simple? I know that's a glib response, but I am inherently skeptical of any argument suggesting that this one simple trick could fix everything. From the article:
The U.S. Government building homes is not novel. There are just under a million public housing units in the U.S. The problem isn’t that the government has never built homes, but rather how these homes have been built and operated.
So... It's not so simple? I know that's a glib response, but I am inherently skeptical of any argument suggesting that this one simple trick could fix everything. From the article:
By increasing the housing supply through government-constructed homes, we’d simultaneously lower the prices of homes, decrease the rent of privately-built apartments, and guarantee affordable (and comfortable) homes for the working class, curtailing homelessness and its shadow problems of crime and drug use. Plus, we’d dismantle the literal walls of White Supremacy.
Just want to jump in and say that Non-Market housing is absolutely a possibility and it's finally gaining more attention in the US in recent years with some notable projects happen in LA County. I...
Just want to jump in and say that Non-Market housing is absolutely a possibility and it's finally gaining more attention in the US in recent years with some notable projects happen in LA County. I agree with the ethos of the article, but as others have called out the "easy solution" is anything but. There is NIMBY pushback. There are miles of red tape. There is the simple fact that many home owners DO NOT WANT ADDITIONAL HOUSING as a greater housing supply has the existential threat of lowering their own home values.
But as we reach the breaking point, some state and federal programs are forcing the hands of many municipalities. Here in California, our legislature has expanded the requirements for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, requiring municipalities to expand the potential for new development and streamlining permitting processes. They have also fast tracked ADU development by gutting permitting requirements. It's a case of a state government taking control of a statewide issue back from local governance structures. It's not a silver bullet, but it does enable more of non-market housing and more development in general.
Unfortunately this is going to be a complex process where state and local regulators need to minimize bureaucratic requirements, while also removing power from wealthy NIMBY groups, while maintaining protections for the environment, while using federal level funds to subsidize development of non-market housing. All while private groups and home owners fight against those interests. It's going to be a tough battle but we're at a breaking point domestically and I think we may just have the policy window for it!
Ok, now that the rational is out of the way and my tin foil hat is secured to my head. I'm wondering if any data wizzes among us would be able to look at home ownership rates (and multi home ownership rates) of people 60 and above from the last 50 years. One of the factors I think may be a large contributor we aren't collectively talking about is a lack of generational redistribution of property. I have a number of friends whose parents and grandparents inherited their homes from their parents as they started their own young families. In these cases, properties, or sections of properties if it was a large farmed parcel, would flow from the folks from 50-70 to the generation in their 20s-30s. I'd say that was how about 30% of my friends parents got their houses. This is something I have yet to see amongst my peers. Many of our grand parents downsized to smaller homes, in some cases they moved in with their children, and most ended up living fairly modest retirements. Looking to my parents and those of my peers, the trend doesn't seem to track. My partner's parents have 2 5 bedrooms homes. My parents are divorced, but neither has felt the need to downsize in their old age (though my mom did sell her home in the silicon valley to buy a near carbon copy of the house a little farther north with no mortgage and enough retirement to set her comfortably until she passes). When I look at friends parents it's the same. Houses that are as big or bigger than when we were growing up and in some cases buying up vacation properties as well.
Ok, after all that rambling, I'm wondering if this is shrinking the housing supply more than would be traditionally expected. Covid sent a number of folks into retirement, and I wonder how many second homes or expanded homes were snapped up by this demographic that has reaped the rewards of an absolutely insane housing market.
Its been done in Canada for many years. But over time those buildings got run down, which is what happens when people arent paying market level rent, and then they were sold off to non profits who...
Its been done in Canada for many years. But over time those buildings got run down, which is what happens when people arent paying market level rent, and then they were sold off to non profits who in turn eventually couldn't handle the maintenance load. Guess what happened? A lot of them got bought out by developers, who then removed all the residents, totally renovated the apartments and either rented them out as much higher cost rentals, or sold them off as condos. Either way they didnt stay affordable.
And therein lies the dilemma. Yes, the gov CAN build rental apartments but they cant seem to maintain them, especially if, as this author proposes, that tenants only pay 5% of their income toward rent. That would be a pitiful small number for people who are living on disability income or just working a minimum wage job. Which leaves the bulk of the responsibility to "the government" which is you and I, the taxpayer, to not only pay for the building but also to heavily subsidize the actual cost of operation.
And I'll be frank - as a Canadian who pays almost half my household income in taxes I dont want to carry even more of someone else's burden. My empathy quotient is over stressed and there is a definite compassion fatigue setting in. I do believe in social justice but there has to be a balance between that and social responsibility. And when, as a landlord, I get applications from people who are WAY below the income level needed to afford the house Im renting out, its not hard to understand how they got to be in a financial pickle - they just dont understand money nor how to manage it.
In my neck of the woods, the city has been working towards easing zoning restrictions that only allow the construction of single family houses and increasing funding for public transit. That seems...
