Sadly structurally the system favors housing incumbents. And it doesn’t take a lot to derail efforts to create more supply.
In my town we spent 8 years of public involvement in rezoning to increase supply and density. Including several city council elections of pro-housing council members elected over more NIMBY ones.
Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction.
I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process.
And yet zoning is just one factor in housing supply. Even successfully implementing upzoning laws can find markets with higher prices, rates of homelessness, and investor ownership of housing - because many factors influence these outcomes not just zoning laws.
An important consideration for the Empire State Building is that it was not built by the lowest bidder. It was built by those who were considered most likely to be successful at the endeavor.
Those aren’t comparable. A delay in a standard stick built home would be due to legal issues.
Otherwise, tract homebuilders in the US have metrics of building a brand new house within 100 days.
The labor costs are high, but not that high that construction is delayed due to lack of labor. Land prices and clearing legal hurdles are the bigger problem.
Thanks. Zurich. I don’t think even the authors would call this a slam dunk, and they cite it as the best available example. I do appreciate that they rightly call out that upzoning will cause movements in the population and the potential benefits will take decades to materialize.
I’m not sure what “slam dunk” means in this context, but they do note how clear the effect is, even if it does unfortunately take 5-10 years before it shows.
> we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls, play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
I’ve not been able to find any, which is not to say there aren’t any, but when you have these conversations the inevitable result is getting called a NIMBY so I tend to abandon them early.
Yes but the unique piece here is ratcheting up of ever increasing codes, zoning, regulations while grandfathering in the old housing. The people voting made their own houses illegal but then said their own houses were exempt. They've created an effect where the incumbents own housing that would be illegal for anyone else to create, which helps prop up their home value massively since it artificially raises the price of the substitutive option of building a house.
Not sure that’s unique. The whole western world did this on a massive scale- starting with the treaty of Westphalia, where after every kingdom conquered as many lands as they could, then voted to assign borders to themselves and declared them sovereign lands that you’d have to be an evil barbarian to infringe on
Certainly we could look at removing parking minimums and having less rigid zoning requirements. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to buy a coffee a walk away.
What do you do if the local service is expensive/not very good, and a higher-quality option is a drive away? Do you prefer to live with crappy coffee, drive, or remain ignorant of better options?
I'm in that situation right now. Local medical, restaurant, etc., are not very good, so I drive to the better option.
Or just apply the law equally? If you want to vote to increase regulation you agree it applies to your own house. If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
Laws generally don’t apply retroactively; they don’t affect actions or events that occurred before the law was enacted due to principles rooted in fairness, legal stability, and practical governance.
Non-retroactivity protects individuals from arbitrary government power, ensures trust in legal systems, and promotes economic and social stability. Without this principle, people could be penalized for past decisions made in good faith, eroding confidence in governance.
> If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
What about home building codes affecting structure, e.g. against earthquakes?
I don't follow. USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal (interestingly there is a law that this same stamp is $0 for other weapons which put people in a precarious position of facing 10+ years in prison for not paying a $0 tax). If you happen to already have one before they passed the law, the law still applies to you, just not before the law goes into effect. And they might not even give you the stamp even if you try to pay for it, if you don't pass a check. They won't charge you for the time you had it before the law went into effect. But they will charge you for owning it today without the tax stamp. (Now you can argue that law is unconstitutional, either from the takings clause or 2A but not because it is retroactive).
That's kind of how I see the housing law. It would not be retroactive. It would be, that tomorrow owning a house without a sprinkler system would be illegal. And anyone who possess the house without one is violating the law. And if you don't agree with equal application to everyone, maybe the law should not be there in the first place.
> USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal
I think you're referring to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and its treatment of pre-existing explosive devices and destructive devices. It is an interesting example of how retroactive tax laws can affect previously legal property ownership.
What I will say is that retroactive compliance requirements, while controversial, have generally been upheld by courts when applied to dangerous items affecting public safety. The explosives/tax stamp example demonstrates the tension between property rights, retroactive legislation, and public safety regulation.
I don't know that your overall argument that all new building requirements should be applied to all existing properties. Not only would it be incredibly expensive (and probably having an even worse impact on people with less means), but also highly impractical in some instances. Does that make sense?
There are many factors contributing to the housing crisis, not just zoning regulations. That’s why upzoning often coincides with higher prices, rising homelessness, and increased investor ownership.
We are best served by implementing effective public housing policies.
Some places mitigate to positive effect. One example ia japan where zoning is done nationally to remove nimby power by dluting the hyper local nimby power
And in my neighborhood they wanted to rezone to allow an asphalt plant for highway construction, something that made all of our homes unfit for purpose but that the government really really wanted.
The ability for 2-3 households to sue to stop something like that where the government just steamrolls over zoning/etc because it benefits the government is hugely important.
A home is the biggest investment a person will make. It is also not easy to unwind from. Zoning is a promise by the government 'invest in this, we promise it will stay what you are purchasing'. A few home owners should definitely be able to force the government to keep that promise, and to keep their homes fit for purpose.
I love downvotes for saying 'zoning laws that promise your home is habitable for human habitation should prevent adding toxic chemical factories to a neighborhood after the fact'. At least comment and justify your downvote.
>> I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process.
What you describe is not a structural problem. On the contrary, it is precisely how a constitutional, rule-of-law system is meant to work.
Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular.
Judicial review is part of the design. Reviewing legislative and administrative actions for legality is a built-in check and balance, not a veto by randos. The courts exist to ensure the other branches do not skip required steps or exceed their authorities.
More specifically, the legal concept of "standing" prevents this from being arbitrary. In most contexts, you cannot sue just because you dislike a decision. You must show concrete injury, such as living next to an affected area. That's why a "few households" can file: they're the ones with legally cognizable stakes.
Now, I will grant that in places like California with decades of existing laws, NIMBYs have done an excellent job figuring out exactly what buttons to press and what levers to pull to get their way. But this is not a flaw in the system. It just means that they have read all the manuals (because they are very strong incentivized, financially, to do so) and are now using it competently, even if it is self-serving and sometimes even in bad faith. But other locales have figured out the solutions to this problem. The article gives one such example: Austin, TX.
>> Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction.
> Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular.
When the minority is 20-30 percent you may have a point, when it's 2-3 people then that's just obstructionism.
The systemic problem is that those buttons exist to be be pushed, not that they are being pushed.
For example, all rules regarding single family occupancy - there is no gain society can possibility have from instituting such rules, and many countries do just fine without them.
But once you have them in place you have created a very strong incentive for incumbents to exclude others from diluting their access to public investments in the area, while also denying those people a political voice.
There's a common view that home-ownership is important because a home is the most expensive asset most people will ever own and its increasing value is key to their comfortable retirement. But this view of a home as an appreciating asset is incompatible with increasing housing affordability.
There are definitely downsides to renting such as landlord issues or missing out on mortgage subsidies, but maybe a higher proportion of renters could lead to improvements in affordability. And if the well-off are renting as well, there's also more hope for better legal protections for renters.
People don't say home ownership is important because it's an asset for retirement; if you sold it, you wouldn't have a home in retirement!
They say that because owning a home allows you to reduce your bills, but also more crucially and viscerally because owning a home allows you to be free and have a place that is truly yours to do with what you will. You can paint the walls, have a pet, host a party, knock down a wall and build an extension, do whatever you like to make your mark on it and the world. It's yours and if you will it, it always will be. It's a level of peace and security that's almost incomparible. There's a reason in most of history there was a distinction drawn between bonded peasants and freeholders.
I think you listed great positives for ownership. I would agree with those. But the parent is correct that, at least in the USA, owning a home is considered a financial investment that should appreciate in value. I think treating a house as a financial investment leads to all kinds of bad outcomes, and here we are.
"People don't say home ownership is important because it's an asset for retirement; if you sold it, you wouldn't have a home in retirement!"
It's very common in the USA. A married couple has some kids and buys a house big enough to accommodate them comfortably. 20ish years later, the kids have moved out and the parents don't need such a big house. They also are about to or have recently retired, and they would like to stretch their retirement money. Sell the big house, make a lot of money, and then buy a smaller, cheaper house. In the USA this pattern is pretty common.
This pattern has been disrupted because of the decades of under-building. The neighborhood I grew up in around an elementary school is populated by empty nesters and has been for over a decade. There is nowhere for the empty nesters to downsize into that isn't 3-5x what their mortgage is on their family sized home (in CA we also have the complicated of Prop 13 on property taxes) so they aren't moving. My highschool recently shut down because there weren't enough families in the neighborhood around it anymore.
I think things are breaking, for sure, but how badly and in what ways is very local. To your point (and my point, a bit), with current market conditions, many homeowners are staying in their homes rather than moving. We had a pretty long period of very mortgage rates, and now rates are higher. Home prices have not decreased, either. So someone with a home that is a little too big has something valuable that they want to hang to, and buying a smaller house is, at least for now, not necessarily a good financial decision. But if housing were not an investment, a elderly retired couple could just move to a smaller house and not think too much about it. But it is an investment, so they stay in their unnecessarily large house hoping the market changes in their favor.
Also, it’s a risk hedge. In many very populous areas property tax increases are capped.
This allows someone to quite concretely limit their housing costs in retirement (a large portion of anyone’s expenses!) in a way that is impossible in almost any other way. The only other similar types of deals are specific types of rent control in very limited metro areas.
Even if property tax increases are not capped, they are generally a fraction of what the house payment would be. (though after 30+ years of inflation the tax is what the original house payment was)
Generally if you rent your share of property tax in the rent payment is higher than an equivalent house share would be Tenters don't see how property tax affects their rent and so they generally don't oppose property tax increases, if they even bother to vote which they are less likely to. To be fair, how tax affects tax is complex - rent is supply and demand first, things like taxes put a floor on prices and so affect supply but this means it is indirect and so hard to see even though it will catch up eventually.
Almost no one is still making house payments in retirement. Those that are, almost certainly got that mortgage decades ago and it’s now a tiny fraction of current rental prices.
> "Buy a home, pay it off, then downsize to generate funds for retirement" is a pretty widespread approach.
[citation needed]
> The majority of retirees don't relocate. A 2015 analysis (the most cited historical data) from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey showed that only about 5% of Americans age 55 and older move annually (local or long-distance).
[…]
> A more recent study, from Hire a Helper, showed that in 2024, only 22.7% of all retirees (both new and existing) moved, compared with 25.3% in the year before.
And of the half that say they are moving, half (25% of total) "want their next home to be the same size as their current one, and 22% want it to be larger".
Those are perfectly good reasons and in the hypothetical world of housing affordability such utility should compensate for the depreciation. Similarly many people find value in owning a car despite the nearly guaranteed decline in value. Ideally neither would be viewed as a wealth-building tool.
It’s all this but don’t underestimate predictability. If you own a home with a fixed rate mortgage you know what your payment is and it doesn’t change. You know where your kids are going to grow up.
Sure you might need a new roof and insurance and taxes fluctuate but that’s a BIG BIG deal as anyone who’s rented and been at the mercy of markets can tell you.
This is even more true now as the rental market (like so many markets) is coming to be dominated by corporate landlord La using revenue extracting software.
I recall talking to a real estate guy as a recent high school graduate 25 years ago. He claimed real estate rates will stay above 7-10%. I countered that long term, real estate needs to remain tied to inflation or else all buyers will be priced out.
In a situation of supply scarcity all the market needs to do to function is to sell this limited supply. And this does not require the median citizen to be able to afford this supply. Thus the market isn't even irrational.
More so you need to generate the money that goes into stocks and other assets from somewhere. This seem to be done either by government debt or by debt against increasing home values...
> But this view of a home as an appreciating asset is incompatible with increasing housing affordability.
It isn't, but it seems that way. If you pay your house off before/when you retire that means you live rent free (you still have property taxes and maintenance, but they are far cheaper than rent). Social security is the same either way. Your 401k and IRAs have maximum contributions and so again not having to pay rent means your retirement income is effectively higher.
A house as an appreciating asset is only good for retirement if/when you sell - but then you either need to invest that money and pay it out in rent which has also increased, or you need to buy a new house. There is also risk - if you go to a nursing home the house is treated special, but if you sell it the additional money is used to pay the nursing home before government kicks in. Which is to say that for retirement planning house values are meaningless.
An appreciating house is useful if like many people you "cash out refinance" I've seen many people refinance their house every few years to the current house value. They take very nice vacations paid for by the house increase in value. This is all good until they retire and now owe what the house is worth and so they are paying rent with their limited income.
During most of history, slaves were allowed to purchase their freedom with money they had made on the side. Your argument is the equivalent to saying that maybe it is not worth it, because the price of freedom is too high to be worth it. Sure, that's a way to see it. But another way to see it is that something else is wrong in the situation.
"Everyone should be able to afford to buy or build a home" and "everyone's home should appreciate in value as an investment forever" are direct opposites.
If even a smaller group controlled the supply of something why would that supply decrease in value.
Currently rental prices have to compete with how much effort a boomer wants to put into profiting from their second or third homes, a fair amount but most realize a stress free tenant is better than maximizing profit.
If you remove these independent landlords then it falls to a tiny group of giant orgs that then control the market and can charge whatever price they want.
Because most of the younger generations didn’t have a chance to buy in at the lower prices, and hence haven’t owned much as a percentage at the same ages. Boomers own most of the real estate right now, and have for a very long time.
It’ll spread around more when they die.
At least as this quotes “Millennials own less than two-thirds of the real estate Baby Boomers did at the same age”.
> My wife and I have been holding Treasury bills for the past few years waiting for mortgage rates or home prices to come down, but neither have. So, we keep rolling Treasuries until the right moment arrives.
Ouch. Holding T-bills instead of equities for the last few years has been incredibly costly for this couple.
What you are not wrong, this is misleading. We can say on hindsight what happened, but there is no way to know in advance it would have happened that way. There have been many times when equities have done very poorly for a short period of time. Any money you plan to spend in the near future should not be in equities, it should be in lower return investments like treasury bills, money market funds, or other similar investments that while they don't offer as good a return on investment also don't suddenly crash losing significant value for a few years.
Their real mistake was thinking the housing market would crash, which while not impossible seemed unlikely to most observers.
The housing market has crashed 2 times within the past ~30 years (90 and 2007). Housing is so over financialized + demographic shifts that it might be merited to expect crashes.
Regardless, one should not hold cash in anticipation of a housing crash but in the anticipation of a buying opportunity.
It didn't sound like OP was holding Treasuries exclusively, but perhaps just as part of their overall portfolio. It's useful to keep a bunch of "dry powder" in cash or cash equivalents in case opportunities arise.
We need to be critically honest about how our system operates.
Land is finite. As population grows, supply and demand dictate it will rise in value if you hold.
If you rent property that someone else would prefer to buy for habitation if made available at market rate, you’re benefiting at overall society’s expense. Similarly if you take units off the market as investment vehicles.
Productivity matters most in economics. Without it you’re just shifting money around. Owning as a middle man is essentially the opposite of productivity.
As rentals become the only option and a small percentage of land owners become the only housing option, we’re going to see a rise in wealthy untethered types who rent and move at will. Similarly, we’ll start seeing ghettos form in the scant land remaining after this fully plays out.
The problem is that you can’t tell an individual who had to go through hell to own a place, on the verge of a second home, not to rent instead of sell. This society is a hammer taking a chip out of every successful shoulder. “Why should I do society a favor when society did me none?” Is a common mindset that just exacerbates the issue.
We’re creating a resentful generation who feel disenfranchised and taken advantage of, and it’s only going to get worse. I fear for uprisings and surveillance states incoming.
For real solutions, bring back work from home. No need for dense housing when you’re not forced to live in a particular area.
> Land is finite. As population grows, supply and demand dictate it will rise in value if you hold.
Nitpick: There is a lot of land. We're not going to run out of it anytime soon. What we are consuming is 'good' land. That definition will depend on a lot of things, of course.
For instance, in Denver, there is a lot of land. It's just that all the land to the west is rugged mountains. Great, so all the land to the east then, plains, right? You can build houses all the way to Kansas! Yes, but all that land is filled with bentonite clay which expands 4x with water (yes really!). You can't build cheap and safe houses on it. So, land values increase as more people move to Denver, simple supply and demand.
This kind of thing is all over the world. You can build more houses just about anywhere, but making these houses safe, cheap, and where you actually want to live, that is the problem.
> My wife and I have been holding Treasury bills for the past few years waiting for mortgage rates or home prices to come down, but neither have.
I wonder how long people remain in such states. I feel like for something as big as house ownership you need to decide if you really want it and if you do just go for it. How much of your life are you prepared to spend on "getting ahead"? They say "life is what happens to you while you're making other plans".
Their strategy was just bad. Housing prices do drop, occasionally, but waiting for that can take decades. And waiting for mortgage rates to drop is completely unnecessary. Just refinance when they finally do!
The whole economy is gambling, and there is no way not to gamble. When you gamble, you can lose. These people gambled and lost. And the stakes are your life.
This is the current sentiment. But it is short sighted.
The best recommendation is to _know_ the fundamentals of house prices. To know when buying is cheap and expensive.
Eg. in relative terms: buying a house at 30 Price/Rent makes it more affordable to rent - in such an environment, just rent. If the P/R falls to 15-20, then buy.
Housing can also be unaffordable in absolute terms such as wanting to live in down town San Fransisco. In this case people should strongly consider if they want to pay a premium for that locality.
We don't have to go longer back than 2013 to when it made sense to buy over renting - and that will return at some point.
It's your choice to think about such things and therefore it's your choice to be unhappy about it. You can't change the past so you can either be unhappy about it, or not. It's your choice.
If we all could agree that water, food and shelter are the essentials for human survival (which I know that most people here wouldn't agree on), then it's easy to see the absurdity of the so called "society" or "economy" or "system" that the younger generations have been born into. Because it would be the same thing as a person being forced to enter into life long debt in order to obtain drinking water.
How can it be that people can enslave the young generation by the motivation that they were born first and therefore own all the land, but they can't do that with water? Ie: "We were born first and own all the water rights and you have to go into debt slavery the rest of your life if you want to drink water!" Makes just as much sense as the current situation.
Not just in the US. NIMBY looks almost exactly the same in the US, in New Zealand, in Israel, in Italy, in Czechia or in the UK.
Basically, as long as you allow other people to veto new construction, it is almost guaranteed that a few bitter fighters will devote their lives to stopping anything to be ever built again. Roads, trams, housing, anything at all. A veritable vetocracy, not too dissimilar from the legendary Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where every noble could veto anything agreed upon by the Sejm by simply standing up and saying "I disagree".
The "community participation" ideal which looked very positive once turned out to empower the worst reactionaries.
The few countries that got this problem under control did so mostly by limiting the legal abilities of such people to throw wrenches into everything.
The problem with community participation is it can only work when significant numbers of people participate. Most people have too much in life as it is to get involved. On any given night there are 50 different events in my city I could go to - (knitting circle, bible studies, softball, DnD, book club, girl scouts, gymnastics...), plus I have my own hobbies at home I'm trying to work on: I don't have time to attend the community meetings as well - and neither does most people in my community. What is left with the "busy bodies" who decide to make time - but they don't represent the community and shouldn't get input (I went to one: Some women was asking a lot of questions on why the road department decided to not replace a road grader with 14900 hours on it even though the policy was replace it at 15000 hours - that is trying to micromanage the whole county as if the leaders are not competent to make decisions).
Don't forget they're saying these things for valid reasons, and a balance has to be struck. For example, (this is not a perfect rule, just a rough draft) if you can only build an apartment block next to another apartment block, high-density areas can exist radiating outwards from existing centers (where you'd want high density and where people who want to live in high density want to live). Or you can build one surrounded by farmland, probably. Apparently that's popular in America though I don't understand why.
My experience with the Czech NIMBY crowd is that when I talk to them directly, they are quite open about "we don't want anything to change and we don't like new people".
More constructive reasons like "there is not enough buses to the area" can be usually solved by reasonable compromise, but this sort of intense conservatism "wait until I am dead, then build something" cannot.
Curious to see that no one mentions the drastically rising inequality in western society as the root cause of the housing crises.
What we are seeing to date is a transfer of wealth from the working class, the middle class, and the government to rich people at a rate that is unprecedented in human history. The rich are getting richer at an extremely high rate, and barely any country taxes wealth.
So what you get is multimillionaires and billionaires who get passive income of several million dollars per month. What are they going to do with that money? There is a rule that you should let your money work for you, and so rich people buy: assets, stock, shares.
That’s why the prices of all of these things go up despite living standards falling and falling for ordinary people. We have an asset price inflation, due to the enormous amount of money given to the ultra rich.
Housing prices will never go down unless you tax the rich. Regardless of zoning laws or what not.
This is the most worrying aspect of it to me. It is hard to imagine an economy or society in general to continue functioning indefinitely with such an extreme difference in outcomes between different groups. As far as I know there is no historical example of a society that allowed inequality to grow at the level ours is that did not ultimately face massive socio-political upheaval. Needless to say it would not be pleasant to live through those times
Seems to me that capitalism, especially when unregulated as has been in the US since the late 70's/early 80's ultimately results in wealth concentrated somewhat in the top 10%, but especially the top 1%, while the bottom 90% sees their share of national wealth drop every lower.
It feels like we are entering a second guilded age, just like the late 1800's. Maybe a few world wars and a global depression will reset the board and we can start again.
Because rising in equality is not the root cause of the housing crises. Middle class people who ban new housing from being constructed are the root cause. When housing can be freely built housing prices dont increase faster than inflation.
Of course nothing is that simple, but end of the day it actually is that simple here. There is demand for X number of houses but because of NIMBYS we can only have some number lower than X. Without NIMBYs we can satisfy all the demand. Wealth inequality could be the cause of a housing crisis, it just isnt here. If the reason we cant have X homes was something other than unjust laws created by the middle class Id be much more willing to blame inequality.
Regardless of what you think, inequality is a major component of the current housing inequality.
Yiu also have to step back and consider why people feel like the need to bundle up in the cities - if that a General lack of opportunity elsewhere due to inequality?