In my neck of the woods, the city has been working towards easing zoning restrictions that only allow the construction of single family houses and increasing funding for public transit. That seems like a good step in the right direction to increase supply which would decrease rental and purchase price. There is a lot of pushback from nimby groups that are trying to 'retain their historic charm', but those seem to be getting swatted down so far.
The other group strongly opposed has been the socialist types. They've put up two ballot issues over the last two years for rent control and rent subsidies which were both overwhelming rejected by voters.
I'm not really sure how government maintaining a bunch of private housing doesn't turn into a terrible political football. Like "yay, cheaper housing" followed by a conservative administration who immediately evicts anyone on that housing and/or jams up the pricing and/or makes living in one dependent on drug testing, not having children, and working three full time jobs. Moreover, public housing has been done before... and it was terrible. From Jane Jacobs: "Low-income projects that become worse centers of delinquency, vandalism, and general social hopelessness than the slums they were supposed to replace. Middle-income housing projects which are truly marvels of dullness and regimentation, sealed against any buoyancy or vitality of city life. Luxury housing projects that mitigate their inanity, or try to, with vapid vulgarity"
It sounds easy doesn't it? But housing prices have exploded all over the Western world and that includes, for example, the Netherlands where there are most assuredly houses for lower income families. So called "Sociale Huur" or Social Rent housing with a rent cap and a maximum income limit eligibility.
These houses do not inherently have racist undertones, they're simply not sufficient for our rising costs of living. Though if there's anything to remark it's that there's not enough of them. Lots of new housing here is luxury housing (because those sell better of course), and not enough social rent housing. Because of that some local municipal governments are setting requirements of having a certain percentage of new housing projects be social rent housing.
Long story short, there is no easy solution to housing. If there was, it'd be solved.
In addition to more construction, implementing strong rent control would help a lot, as it'd be easier to save money to buy a house when you're not wasting 1/3 of your paycheck every month. There's a reason we use the term "rent seeking" as a perjorative.
Making it less profitable to be a landlord would also make it less likely for people to pursue it as a form of income, possibly leaving more properties on the market.
Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that many politicians have friends/family that are landlords, so they're not exactly incentivised to push for changes...
Rent control helps the people who get the rent control at the expense of anyone who isn’t already in place, who’s prices go up.
I’m of the opinion that a land value tax used to fund government built housing (that the government could sell to first time buyers at a discount) is the best way to go without the downsides of rent control.
That’s mostly because of synonyms. Economic rent != the rent you pay for your apartment.
Price ceilings won’t accomplish anything. You’ll just have more exacerbated housing shortages. It’s been tried many times.
They are synonymous because they are the same word. Yes there is a more detailed definition for use within economics, but the “rent” in the phrase “rent seeking” is exactly the same as the word you would describe payments for an apartment. Renting has a long history of exploitation, which is why there are so many laws regarding it in most of the world. Beyond that, the economics term is very clearly modeled to describe the kind of rent that people pay to use things they don’t own.
Rent control doesn't work in the long run. We have two provinces with it in Canada but the majority dont. What happens in those two provinces is that COSTS go up significantly like they have in the last two years, but the landlord can only raise rent by the controlled amount, usually 1 to 3%.
When that happens, things get overlooked, usually maintenance items. Several years like that and eventually landlords are SO far behind that they either "renovict" the tenants to completely update the rental but with a new, much higher rent or they just sell their units. Either way, another 'affordable' rental is gone and the market gets even tighter for the ones that are left.
It only works on paper, not in real life.
What WOULD discourage me, as a real estate investor and landlord, from buying more property would be a progressive tax on my homes. If I was taxed at 15% on the income from the first but 30% on the second and 45% on the third, there is a good chance I wouldnt have a third rental.
It would also help if corporations were banned from being single family homes as rental stock.
And there should be a ban on foreign ownership of Canadian homes. Its an open secret that a ton of homes in Vancouver are owned by offshore Chinese investors. If you dont live here and have Canadian citizenship you shouldnt be able to buy homes here.
I think you have been here long enough to know not to personally attack people like that. It's not even an insinuation; you've just straight up told them they aren't a useful member of society.
Dude.... that was like tiktok level socialist discourse combined with personal attack combined "I'm just asking questions" sea lioning.
If we rely on people to choose to be a "contributing (rather than extractive) member of society" then someone less thoughtful will simply take their place.
I would prefer we structure our society in such a way that rewards constructive actions and dissuades extractive strategies.
Their suggestion of a tax structure seems to be a good faith suggestion of how that might be done.
So... It's not so simple? I know that's a glib response, but I am inherently skeptical of any argument suggesting that this one simple trick could fix everything. From the article:
Just want to jump in and say that Non-Market housing is absolutely a possibility and it's finally gaining more attention in the US in recent years with some notable projects happen in LA County. I agree with the ethos of the article, but as others have called out the "easy solution" is anything but. There is NIMBY pushback. There are miles of red tape. There is the simple fact that many home owners DO NOT WANT ADDITIONAL HOUSING as a greater housing supply has the existential threat of lowering their own home values.