You are seeing a wound and saying: yep, that happened because the skin got damaged.
My wife and I were remarking on this just yesterday. We were driving through a neighborhood of small starter homes, and noting that nobody builds anything like that anymore. A two bedroom one bathroom house is all anybody needs to start out and get into the homeownership game, but the only way to get one is from the constrained supply of old ones.
2br 1bath doesn’t make sense in single family homes. That’s a condo/apartment size residence. Maybe townhome if you live in a low density area.
Condos should be a lot more popular, especially for the young and old, but the fees are pretty much always ridiculous. The whole point is to spread out the maintence costs among many residents so they are trivial, instead condo fees are usually in the hundreds or thousands per month per unit for no apparent reason other than the landlord wants a big payday. It doesn’t cost millions per year to maintain some parking spots, a small unstaffed pool, a front desk, and building maintenance. It’s like paying rent on top of your mortgage.
If you pay someone to mow your lawn it will costs hundreds per month. Most people just buy a $100 lawn mower and don't count their time (or they count it as exercise) and so don't realize how expensive it is to pay someone to haul a lawn mower (a more expensive commercial model, truck, trailer, play labor - labor isn't just time to mow, but also time to get there and load/unload). There are a lot of other ways that homeowners often are doing labor themselves and saving a lot of money that a condo must pay.
This comment doesn’t make sense. Are you using condos to refer to properties with shared walls where the whole building (and land) is owned by the condo owners? If so, then there is no landlord getting a big payday.
Condo expenses are what they are because taking care of a big building is expensive, but also because the condo board sometimes defers maintenance for many years or decades, and then the problems become expensive to fix.
Grew up in a three bed, one bath, with five people.
Home ownership in the 1950s got you a shoebox. It was affordable. That's why so many got into the equity game. Larger expectations and larger returns have changed the landscape.
If you have a landlord, you are paying rent and not condo fees. If you are paying condo fees then it goes to maintenance and utilities. As for maintenance - you have many residents but also more property to maintain so how would it turn "trivial"? You also have maintenance costs that you usually don't get in a SFH - elevators, trash chutes, pools, parking structures etc. You only save on roof and siding and not even that much as a condo building usually has more expensive roof and siding (both in materials and labor) than a SFH.
Just how expensive things can be sounds amazing from certain other countries. Here labour is not exactly cheap, but is cheaper due to lower housing costs. But still my "HOA" bill is ~220€ a month, including heating, normal maintenance, water, electricity(I will be billed more yearly, but I waste lot of it) and powered parking spot...
Ofc, if there is renovations those will be billed separately or funded by debt that I have to pay monthly. But still delta sounds just like someone doing something wrong...
2br 1bath is a fine entry point up until you're looking at a family of 4+ or when you're talking about teenage kids who would want their own rooms. Or retirees who want to downsize, no difference
The idea is that you live there cheaply while building equity for 5 years or so and then trade up to a family house once you are married and looking to settle down.
Pretty much everyone aspires to have access to more than 1 toilet if the home has more than 1 person in it.
The marginal cost of a home with 2 full bathrooms compared to just 1 bathroom is negligible, and the value and security gained from the convenience and redundancy is immense.
Also, even today, there are tons of small 1,500 sq ft homes on 2,000 sq ft lots built and sold in the western US. It just depends on the local market for land prices and demand for small homes.
Absolutely, when I was looking at houses my bare minimum was 1.5 bath. I don't need two showers/tubs, but two toilets was non-negotiable.
I lived for a couple of years in a two bed/one bath apartment and the number of times I'd wake up having to use the restroom pretty badly and find my roommate was already in there was just too much.
I have some older neighborhoods around and it boggles my mind how many houses I find that are three, four, even five bedrooms with a single bathroom.
rent is expensive too, but cheaper than buying rn. high rent and high purchase price has a second order effect that is relevant to this forum: makes it harder to bootstrap a business.
it feels like every metro that has high innovation (lots of new businesses, creative art, etc) has had cheap housing first generally. SV is an interesting exception but a lot more money is pumped in to allow it?
SV had much cheaper housing until the 90s. Not super cheap but it wasn’t until dot.com and then the housing bubble that it got stupid.
SF was more expensive, which is maybe why SV is the burbs.
The cool hippie art scene in SF was in the cheaper higher crime areas, as it usually is. Maybe we need to get those crime rates up to drive down housing costs.
It’s no longer really possible to bootstrap in the Bay Area unless you are doing something nuts like living on couches or cheap shitty boats. It’s too expensive even for modestly funded companies. It’s really just a place for big tech and lavishly funded ventures. If you don’t have a Saudi prince on the cap table your company is better off remote or in another city.
i don't need an expensive metro to bootstrap what i'm working on. but my partner does for her career. that's the main problem for my situation, at least.
Why, after decades of failing against NYMBYs, are people so confident they can have any more success against NYMBYism as a whole? Homes are assets, and as such people and corporations who own homes really don't want them to depreciate, or even stop appreciating. Homeowners own the majority of this country's wealth, and since modern politics are entirely subservient to capital, the current situation makes perfect sense. Thinking it will only take a bit of deregulation to fix this mess seems foolish to me. Whatever the solution is, it will necessarily involve something more radical than tweaking a few numbers on a spreadsheet, and will require front-facing capital interests (something no political party is currently willing to engage in, not the democrats and certainly not the republicans).
NIMBY has proven the issues with it and so there are success. NIMBY started because people like Robert Moses proved what happens when you let some powerful person have too much power. If you (like me) are against NIMBY make sure you don't let things go too far that way - I don't know what is too far
I think if we could make housing affordable again the entire mood of the culture would change. A ton of nihilistic rage driven resentment politics on both sides of the political spectrum would ease up. Young people would no longer be doom spiraling. It would be like the fog lifted and the sun came out.
I pretty firmly believe that high housing prices are destroying civilization. I don’t think that’s hyperbole. I’ve been fond of saying it’s the economic problem in much of the developed world. The, singular. Make housing inexpensive and most of the other stats look at least okay.
We need to choose between real estate equity and literally all other things.
I will say I had my life absolutely destroyed somewhat recently. I thought I landed in my feet alright, till I learned I had basically become a pariah to the housing market. The past few months I’ve found myself more hateful and angry whenever
It’s almost entirely because of my current housing situation. I was not like this a few years ago.
False. Young people always find something to doom spiral about. They have been doing it all my life, and if you read old books you will see it go back much farther.
Ideally NIMBYs wouldn’t have an incentive to block housing construction because while the total number of houses goes up making the average house cheaper, the land itself gets more valuable due to the increased density/development/amenities; so those same homeowners can sell their lots for bug bucks. I guess this misalignment of incentives is a problem of zoning, permitting, and taxation distorting things?
Not all NIMBYs are the same. The ones I'm more familiar with are less concerned about land value and have little incentive to sell their homes. They are older, often retired, and prefer that nothing ever change around them due to simple conservatism.
An area doesn't need increased density or amenities for land values to go up. Here in the SF Bay Area, land values have exploded yet many neighborhoods have not changed in decades.
Upzoning allows the owner to build more than one residence on what was a single family property. This might include removing an existing home to build a duplex or triplex, dividing a house into a duplex, or building an accessory dwelling unit on the property.
Urban renewal was typically the government using eminent domain to raze whole neighborhoods to build low income apartment buildings or some such. This also might include using the "Tower in a park" architecture that was all the rage at the time, but a terrible urban form.
Sure, but by the time upzoning makes it through city council and all the compromises are made it looks a hell of a lot like urban renewal. What else do you call allowing the removal of two historic structures from a city block to make way for another five over two?
Another five over one (which is what I think you mean) is not the same as a whole neighborhood getting razed and replaced with towers in the park.
By the way, the whole point of streamlining permitting and zoning processes are to get rid of the unreasonable watering down of every proposal because as you state the end result is worse for everyone, aesthetics included.
Also it isn’t just about historic structures, there’s situation like that San Francisco Mission District strip-mall-esque laundromat steps from the BART station, that can’t be replaced because NIMBYs are afraid of “changing the neighborhood character.” If crap architecture like that ends up in the same historic bucket then whoever is declaring 80% of every city as being “historic” has done a disservice to anyone who wants to
actually protect historic architecture by diluting the name for their anti-change cause.
While I hate the current housing gridlock, these laws represent a classic Chesterton fence. They were enacted precisely because "upzoning" fell heaviest on the poor, minorities, the elderly, and other functionally disenfranchised people.
Since I like sortition, here's a goofy idea... eminent domain should be of two sorts: adverse and voluntary. Voluntary is bought-and-done. Adverse means we pick some other property in a different part of the jurisdiction, at random, and also adversely posses it. To drive the point home, I'd bias the selection to be directly proportional to value, ie, the more valuable, the more likely to be selected. The lock up in the adverse possession should be no less than, say, 25 years, or the lockup on the original possession, whichever is longer.
It’s very interesting. Based on this theory, stock prices should decrease as interest rates lower.
A massive number of people who are waiting for interest rates to drop will sell their equities to buy a house when it happens. IE, many couples are waiting for lower interest rates before buying a house.
This runs counter to current equities markets where hints of rate drops from the Fed will increase stock price.
If investment was the only major issue, rental inflation would not be high. Rental inflation can only be explained by a lack of housing in areas people want to live.
I didn’t say it was the only factor, I’d never say that. But let’s say for the sake of argument that you are correct, supply is the one and only thing driving rent prices. What sorts of things cause supply shortages?
Property is only an investment vehicle _because of_ the lack of housing. If we actually built enough housing, it would no longer be a viable investment vehicle.
Once you understand fiat and feel inflation affect your buying power the fact property is an option as an investment at all to normal people is a Godsend.
Like what asset could non-investment savvy people move their increasingly worthless savings into otherwise?
> Like what asset could non-investment savvy people move their increasingly worthless savings into otherwise?
Investing in businesses bringing jobs and prosperity to their community, their people, their nation.
Or investing in their children to help them start out in life and not live as serfs.
But no, better to lock up all the money into non-producing assets and completely destroy the economy, progress and the birth rate.
There's a reason why during most of history, your welfare in age depended on your children or extending that to your community. Any other system simply eradicates the people participating in it, as we see right now with rapidly diminishing younger generations, to the benefit of the olds.
Strange to be arguing for investing in children but against owning the roof over their heads, thus building community and stability.
I don't see why people would be interested in investing in community businesses when I can't even guarantee I can live in that community long enough to see a benefit because I'm at the whim of the land owner and might have to just move somewhere else because I can't own anything.
> If it’s not investing why is my net worth rising after buying a house.
Because of inflation. Your house is not producing any goods or services, as opposed to investments into the capitalist economy or taxes to the socialist economy.
I didn’t really place a value judgement on it, just made an assertion. My personal opinion is that if controlling housing prices is a goal you have to do it outside the market, but that is highly controversial and a non-starter in today’s America. Meanwhile the current orthodoxy of ‘upzoning’ prevails causing real damage to historic areas and mainly benefitting developers as far as I can see.
The umbrella of upzoning often includes relaxing historic review along with neutering enforcement of the same, resulting in the loss of historic structures to make way for new construction.
Ah yes, absolutely. I love historic architecture as much as anybody, but I am not a NIMBY and would prefer affordable housing for current and future members of my community more than I would preserving some particular moment in time for myself.
Yep. Can't have a rational discussion of the merits we have to start with the NIMBY bullshit already. Because affordable housing is important doesn't mean that historic preservation is not. And vice versa. Have a good one.
I’m confused, what isn’t rational? NIMBYism in the form of historical preservation is perfectly rational, I don’t dispute that. Just noting that I favor housing affordability, which research suggests is at odds with this sort of NIMBYism.
First off, you didn't say NIMBYism, you said NIMBY, and I'm pretty sure you understand the difference. If you really don't, I'll spell it out for you: the latter labels the person you are having the discussion with as motivated by greed, dismissing any valid points they may have. It is a lazy way to shut down an argument similar to the old internet standby "virtue signaling". Second, even if you did mean to say NIMBYism, historic preservation is not NIMBYism. By way of a simple example - I am for historic preservation in places I don't even live, not in my back yard. I hope that clarifies things.
>First off, you didn't say NIMBYism, you said NIMBY, and I'm pretty sure you understand the difference. If you really don't, I'll spell it out for you:
What you "spelled out" is not the generally understood definitions. I'm glad you're thinking for yourself, that's usually a good thing. Good on you!
That said, when using specific terms, it generally helps to use widely understood terms rather than your own definitons.
NIMBY[0]:
NIMBY (/ˈnɪmbi/, or nimby),[1] an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back
Yard",[2][3] is *a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed real
estate development and infrastructure developments in their local area, as
well as support for strict land use regulations. It carries the connotation
that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to
them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away.
The residents are often called nimbys, and their viewpoint is called nimbyism. *
The opposite movement is known as YIMBY for "yes in my back yard".[4]
Please note that the above, makes no mention of greed or virtue signaling for NIMBY or NIMBYism which are define as those folks (NIMBYs) with the attitudes/preferences called NiMBYism.
I don’t understand the difference between NIMBYism and NIMBY other than the part of speech. I also don’t understand the level of vitriol in your responses, I do not intend to shut down arguments or virtue signal.
Your association with NIMBYism as strictly economically motivated is a popular and recent one but the term predates and is much broader than that, and being purely motivated by historical preservation on a local level definitely is NIMBYism.
This is what poor people do in latin america, sans the RV. They just buy blocks as they can and add on to it.
This is also exactly what our family did, minus the 'expand' part. We could never afford to buy a house nor get access to credit but we could afford to build a tiny one on shithole land one brick at a time. The great thing is it also more or less works no matter how poor you are, if you die before it is complete your children can continue. Eventually after enough generations enough money is saved to have a house.
Unfortunately, a lot of the intermediate steps are prohibited by code in many locations. You'll get evicted from your own land if you try to live in an RV on it, you can't get a permit for a tiny house, you can't get utilities without a full site plan submitted.
Its legal to live in a box made of packing palletes on the sidewalk and illegal to live in a box of pallets on land you own. perhaps the solution is to build your tiny house on the sidewalk in front of the parcel you bought.
Another thing people do in places like the Big Island (HI) is they drop shipping container houses on worthless lava field land owned under a burner LLC and every time the county gets to them they just burn the LLC and move the container to another lava field. The county/state cannot keep up with it.
There are places that still allow it. Not enough for everybody to do it. But since there is no 'fad' of doing it right now, not much competition, anyone who might come across my comment and reasonably wishes to do this near a place with jobs can 100% do so.
Most of those places are "middle on nowhere". Location matters in real estate, if I can't get to my job in a reasonable amount of time it doesn't matter what I can do. My job is in Des Moines, if you have me the largest mansion in SF for free (including taxes and utilities) I still couldn't afford to live there (plane tickets would cost me several hundred dollars/day and the flights are 5 hours each way by the time I get to the airport an hour early)
This is illegal where I live in the United States. You can't "just build things" here.
Now you could probably do this really far out in the boonies where it could be illegal, but also unenforced. My uncle lives in a log cabin built this way. But it's also extremely far away from civilization (aka: jobs with income, and luxuries like groceries and clean water).
It's illegal in most the US but by selecting my county intentionally from the start I found a place within 20 minutes of a ton of jobs, grocery store, etc. I did it legally with permits, but my permit basically said "ok to build house and no codes/inspections" and that was pretty much the bulk of it.
You have to pick one of the places in the US with little to no codes / paperwork from the beginning. There are still quite a few of them left, but probably not places you have heard of.
do you have running water, electricity, sewage, and a road (whether paved or unpaved) provided by a municipality? or did you have to solve for some of these yourself?
Water - bought share in a private well (cost near zero, well share was unproven but miraculously worked perfectly). Some people haul water.
electricity - private power company. But started on a small cheap generator.
sewage - private septic system (county allows you to DIY build them so could do this for next to nothing)
roads - For miles and miles they are all private dirt roads, but with easements to allow me to pass. The easements go miles until they connect to a county road in town. I first built my road with a shovel, hatchet, and ripping small trees out with a truck.
Are you talking about buying remote, difficult to access land? For most people who want to live within reasonable distance to grocery or hospital, putting an RV or tiny house on a lot is not going to be permitted.
I agree this is a good plan, but many places make this illegal (Ireland, for instance), because if people weren't forced in to life-long debt servitude to have a roof over their head they might exhibit too much agency.
Oof. That's a tough one. In the US you have to get to a pretty high valuation (currently over 13 million dollars) before estate taxes start taking a bite.
The alternative to police is not that you get to do what you want. The alternative is that people who have fewer rules than the police are the ones who throw you out.
No, the alternative is whatever we say it is. Presumably something better. You might even call them "police", but to make them better, they'd have to be a brand new system from the ground up with no overlap in personnel or plans.
No, the alternative is whatever we do. We can say it will be unicorns and rainbows, but unless you have a unicorn-and-rainbow factory, saying that won't change the reality that it will be... something else.
We might be able to abolish or defund the police. The result won't be paradise, though, it will be Vigilance Committees. (Even "abolish and replace" is, I think, too much of a reach to be actually implemented.)
I don't. I just know that there's a lot more to making something actually better than just saying that it's going to be better.
But, in fairness, I may have misread how you meant "whatever we say it is". If you meant that we get to make choices that determine the future, I agree. I would just caution that it takes far more effort, persistence, and political capital than you expect in order to make a positive change.
This is downvoted despite being literally true. It's very easy to find a very large cardboard box, lay it somewhere and sleep in it. However, if you do that, government officers come and take away your box and beat you up and take you away too.
A side effect that is vastly underestimated in its impact is: the housing racket makes virtually all Western economies vastly more uncompetitive with Asian countries.
With urban areas routinely approaching or, even worse, outright exceeding 50% of net income going away for housing, that's setting a pretty high floor on wages and salaries, and that in turn drives up the price for domestic Things and Services.
And no, building housing will not solve the problem. At all. People keep whacking their cucumber over urbanisation because they deem it to be "cheaper" to provide essential utilities due to effects of scale/density - the problem is, space is still finite and denser housing costs more money to construct, especially once you build higher than the maximum usable height of a fire truck's ladder because now you need to invest into independent rescue/evacuation paths, and once you build above 10-ish (or less, depending on soil type and geological risks like earthquakes) stories you need to dig deep into the ground to build a foundation strong enough to keep the building from damaging during settling. Can't compromise on the fire safety regulations (otherwise all you get is a new Grenfell Tower style disaster), and you can't compromise with physics eithr.
Western countries need to build out essential infrastructure like broadband Internet, mobile phone service and public transit in rural and suburban areas. That's the only path that doesn't rely on utterly insane investments.
Sadly structurally the system favors housing incumbents. And it doesn’t take a lot to derail efforts to create more supply.
In my town we spent 8 years of public involvement in rezoning to increase supply and density. Including several city council elections of pro-housing council members elected over more NIMBY ones.
Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction.
I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process.
And yet zoning is just one factor in housing supply. Even successfully implementing upzoning laws can find markets with higher prices, rates of homelessness, and investor ownership of housing - because many factors influence these outcomes not just zoning laws.
Yes I agree it’s just one factor. It’s necessary but not sufficient.
I think I another huge constraint is construction labor. Which is very tight right now.
I’m reminded we built the Empire State Building in 9 months. I see delays for single family homes causing it to take years.
An important consideration for the Empire State Building is that it was not built by the lowest bidder. It was built by those who were considered most likely to be successful at the endeavor.
Those aren’t comparable. A delay in a standard stick built home would be due to legal issues.
Otherwise, tract homebuilders in the US have metrics of building a brand new house within 100 days.
The labor costs are high, but not that high that construction is delayed due to lack of labor. Land prices and clearing legal hurdles are the bigger problem.
Is there an example where upzoning has resulted in reduced housing prices?
Yes, here's an episode of a podcast with the authors of such a paper.
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/2024/12/11/83-local-effects-of-up...
Thanks. Zurich. I don’t think even the authors would call this a slam dunk, and they cite it as the best available example. I do appreciate that they rightly call out that upzoning will cause movements in the population and the potential benefits will take decades to materialize.
I’m not sure what “slam dunk” means in this context, but they do note how clear the effect is, even if it does unfortunately take 5-10 years before it shows.
It looks like rent stayed the same there. It didn’t decrease.
Yes there is. It’s one of many factors. I did a deep dive years ago before wanting to support the issue locally
IE:
The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835
> we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls, play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
> an example where upzoning has resulted in reduced housing prices
I found an argument in your paper but no such examples.
I’ve not been able to find any, which is not to say there aren’t any, but when you have these conversations the inevitable result is getting called a NIMBY so I tend to abandon them early.
[flagged]
Not sure colonization describes teachers looking for housing to stay in your city.
Yes but the unique piece here is ratcheting up of ever increasing codes, zoning, regulations while grandfathering in the old housing. The people voting made their own houses illegal but then said their own houses were exempt. They've created an effect where the incumbents own housing that would be illegal for anyone else to create, which helps prop up their home value massively since it artificially raises the price of the substitutive option of building a house.
Not sure that’s unique. The whole western world did this on a massive scale- starting with the treaty of Westphalia, where after every kingdom conquered as many lands as they could, then voted to assign borders to themselves and declared them sovereign lands that you’d have to be an evil barbarian to infringe on
“People been doin’ this for ages” is not a helpful thing to say to folks trying to discuss the actual problem.
But it’s nice you’re here.
Solution: no more codes, zoning or regulations?
Certainly we could look at removing parking minimums and having less rigid zoning requirements. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to buy a coffee a walk away.
What do you do if the local service is expensive/not very good, and a higher-quality option is a drive away? Do you prefer to live with crappy coffee, drive, or remain ignorant of better options?
I'm in that situation right now. Local medical, restaurant, etc., are not very good, so I drive to the better option.
Usually I walk or cycle, because I dislike being around cars. Though sadly other people’s cars make the walk less pleasant.