But as we reach the breaking point, some state and federal programs are forcing the hands of many municipalities. Here in California, our legislature has expanded the requirements for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, requiring municipalities to expand the potential for new development and streamlining permitting processes. They have also fast tracked ADU development by gutting permitting requirements. It's a case of a state government taking control of a statewide issue back from local governance structures. It's not a silver bullet, but it does enable more of non-market housing and more development in general.
Unfortunately this is going to be a complex process where state and local regulators need to minimize bureaucratic requirements, while also removing power from wealthy NIMBY groups, while maintaining protections for the environment, while using federal level funds to subsidize development of non-market housing. All while private groups and home owners fight against those interests. It's going to be a tough battle but we're at a breaking point domestically and I think we may just have the policy window for it!
Ok, now that the rational is out of the way and my tin foil hat is secured to my head. I'm wondering if any data wizzes among us would be able to look at home ownership rates (and multi home ownership rates) of people 60 and above from the last 50 years. One of the factors I think may be a large contributor we aren't collectively talking about is a lack of generational redistribution of property. I have a number of friends whose parents and grandparents inherited their homes from their parents as they started their own young families. In these cases, properties, or sections of properties if it was a large farmed parcel, would flow from the folks from 50-70 to the generation in their 20s-30s. I'd say that was how about 30% of my friends parents got their houses. This is something I have yet to see amongst my peers. Many of our grand parents downsized to smaller homes, in some cases they moved in with their children, and most ended up living fairly modest retirements. Looking to my parents and those of my peers, the trend doesn't seem to track. My partner's parents have 2 5 bedrooms homes. My parents are divorced, but neither has felt the need to downsize in their old age (though my mom did sell her home in the silicon valley to buy a near carbon copy of the house a little farther north with no mortgage and enough retirement to set her comfortably until she passes). When I look at friends parents it's the same. Houses that are as big or bigger than when we were growing up and in some cases buying up vacation properties as well.
Ok, after all that rambling, I'm wondering if this is shrinking the housing supply more than would be traditionally expected. Covid sent a number of folks into retirement, and I wonder how many second homes or expanded homes were snapped up by this demographic that has reaped the rewards of an absolutely insane housing market.
Its been done in Canada for many years. But over time those buildings got run down, which is what happens when people arent paying market level rent, and then they were sold off to non profits who in turn eventually couldn't handle the maintenance load. Guess what happened? A lot of them got bought out by developers, who then removed all the residents, totally renovated the apartments and either rented them out as much higher cost rentals, or sold them off as condos. Either way they didnt stay affordable.
And therein lies the dilemma. Yes, the gov CAN build rental apartments but they cant seem to maintain them, especially if, as this author proposes, that tenants only pay 5% of their income toward rent. That would be a pitiful small number for people who are living on disability income or just working a minimum wage job. Which leaves the bulk of the responsibility to "the government" which is you and I, the taxpayer, to not only pay for the building but also to heavily subsidize the actual cost of operation.
And I'll be frank - as a Canadian who pays almost half my household income in taxes I dont want to carry even more of someone else's burden. My empathy quotient is over stressed and there is a definite compassion fatigue setting in. I do believe in social justice but there has to be a balance between that and social responsibility. And when, as a landlord, I get applications from people who are WAY below the income level needed to afford the house Im renting out, its not hard to understand how they got to be in a financial pickle - they just dont understand money nor how to manage it.
I don't think it's nearly as easy as they say, but maybe someone should do some smaller-scale experiments and see how it works out.
In my neck of the woods, the city has been working towards easing zoning restrictions that only allow the construction of single family houses and increasing funding for public transit. That seems like a good step in the right direction to increase supply which would decrease rental and purchase price. There is a lot of pushback from nimby groups that are trying to 'retain their historic charm', but those seem to be getting swatted down so far.
The other group strongly opposed has been the socialist types. They've put up two ballot issues over the last two years for rent control and rent subsidies which were both overwhelming rejected by voters.
I'm not really sure how government maintaining a bunch of private housing doesn't turn into a terrible political football. Like "yay, cheaper housing" followed by a conservative administration who immediately evicts anyone on that housing and/or jams up the pricing and/or makes living in one dependent on drug testing, not having children, and working three full time jobs. Moreover, public housing has been done before... and it was terrible. From Jane Jacobs: "Low-income projects that become worse centers of delinquency, vandalism, and general social hopelessness than the slums they were supposed to replace. Middle-income housing projects which are truly marvels of dullness and regimentation, sealed against any buoyancy or vitality of city life. Luxury housing projects that mitigate their inanity, or try to, with vapid vulgarity"