Or just apply the law equally? If you want to vote to increase regulation you agree it applies to your own house. If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
> Or just apply the law equally?
Laws generally don’t apply retroactively; they don’t affect actions or events that occurred before the law was enacted due to principles rooted in fairness, legal stability, and practical governance.
Non-retroactivity protects individuals from arbitrary government power, ensures trust in legal systems, and promotes economic and social stability. Without this principle, people could be penalized for past decisions made in good faith, eroding confidence in governance.
> If you're going to impose some $10,000 sprinkler system on the new guy you better be willing to renovate your house too.
What about home building codes affecting structure, e.g. against earthquakes?
I don't follow. USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal (interestingly there is a law that this same stamp is $0 for other weapons which put people in a precarious position of facing 10+ years in prison for not paying a $0 tax). If you happen to already have one before they passed the law, the law still applies to you, just not before the law goes into effect. And they might not even give you the stamp even if you try to pay for it, if you don't pass a check. They won't charge you for the time you had it before the law went into effect. But they will charge you for owning it today without the tax stamp. (Now you can argue that law is unconstitutional, either from the takings clause or 2A but not because it is retroactive).
That's kind of how I see the housing law. It would not be retroactive. It would be, that tomorrow owning a house without a sprinkler system would be illegal. And anyone who possess the house without one is violating the law. And if you don't agree with equal application to everyone, maybe the law should not be there in the first place.
> USA has made laws, say, that owning most explosives without a tax stamp is illegal
I think you're referring to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and its treatment of pre-existing explosive devices and destructive devices. It is an interesting example of how retroactive tax laws can affect previously legal property ownership.
What I will say is that retroactive compliance requirements, while controversial, have generally been upheld by courts when applied to dangerous items affecting public safety. The explosives/tax stamp example demonstrates the tension between property rights, retroactive legislation, and public safety regulation.
I don't know that your overall argument that all new building requirements should be applied to all existing properties. Not only would it be incredibly expensive (and probably having an even worse impact on people with less means), but also highly impractical in some instances. Does that make sense?
There are places like Maine with no zoning at all that still purport to have a housing crisis
There are many factors contributing to the housing crisis, not just zoning regulations. That’s why upzoning often coincides with higher prices, rising homelessness, and increased investor ownership.
We are best served by implementing effective public housing policies.
The research on upzoning simply does not bear out this conclusion.
Effects of upzoning are mixed:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/Zoning%20C...
Median rent as a portion of median income driving homelessness:
https://wp-tid.zillowstatic.com/3/Homelessness_InflectionPoi...
Just a couple examples. The causal picture is more complex than upzoning. It is one factor among many.
Some places mitigate to positive effect. One example ia japan where zoning is done nationally to remove nimby power by dluting the hyper local nimby power
...You'd call it a "conquest" for your children to have an easy time finding good housing when they move out?
Their children can get help with a downpayment, maybe even by refinancing their house. It’s others’ children that are classified as a conquest.
And in my neighborhood they wanted to rezone to allow an asphalt plant for highway construction, something that made all of our homes unfit for purpose but that the government really really wanted.
The ability for 2-3 households to sue to stop something like that where the government just steamrolls over zoning/etc because it benefits the government is hugely important.
A home is the biggest investment a person will make. It is also not easy to unwind from. Zoning is a promise by the government 'invest in this, we promise it will stay what you are purchasing'. A few home owners should definitely be able to force the government to keep that promise, and to keep their homes fit for purpose.
I love downvotes for saying 'zoning laws that promise your home is habitable for human habitation should prevent adding toxic chemical factories to a neighborhood after the fact'. At least comment and justify your downvote.
>> I feel like there has to be an effort at all layers of government to solve this structural problem where a few homes can derail a democratic process.
What you describe is not a structural problem. On the contrary, it is precisely how a constitutional, rule-of-law system is meant to work.
Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular.
Judicial review is part of the design. Reviewing legislative and administrative actions for legality is a built-in check and balance, not a veto by randos. The courts exist to ensure the other branches do not skip required steps or exceed their authorities.
More specifically, the legal concept of "standing" prevents this from being arbitrary. In most contexts, you cannot sue just because you dislike a decision. You must show concrete injury, such as living next to an affected area. That's why a "few households" can file: they're the ones with legally cognizable stakes.
Now, I will grant that in places like California with decades of existing laws, NIMBYs have done an excellent job figuring out exactly what buttons to press and what levers to pull to get their way. But this is not a flaw in the system. It just means that they have read all the manuals (because they are very strong incentivized, financially, to do so) and are now using it competently, even if it is self-serving and sometimes even in bad faith. But other locales have figured out the solutions to this problem. The article gives one such example: Austin, TX.
>> Only to have it all screwed up by 2-3 households that sued, pausing the zoning and throwing a wrench into a lot of new housing construction.
> Democracy does not mean pure majority rule. Our system is a constitutional democracy. Majorities make policy, but minority rights and legal limits constrain how they do it. Courts are there to enforce these limits even when a policy is popular.
When the minority is 20-30 percent you may have a point, when it's 2-3 people then that's just obstructionism.
You should read the rest of my post. The reason it's "2-3 people" is because those 2-3 people are the ones who have legal standing to sue.
The systemic problem is that those buttons exist to be be pushed, not that they are being pushed.
For example, all rules regarding single family occupancy - there is no gain society can possibility have from instituting such rules, and many countries do just fine without them.
But once you have them in place you have created a very strong incentive for incumbents to exclude others from diluting their access to public investments in the area, while also denying those people a political voice.
There's a common view that home-ownership is important because a home is the most expensive asset most people will ever own and its increasing value is key to their comfortable retirement. But this view of a home as an appreciating asset is incompatible with increasing housing affordability.
There are definitely downsides to renting such as landlord issues or missing out on mortgage subsidies, but maybe a higher proportion of renters could lead to improvements in affordability. And if the well-off are renting as well, there's also more hope for better legal protections for renters.
People don't say home ownership is important because it's an asset for retirement; if you sold it, you wouldn't have a home in retirement!
They say that because owning a home allows you to reduce your bills, but also more crucially and viscerally because owning a home allows you to be free and have a place that is truly yours to do with what you will. You can paint the walls, have a pet, host a party, knock down a wall and build an extension, do whatever you like to make your mark on it and the world. It's yours and if you will it, it always will be. It's a level of peace and security that's almost incomparible. There's a reason in most of history there was a distinction drawn between bonded peasants and freeholders.
I think you listed great positives for ownership. I would agree with those. But the parent is correct that, at least in the USA, owning a home is considered a financial investment that should appreciate in value. I think treating a house as a financial investment leads to all kinds of bad outcomes, and here we are.
"People don't say home ownership is important because it's an asset for retirement; if you sold it, you wouldn't have a home in retirement!"
It's very common in the USA. A married couple has some kids and buys a house big enough to accommodate them comfortably. 20ish years later, the kids have moved out and the parents don't need such a big house. They also are about to or have recently retired, and they would like to stretch their retirement money. Sell the big house, make a lot of money, and then buy a smaller, cheaper house. In the USA this pattern is pretty common.
This pattern has been disrupted because of the decades of under-building. The neighborhood I grew up in around an elementary school is populated by empty nesters and has been for over a decade. There is nowhere for the empty nesters to downsize into that isn't 3-5x what their mortgage is on their family sized home (in CA we also have the complicated of Prop 13 on property taxes) so they aren't moving. My highschool recently shut down because there weren't enough families in the neighborhood around it anymore.
I think things are breaking, for sure, but how badly and in what ways is very local. To your point (and my point, a bit), with current market conditions, many homeowners are staying in their homes rather than moving. We had a pretty long period of very mortgage rates, and now rates are higher. Home prices have not decreased, either. So someone with a home that is a little too big has something valuable that they want to hang to, and buying a smaller house is, at least for now, not necessarily a good financial decision. But if housing were not an investment, a elderly retired couple could just move to a smaller house and not think too much about it. But it is an investment, so they stay in their unnecessarily large house hoping the market changes in their favor.
Also, it’s a risk hedge. In many very populous areas property tax increases are capped.
This allows someone to quite concretely limit their housing costs in retirement (a large portion of anyone’s expenses!) in a way that is impossible in almost any other way. The only other similar types of deals are specific types of rent control in very limited metro areas.
That is huge.
Even if property tax increases are not capped, they are generally a fraction of what the house payment would be. (though after 30+ years of inflation the tax is what the original house payment was)
Generally if you rent your share of property tax in the rent payment is higher than an equivalent house share would be Tenters don't see how property tax affects their rent and so they generally don't oppose property tax increases, if they even bother to vote which they are less likely to. To be fair, how tax affects tax is complex - rent is supply and demand first, things like taxes put a floor on prices and so affect supply but this means it is indirect and so hard to see even though it will catch up eventually.
Almost no one is still making house payments in retirement. Those that are, almost certainly got that mortgage decades ago and it’s now a tiny fraction of current rental prices.
"Buy a home, pay it off, then downsize to generate funds for retirement" is a pretty widespread approach.
> "Buy a home, pay it off, then downsize to generate funds for retirement" is a pretty widespread approach.
[citation needed]
> The majority of retirees don't relocate. A 2015 analysis (the most cited historical data) from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey showed that only about 5% of Americans age 55 and older move annually (local or long-distance).
[…]
> A more recent study, from Hire a Helper, showed that in 2024, only 22.7% of all retirees (both new and existing) moved, compared with 25.3% in the year before.
* https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/retirement-planning/myt...
Lots of folks say they want/plan to downsize though:
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/21/home-buying-...
And of the half that say they are moving, half (25% of total) "want their next home to be the same size as their current one, and 22% want it to be larger".
Those are perfectly good reasons and in the hypothetical world of housing affordability such utility should compensate for the depreciation. Similarly many people find value in owning a car despite the nearly guaranteed decline in value. Ideally neither would be viewed as a wealth-building tool.
It’s all this but don’t underestimate predictability. If you own a home with a fixed rate mortgage you know what your payment is and it doesn’t change. You know where your kids are going to grow up.
Sure you might need a new roof and insurance and taxes fluctuate but that’s a BIG BIG deal as anyone who’s rented and been at the mercy of markets can tell you.
This is even more true now as the rental market (like so many markets) is coming to be dominated by corporate landlord La using revenue extracting software.
I recall talking to a real estate guy as a recent high school graduate 25 years ago. He claimed real estate rates will stay above 7-10%. I countered that long term, real estate needs to remain tied to inflation or else all buyers will be priced out.
He is doing very well.
Interest rates, or appreciation rates? They are different and I'm not sure which either of you are talking about.
Talking about investment returns.
Looks like you can both be right.
Classic ‘the market can be irrational longer than you can be solvent’ situation if I ever saw one.
In a situation of supply scarcity all the market needs to do to function is to sell this limited supply. And this does not require the median citizen to be able to afford this supply. Thus the market isn't even irrational.
All those tax cuts to the super rich have to go somewhere. Buying up property is one of them.
More so you need to generate the money that goes into stocks and other assets from somewhere. This seem to be done either by government debt or by debt against increasing home values...
I don't see how I could ever afford to retire whilst still having to pay rent in the UK.
> But this view of a home as an appreciating asset is incompatible with increasing housing affordability.
It isn't, but it seems that way. If you pay your house off before/when you retire that means you live rent free (you still have property taxes and maintenance, but they are far cheaper than rent). Social security is the same either way. Your 401k and IRAs have maximum contributions and so again not having to pay rent means your retirement income is effectively higher.
A house as an appreciating asset is only good for retirement if/when you sell - but then you either need to invest that money and pay it out in rent which has also increased, or you need to buy a new house. There is also risk - if you go to a nursing home the house is treated special, but if you sell it the additional money is used to pay the nursing home before government kicks in. Which is to say that for retirement planning house values are meaningless.
An appreciating house is useful if like many people you "cash out refinance" I've seen many people refinance their house every few years to the current house value. They take very nice vacations paid for by the house increase in value. This is all good until they retire and now owe what the house is worth and so they are paying rent with their limited income.
> But this view of a home as an appreciating asset is incompatible with increasing housing affordability.
Historically it's appreciated in the 2-5% range, which is roughly the same as inflation.
* https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-vs-inflation/
During most of history, slaves were allowed to purchase their freedom with money they had made on the side. Your argument is the equivalent to saying that maybe it is not worth it, because the price of freedom is too high to be worth it. Sure, that's a way to see it. But another way to see it is that something else is wrong in the situation.
Don't own anything and be happy, kids!
Seriously, the fact this comment is, so far, at the top is mind boggling.
"Everyone should be able to afford to buy or build a home" and "everyone's home should appreciate in value as an investment forever" are direct opposites.
I think people tend that think that home ownership is important as people tend to care more about thing they own.
But then again. Now where home ownership is so financialized, people don't dare to do zit out of the ordinary, which again leads to boring cities.
If even a smaller group controlled the supply of something why would that supply decrease in value.
Currently rental prices have to compete with how much effort a boomer wants to put into profiting from their second or third homes, a fair amount but most realize a stress free tenant is better than maximizing profit.
If you remove these independent landlords then it falls to a tiny group of giant orgs that then control the market and can charge whatever price they want.
That’s why the dynamic is unlikely to change until a large portion of boomers have died out.
Why would it change after the boomers die out? The population age histogram is going to get even more top heavy:
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
Because most of the younger generations didn’t have a chance to buy in at the lower prices, and hence haven’t owned much as a percentage at the same ages. Boomers own most of the real estate right now, and have for a very long time.
It’ll spread around more when they die.
At least as this quotes “Millennials own less than two-thirds of the real estate Baby Boomers did at the same age”.
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/ter01-real-estate-owners...]
> My wife and I have been holding Treasury bills for the past few years waiting for mortgage rates or home prices to come down, but neither have. So, we keep rolling Treasuries until the right moment arrives.
Ouch. Holding T-bills instead of equities for the last few years has been incredibly costly for this couple.
What you are not wrong, this is misleading. We can say on hindsight what happened, but there is no way to know in advance it would have happened that way. There have been many times when equities have done very poorly for a short period of time. Any money you plan to spend in the near future should not be in equities, it should be in lower return investments like treasury bills, money market funds, or other similar investments that while they don't offer as good a return on investment also don't suddenly crash losing significant value for a few years.
Their real mistake was thinking the housing market would crash, which while not impossible seemed unlikely to most observers.
The housing market has crashed 2 times within the past ~30 years (90 and 2007). Housing is so over financialized + demographic shifts that it might be merited to expect crashes.
Regardless, one should not hold cash in anticipation of a housing crash but in the anticipation of a buying opportunity.
> Regardless, one should not hold cash in anticipation of a housing crash but in the anticipation of a buying opportunity.
Isn't the housing crash in question also the buying opportunity in question, for many people who have been priced out of the market?
Edit: I'm not implying this is a sound strategy. Just more of a reality.
No, there are plenty buying opportunities without crashes.
A buying opportunity can arise in multiple ways: Eg. realizing that you are willing to move to a cheaper area.
There is plenty of well priced housing - just not on the soil people want it to be on. But in the end, not everyone can have the same address.
It didn't sound like OP was holding Treasuries exclusively, but perhaps just as part of their overall portfolio. It's useful to keep a bunch of "dry powder" in cash or cash equivalents in case opportunities arise.
We need to be critically honest about how our system operates.
Land is finite. As population grows, supply and demand dictate it will rise in value if you hold.
If you rent property that someone else would prefer to buy for habitation if made available at market rate, you’re benefiting at overall society’s expense. Similarly if you take units off the market as investment vehicles.
Productivity matters most in economics. Without it you’re just shifting money around. Owning as a middle man is essentially the opposite of productivity.
As rentals become the only option and a small percentage of land owners become the only housing option, we’re going to see a rise in wealthy untethered types who rent and move at will. Similarly, we’ll start seeing ghettos form in the scant land remaining after this fully plays out.
The problem is that you can’t tell an individual who had to go through hell to own a place, on the verge of a second home, not to rent instead of sell. This society is a hammer taking a chip out of every successful shoulder. “Why should I do society a favor when society did me none?” Is a common mindset that just exacerbates the issue.
We’re creating a resentful generation who feel disenfranchised and taken advantage of, and it’s only going to get worse. I fear for uprisings and surveillance states incoming.
For real solutions, bring back work from home. No need for dense housing when you’re not forced to live in a particular area.
> Land is finite. As population grows, supply and demand dictate it will rise in value if you hold.
Nitpick: There is a lot of land. We're not going to run out of it anytime soon. What we are consuming is 'good' land. That definition will depend on a lot of things, of course.
For instance, in Denver, there is a lot of land. It's just that all the land to the west is rugged mountains. Great, so all the land to the east then, plains, right? You can build houses all the way to Kansas! Yes, but all that land is filled with bentonite clay which expands 4x with water (yes really!). You can't build cheap and safe houses on it. So, land values increase as more people move to Denver, simple supply and demand.
This kind of thing is all over the world. You can build more houses just about anywhere, but making these houses safe, cheap, and where you actually want to live, that is the problem.
It is even more sinister than a question of good land.
As the population shrinks nobody wants to risk sitting with unsellable houses. Which is a huge driver in the current real estate market.
> My wife and I have been holding Treasury bills for the past few years waiting for mortgage rates or home prices to come down, but neither have.
I wonder how long people remain in such states. I feel like for something as big as house ownership you need to decide if you really want it and if you do just go for it. How much of your life are you prepared to spend on "getting ahead"? They say "life is what happens to you while you're making other plans".
Their strategy was just bad. Housing prices do drop, occasionally, but waiting for that can take decades. And waiting for mortgage rates to drop is completely unnecessary. Just refinance when they finally do!
The whole economy is gambling, and there is no way not to gamble. When you gamble, you can lose. These people gambled and lost. And the stakes are your life.
Maybe we should invent a better system.
A 20-30 year long monthly reminder that your mortgage payments are significantly higher due to missing the boat. Ouch!
Painful for people that do not expect significant further income increases.
This is the current sentiment. But it is short sighted.
The best recommendation is to _know_ the fundamentals of house prices. To know when buying is cheap and expensive.
Eg. in relative terms: buying a house at 30 Price/Rent makes it more affordable to rent - in such an environment, just rent. If the P/R falls to 15-20, then buy.
Housing can also be unaffordable in absolute terms such as wanting to live in down town San Fransisco. In this case people should strongly consider if they want to pay a premium for that locality.
We don't have to go longer back than 2013 to when it made sense to buy over renting - and that will return at some point.
It's your choice to think about such things and therefore it's your choice to be unhappy about it. You can't change the past so you can either be unhappy about it, or not. It's your choice.
If we all could agree that water, food and shelter are the essentials for human survival (which I know that most people here wouldn't agree on), then it's easy to see the absurdity of the so called "society" or "economy" or "system" that the younger generations have been born into. Because it would be the same thing as a person being forced to enter into life long debt in order to obtain drinking water.
How can it be that people can enslave the young generation by the motivation that they were born first and therefore own all the land, but they can't do that with water? Ie: "We were born first and own all the water rights and you have to go into debt slavery the rest of your life if you want to drink water!" Makes just as much sense as the current situation.
Lack of housing is most of what's wrong with __everything__ in the US right now.
Not just in the US. NIMBY looks almost exactly the same in the US, in New Zealand, in Israel, in Italy, in Czechia or in the UK.
Basically, as long as you allow other people to veto new construction, it is almost guaranteed that a few bitter fighters will devote their lives to stopping anything to be ever built again. Roads, trams, housing, anything at all. A veritable vetocracy, not too dissimilar from the legendary Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where every noble could veto anything agreed upon by the Sejm by simply standing up and saying "I disagree".
The "community participation" ideal which looked very positive once turned out to empower the worst reactionaries.
The few countries that got this problem under control did so mostly by limiting the legal abilities of such people to throw wrenches into everything.
Exactly.
The problem with community participation is it can only work when significant numbers of people participate. Most people have too much in life as it is to get involved. On any given night there are 50 different events in my city I could go to - (knitting circle, bible studies, softball, DnD, book club, girl scouts, gymnastics...), plus I have my own hobbies at home I'm trying to work on: I don't have time to attend the community meetings as well - and neither does most people in my community. What is left with the "busy bodies" who decide to make time - but they don't represent the community and shouldn't get input (I went to one: Some women was asking a lot of questions on why the road department decided to not replace a road grader with 14900 hours on it even though the policy was replace it at 15000 hours - that is trying to micromanage the whole county as if the leaders are not competent to make decisions).
Don't forget they're saying these things for valid reasons, and a balance has to be struck. For example, (this is not a perfect rule, just a rough draft) if you can only build an apartment block next to another apartment block, high-density areas can exist radiating outwards from existing centers (where you'd want high density and where people who want to live in high density want to live). Or you can build one surrounded by farmland, probably. Apparently that's popular in America though I don't understand why.
My experience with the Czech NIMBY crowd is that when I talk to them directly, they are quite open about "we don't want anything to change and we don't like new people".
More constructive reasons like "there is not enough buses to the area" can be usually solved by reasonable compromise, but this sort of intense conservatism "wait until I am dead, then build something" cannot.
Curious to see that no one mentions the drastically rising inequality in western society as the root cause of the housing crises.
What we are seeing to date is a transfer of wealth from the working class, the middle class, and the government to rich people at a rate that is unprecedented in human history. The rich are getting richer at an extremely high rate, and barely any country taxes wealth.
So what you get is multimillionaires and billionaires who get passive income of several million dollars per month. What are they going to do with that money? There is a rule that you should let your money work for you, and so rich people buy: assets, stock, shares.
That’s why the prices of all of these things go up despite living standards falling and falling for ordinary people. We have an asset price inflation, due to the enormous amount of money given to the ultra rich.
Housing prices will never go down unless you tax the rich. Regardless of zoning laws or what not.
This is the most worrying aspect of it to me. It is hard to imagine an economy or society in general to continue functioning indefinitely with such an extreme difference in outcomes between different groups. As far as I know there is no historical example of a society that allowed inequality to grow at the level ours is that did not ultimately face massive socio-political upheaval. Needless to say it would not be pleasant to live through those times
Seems to me that capitalism, especially when unregulated as has been in the US since the late 70's/early 80's ultimately results in wealth concentrated somewhat in the top 10%, but especially the top 1%, while the bottom 90% sees their share of national wealth drop every lower.
It feels like we are entering a second guilded age, just like the late 1800's. Maybe a few world wars and a global depression will reset the board and we can start again.
Because rising in equality is not the root cause of the housing crises. Middle class people who ban new housing from being constructed are the root cause. When housing can be freely built housing prices dont increase faster than inflation.
of course in equality in itself is a course of higher housing prices - in fact inequality create asset price bubbles.
I really do not agree. When there are 99 houses and 100 households there will be a housing crisis, even with 0 inequality.
It is really not that simple - demand is elastic on contrary to what you propose.
The crisis is not necessarily availability, but affordability which is a consequence of inequality.
Of course nothing is that simple, but end of the day it actually is that simple here. There is demand for X number of houses but because of NIMBYS we can only have some number lower than X. Without NIMBYs we can satisfy all the demand. Wealth inequality could be the cause of a housing crisis, it just isnt here. If the reason we cant have X homes was something other than unjust laws created by the middle class Id be much more willing to blame inequality.
Regardless of what you think, inequality is a major component of the current housing inequality.
Yiu also have to step back and consider why people feel like the need to bundle up in the cities - if that a General lack of opportunity elsewhere due to inequality?
You are seeing a wound and saying: yep, that happened because the skin got damaged.
My wife and I were remarking on this just yesterday. We were driving through a neighborhood of small starter homes, and noting that nobody builds anything like that anymore. A two bedroom one bathroom house is all anybody needs to start out and get into the homeownership game, but the only way to get one is from the constrained supply of old ones.
2br 1bath doesn’t make sense in single family homes. That’s a condo/apartment size residence. Maybe townhome if you live in a low density area.
Condos should be a lot more popular, especially for the young and old, but the fees are pretty much always ridiculous. The whole point is to spread out the maintence costs among many residents so they are trivial, instead condo fees are usually in the hundreds or thousands per month per unit for no apparent reason other than the landlord wants a big payday. It doesn’t cost millions per year to maintain some parking spots, a small unstaffed pool, a front desk, and building maintenance. It’s like paying rent on top of your mortgage.
If you pay someone to mow your lawn it will costs hundreds per month. Most people just buy a $100 lawn mower and don't count their time (or they count it as exercise) and so don't realize how expensive it is to pay someone to haul a lawn mower (a more expensive commercial model, truck, trailer, play labor - labor isn't just time to mow, but also time to get there and load/unload). There are a lot of other ways that homeowners often are doing labor themselves and saving a lot of money that a condo must pay.
Hundreds per month but spread out over hundreds of units. Yes, condos have expenses, but the fees always seem grossly out of line with reality.
Don't forget the roof - your share is 1000 per year. Similar for the driveway, siding...
This comment doesn’t make sense. Are you using condos to refer to properties with shared walls where the whole building (and land) is owned by the condo owners? If so, then there is no landlord getting a big payday.
Condo expenses are what they are because taking care of a big building is expensive, but also because the condo board sometimes defers maintenance for many years or decades, and then the problems become expensive to fix.
Grew up in a three bed, one bath, with five people.
Home ownership in the 1950s got you a shoebox. It was affordable. That's why so many got into the equity game. Larger expectations and larger returns have changed the landscape.
The thing is, that used to be enough. People's standards have changed, and the house I described is no worse than most apartments.
Personally I think I'd rather rent than get a condo.
If you have a landlord, you are paying rent and not condo fees. If you are paying condo fees then it goes to maintenance and utilities. As for maintenance - you have many residents but also more property to maintain so how would it turn "trivial"? You also have maintenance costs that you usually don't get in a SFH - elevators, trash chutes, pools, parking structures etc. You only save on roof and siding and not even that much as a condo building usually has more expensive roof and siding (both in materials and labor) than a SFH.
Just how expensive things can be sounds amazing from certain other countries. Here labour is not exactly cheap, but is cheaper due to lower housing costs. But still my "HOA" bill is ~220€ a month, including heating, normal maintenance, water, electricity(I will be billed more yearly, but I waste lot of it) and powered parking spot...
Ofc, if there is renovations those will be billed separately or funded by debt that I have to pay monthly. But still delta sounds just like someone doing something wrong...
2br 1bath is a fine entry point up until you're looking at a family of 4+ or when you're talking about teenage kids who would want their own rooms. Or retirees who want to downsize, no difference
The idea is that you live there cheaply while building equity for 5 years or so and then trade up to a family house once you are married and looking to settle down.
Pretty much everyone aspires to have access to more than 1 toilet if the home has more than 1 person in it.
The marginal cost of a home with 2 full bathrooms compared to just 1 bathroom is negligible, and the value and security gained from the convenience and redundancy is immense.
Also, even today, there are tons of small 1,500 sq ft homes on 2,000 sq ft lots built and sold in the western US. It just depends on the local market for land prices and demand for small homes.
Absolutely, when I was looking at houses my bare minimum was 1.5 bath. I don't need two showers/tubs, but two toilets was non-negotiable.
I lived for a couple of years in a two bed/one bath apartment and the number of times I'd wake up having to use the restroom pretty badly and find my roommate was already in there was just too much.
I have some older neighborhoods around and it boggles my mind how many houses I find that are three, four, even five bedrooms with a single bathroom.
rent is expensive too, but cheaper than buying rn. high rent and high purchase price has a second order effect that is relevant to this forum: makes it harder to bootstrap a business.
it feels like every metro that has high innovation (lots of new businesses, creative art, etc) has had cheap housing first generally. SV is an interesting exception but a lot more money is pumped in to allow it?
SV had much cheaper housing until the 90s. Not super cheap but it wasn’t until dot.com and then the housing bubble that it got stupid.
SF was more expensive, which is maybe why SV is the burbs.
The cool hippie art scene in SF was in the cheaper higher crime areas, as it usually is. Maybe we need to get those crime rates up to drive down housing costs.
It’s no longer really possible to bootstrap in the Bay Area unless you are doing something nuts like living on couches or cheap shitty boats. It’s too expensive even for modestly funded companies. It’s really just a place for big tech and lavishly funded ventures. If you don’t have a Saudi prince on the cap table your company is better off remote or in another city.
SF had a ton of cheap, low-occupancy warehouses in Soma until the mid-late 2000s. Many have since been renovated into swanky offices.
i don't need an expensive metro to bootstrap what i'm working on. but my partner does for her career. that's the main problem for my situation, at least.
Why, after decades of failing against NYMBYs, are people so confident they can have any more success against NYMBYism as a whole? Homes are assets, and as such people and corporations who own homes really don't want them to depreciate, or even stop appreciating. Homeowners own the majority of this country's wealth, and since modern politics are entirely subservient to capital, the current situation makes perfect sense. Thinking it will only take a bit of deregulation to fix this mess seems foolish to me. Whatever the solution is, it will necessarily involve something more radical than tweaking a few numbers on a spreadsheet, and will require front-facing capital interests (something no political party is currently willing to engage in, not the democrats and certainly not the republicans).
NIMBY has proven the issues with it and so there are success. NIMBY started because people like Robert Moses proved what happens when you let some powerful person have too much power. If you (like me) are against NIMBY make sure you don't let things go too far that way - I don't know what is too far
I think if we could make housing affordable again the entire mood of the culture would change. A ton of nihilistic rage driven resentment politics on both sides of the political spectrum would ease up. Young people would no longer be doom spiraling. It would be like the fog lifted and the sun came out.
I pretty firmly believe that high housing prices are destroying civilization. I don’t think that’s hyperbole. I’ve been fond of saying it’s the economic problem in much of the developed world. The, singular. Make housing inexpensive and most of the other stats look at least okay.
We need to choose between real estate equity and literally all other things.
I will say I had my life absolutely destroyed somewhat recently. I thought I landed in my feet alright, till I learned I had basically become a pariah to the housing market. The past few months I’ve found myself more hateful and angry whenever
It’s almost entirely because of my current housing situation. I was not like this a few years ago.
> Young people would no longer be doom spiraling
False. Young people always find something to doom spiral about. They have been doing it all my life, and if you read old books you will see it go back much farther.
Ideally NIMBYs wouldn’t have an incentive to block housing construction because while the total number of houses goes up making the average house cheaper, the land itself gets more valuable due to the increased density/development/amenities; so those same homeowners can sell their lots for bug bucks. I guess this misalignment of incentives is a problem of zoning, permitting, and taxation distorting things?
Not all NIMBYs are the same. The ones I'm more familiar with are less concerned about land value and have little incentive to sell their homes. They are older, often retired, and prefer that nothing ever change around them due to simple conservatism.
An area doesn't need increased density or amenities for land values to go up. Here in the SF Bay Area, land values have exploded yet many neighborhoods have not changed in decades.
Some of us are old enough to remember upzoning by its old moniker urban renewal and the damage that was done in its name.
Not exactly the same thing.
Upzoning allows the owner to build more than one residence on what was a single family property. This might include removing an existing home to build a duplex or triplex, dividing a house into a duplex, or building an accessory dwelling unit on the property.
Urban renewal was typically the government using eminent domain to raze whole neighborhoods to build low income apartment buildings or some such. This also might include using the "Tower in a park" architecture that was all the rage at the time, but a terrible urban form.
Sure, but by the time upzoning makes it through city council and all the compromises are made it looks a hell of a lot like urban renewal. What else do you call allowing the removal of two historic structures from a city block to make way for another five over two?
Another five over one (which is what I think you mean) is not the same as a whole neighborhood getting razed and replaced with towers in the park.
By the way, the whole point of streamlining permitting and zoning processes are to get rid of the unreasonable watering down of every proposal because as you state the end result is worse for everyone, aesthetics included.
Also it isn’t just about historic structures, there’s situation like that San Francisco Mission District strip-mall-esque laundromat steps from the BART station, that can’t be replaced because NIMBYs are afraid of “changing the neighborhood character.” If crap architecture like that ends up in the same historic bucket then whoever is declaring 80% of every city as being “historic” has done a disservice to anyone who wants to actually protect historic architecture by diluting the name for their anti-change cause.
While I hate the current housing gridlock, these laws represent a classic Chesterton fence. They were enacted precisely because "upzoning" fell heaviest on the poor, minorities, the elderly, and other functionally disenfranchised people.
Since I like sortition, here's a goofy idea... eminent domain should be of two sorts: adverse and voluntary. Voluntary is bought-and-done. Adverse means we pick some other property in a different part of the jurisdiction, at random, and also adversely posses it. To drive the point home, I'd bias the selection to be directly proportional to value, ie, the more valuable, the more likely to be selected. The lock up in the adverse possession should be no less than, say, 25 years, or the lockup on the original possession, whichever is longer.
It’s very interesting. Based on this theory, stock prices should decrease as interest rates lower.
A massive number of people who are waiting for interest rates to drop will sell their equities to buy a house when it happens. IE, many couples are waiting for lower interest rates before buying a house.
This runs counter to current equities markets where hints of rate drops from the Fed will increase stock price.
It’s definitely an interesting theory.
Equities markets are largely driven by institutional investors, save for some notable exceptions ("meme stocks").
Unless the theory is that institutional investors are doing the same, it's not that surprising.
Lack of housing is not the primary issue. The problem is the mindset and various incentives to treat property as an investment vehicle.
If investment was the only major issue, rental inflation would not be high. Rental inflation can only be explained by a lack of housing in areas people want to live.
I didn’t say it was the only factor, I’d never say that. But let’s say for the sake of argument that you are correct, supply is the one and only thing driving rent prices. What sorts of things cause supply shortages?
Property is only an investment vehicle _because of_ the lack of housing. If we actually built enough housing, it would no longer be a viable investment vehicle.
Once you understand fiat and feel inflation affect your buying power the fact property is an option as an investment at all to normal people is a Godsend.
Like what asset could non-investment savvy people move their increasingly worthless savings into otherwise?
> Like what asset could non-investment savvy people move their increasingly worthless savings into otherwise?
Investing in businesses bringing jobs and prosperity to their community, their people, their nation.
Or investing in their children to help them start out in life and not live as serfs.
But no, better to lock up all the money into non-producing assets and completely destroy the economy, progress and the birth rate.
There's a reason why during most of history, your welfare in age depended on your children or extending that to your community. Any other system simply eradicates the people participating in it, as we see right now with rapidly diminishing younger generations, to the benefit of the olds.
Strange to be arguing for investing in children but against owning the roof over their heads, thus building community and stability.
I don't see why people would be interested in investing in community businesses when I can't even guarantee I can live in that community long enough to see a benefit because I'm at the whim of the land owner and might have to just move somewhere else because I can't own anything.
Buying a house to put a roof over your head is not investing. Just like buying a bottle of water to quench your thirst is not investing.
If it’s not investing why is my net worth rising after buying a house.
Analogy is nonsense because you can’t sell the full bottle of water to someone else after drinking it.
> If it’s not investing why is my net worth rising after buying a house.
Because of inflation. Your house is not producing any goods or services, as opposed to investments into the capitalist economy or taxes to the socialist economy.
Actually the neighborhood got gentrified.
Money market accounts and treasuries are beating inflation.
Stock indices pretty much always neat inflation if you intend to hold your investments for more than 5-10 years.
I didn’t really place a value judgement on it, just made an assertion. My personal opinion is that if controlling housing prices is a goal you have to do it outside the market, but that is highly controversial and a non-starter in today’s America. Meanwhile the current orthodoxy of ‘upzoning’ prevails causing real damage to historic areas and mainly benefitting developers as far as I can see.
What does “causing real damage to historic areas” mean? Causing damage in what sense?
The umbrella of upzoning often includes relaxing historic review along with neutering enforcement of the same, resulting in the loss of historic structures to make way for new construction.
Ah yes, absolutely. I love historic architecture as much as anybody, but I am not a NIMBY and would prefer affordable housing for current and future members of my community more than I would preserving some particular moment in time for myself.
Yep. Can't have a rational discussion of the merits we have to start with the NIMBY bullshit already. Because affordable housing is important doesn't mean that historic preservation is not. And vice versa. Have a good one.
I’m confused, what isn’t rational? NIMBYism in the form of historical preservation is perfectly rational, I don’t dispute that. Just noting that I favor housing affordability, which research suggests is at odds with this sort of NIMBYism.
First off, you didn't say NIMBYism, you said NIMBY, and I'm pretty sure you understand the difference. If you really don't, I'll spell it out for you: the latter labels the person you are having the discussion with as motivated by greed, dismissing any valid points they may have. It is a lazy way to shut down an argument similar to the old internet standby "virtue signaling". Second, even if you did mean to say NIMBYism, historic preservation is not NIMBYism. By way of a simple example - I am for historic preservation in places I don't even live, not in my back yard. I hope that clarifies things.
>First off, you didn't say NIMBYism, you said NIMBY, and I'm pretty sure you understand the difference. If you really don't, I'll spell it out for you:
What you "spelled out" is not the generally understood definitions. I'm glad you're thinking for yourself, that's usually a good thing. Good on you!
That said, when using specific terms, it generally helps to use widely understood terms rather than your own definitons.
NIMBY[0]:
Please note that the above, makes no mention of greed or virtue signaling for NIMBY or NIMBYism which are define as those folks (NIMBYs) with the attitudes/preferences called NiMBYism.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY
I don’t understand the difference between NIMBYism and NIMBY other than the part of speech. I also don’t understand the level of vitriol in your responses, I do not intend to shut down arguments or virtue signal.
Your association with NIMBYism as strictly economically motivated is a popular and recent one but the term predates and is much broader than that, and being purely motivated by historical preservation on a local level definitely is NIMBYism.
Buy land. Save.
Put RV on it. Save.
Build utilities. Save.
Build tiny house. Save.
Expand house.
This is what poor people do in latin america, sans the RV. They just buy blocks as they can and add on to it.
This is also exactly what our family did, minus the 'expand' part. We could never afford to buy a house nor get access to credit but we could afford to build a tiny one on shithole land one brick at a time. The great thing is it also more or less works no matter how poor you are, if you die before it is complete your children can continue. Eventually after enough generations enough money is saved to have a house.
Unfortunately, a lot of the intermediate steps are prohibited by code in many locations. You'll get evicted from your own land if you try to live in an RV on it, you can't get a permit for a tiny house, you can't get utilities without a full site plan submitted.
Its legal to live in a box made of packing palletes on the sidewalk and illegal to live in a box of pallets on land you own. perhaps the solution is to build your tiny house on the sidewalk in front of the parcel you bought.
Another thing people do in places like the Big Island (HI) is they drop shipping container houses on worthless lava field land owned under a burner LLC and every time the county gets to them they just burn the LLC and move the container to another lava field. The county/state cannot keep up with it.
There are places that still allow it. Not enough for everybody to do it. But since there is no 'fad' of doing it right now, not much competition, anyone who might come across my comment and reasonably wishes to do this near a place with jobs can 100% do so.
Most of those places are "middle on nowhere". Location matters in real estate, if I can't get to my job in a reasonable amount of time it doesn't matter what I can do. My job is in Des Moines, if you have me the largest mansion in SF for free (including taxes and utilities) I still couldn't afford to live there (plane tickets would cost me several hundred dollars/day and the flights are 5 hours each way by the time I get to the airport an hour early)
Hah, I’ve been half wondering if I could just snatch up a cheap lot somehwhere and fucking camp on it.
I’m sure, in most cases though, it’s somehow made illegal to utilize you’re “owned” property.
This is illegal where I live in the United States. You can't "just build things" here.
Now you could probably do this really far out in the boonies where it could be illegal, but also unenforced. My uncle lives in a log cabin built this way. But it's also extremely far away from civilization (aka: jobs with income, and luxuries like groceries and clean water).
It's illegal in most the US but by selecting my county intentionally from the start I found a place within 20 minutes of a ton of jobs, grocery store, etc. I did it legally with permits, but my permit basically said "ok to build house and no codes/inspections" and that was pretty much the bulk of it.
You have to pick one of the places in the US with little to no codes / paperwork from the beginning. There are still quite a few of them left, but probably not places you have heard of.
Wonderful for people without families/friends/community.
Take some of them with you. Use your savings to visit from time to time.
do you have running water, electricity, sewage, and a road (whether paved or unpaved) provided by a municipality? or did you have to solve for some of these yourself?
Water - bought share in a private well (cost near zero, well share was unproven but miraculously worked perfectly). Some people haul water.
electricity - private power company. But started on a small cheap generator.
sewage - private septic system (county allows you to DIY build them so could do this for next to nothing)
roads - For miles and miles they are all private dirt roads, but with easements to allow me to pass. The easements go miles until they connect to a county road in town. I first built my road with a shovel, hatchet, and ripping small trees out with a truck.
Nothing was provided by the government.
I don't want to ask anything specific enough to dox you, but could you share what state this is in?
AZ
Are you talking about buying remote, difficult to access land? For most people who want to live within reasonable distance to grocery or hospital, putting an RV or tiny house on a lot is not going to be permitted.
I agree this is a good plan, but many places make this illegal (Ireland, for instance), because if people weren't forced in to life-long debt servitude to have a roof over their head they might exhibit too much agency.
Here's a nice website showing how to build a nice, modest home for under 50k. Too bad it's illegal. https://web.archive.org/web/20210216212333/https://www.irish...
> if you die before it is complete your children can continue
If you didn’t have enough finances to complete before you die the land would be lost to inheritance tax at that point in most of the western world.
Oof. That's a tough one. In the US you have to get to a pretty high valuation (currently over 13 million dollars) before estate taxes start taking a bite.
[flagged]
The alternative to police is not that you get to do what you want. The alternative is that people who have fewer rules than the police are the ones who throw you out.
No, the alternative is whatever we say it is. Presumably something better. You might even call them "police", but to make them better, they'd have to be a brand new system from the ground up with no overlap in personnel or plans.
No, the alternative is whatever we do. We can say it will be unicorns and rainbows, but unless you have a unicorn-and-rainbow factory, saying that won't change the reality that it will be... something else.
We might be able to abolish or defund the police. The result won't be paradise, though, it will be Vigilance Committees. (Even "abolish and replace" is, I think, too much of a reach to be actually implemented.)
So how do you know what that will be?
I don't. I just know that there's a lot more to making something actually better than just saying that it's going to be better.
But, in fairness, I may have misread how you meant "whatever we say it is". If you meant that we get to make choices that determine the future, I agree. I would just caution that it takes far more effort, persistence, and political capital than you expect in order to make a positive change.
The first step is admitting there's a problem. That's why so many people are trying to get so many other people to admit there's a problem.
This is downvoted despite being literally true. It's very easy to find a very large cardboard box, lay it somewhere and sleep in it. However, if you do that, government officers come and take away your box and beat you up and take you away too.
A side effect that is vastly underestimated in its impact is: the housing racket makes virtually all Western economies vastly more uncompetitive with Asian countries.
With urban areas routinely approaching or, even worse, outright exceeding 50% of net income going away for housing, that's setting a pretty high floor on wages and salaries, and that in turn drives up the price for domestic Things and Services.
And no, building housing will not solve the problem. At all. People keep whacking their cucumber over urbanisation because they deem it to be "cheaper" to provide essential utilities due to effects of scale/density - the problem is, space is still finite and denser housing costs more money to construct, especially once you build higher than the maximum usable height of a fire truck's ladder because now you need to invest into independent rescue/evacuation paths, and once you build above 10-ish (or less, depending on soil type and geological risks like earthquakes) stories you need to dig deep into the ground to build a foundation strong enough to keep the building from damaging during settling. Can't compromise on the fire safety regulations (otherwise all you get is a new Grenfell Tower style disaster), and you can't compromise with physics eithr.
Western countries need to build out essential infrastructure like broadband Internet, mobile phone service and public transit in rural and suburban areas. That's the only path that doesn't rely on utterly insane investments.