Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But unfortunately we have an entitled landlord class in this country who think they should be able to live high on the hog, without having to work for it, except to go collect up the rent checks one day a month.
I just have them DD it so I don't have to go collect a check.
If it was up to me, I wouldn't allow private parties to provide housing to anyone. I would make it illegal, or at least severely restrict it. Then real estate prices would plummet and people would be able to afford to buy their own homes...
Curious if any place has actually tried this, I looked it up. The Dutch did in Amsterdam a couple years ago and the result you're assuming above would occur did not. Of course, this is just a small sample so "for what it's worth". It does suggest, however, that there is no straightforward solution to this housing problem.
But unfortunately we have an entitled landlord class in this country who think they should be able to live high on the hog, without having to work for it, except to go collect up the rent checks one day a month.
[/b]
I tried to become a landlord but I was struggling to pay the mortgage on our own home. Then I wrote a letter to Santa to give us an apartment complex for free, but Santa never replied. He is cheap, or the letter got lost, I still don't understand how could something so cruel and unjust happen. It is not fair, not fair at all.
Curious if any place has actually tried this, I looked it up. The Dutch did in Amsterdam a couple years ago and the result you're assuming above would occur did not. Of course, this is just a small sample so "for what it's worth". It does suggest, however, that there is no straightforward solution to this housing problem.
And yet there is no doubt that private rentals, especially vacation type rentals, are driving rents up and availability down, to the point of making housing in more and more areas unaffordable for residents.
You can walk through life with this completely distorted perception of how things work, and all that will happen is you will be angry about things that you clearly don't understand. There are ample things in life to be angry about, but you have got some serious magical thinking going on if you think real estate prices would plummet if rentals didn't exist.
What wouldn't plummet is homelessness. If you think banks are going to lend money to people with crap credit, I don't even know what to say.
Housing should be for people to live in, not a commodity to be bought and sold. The poor and middle class will never be able to compete with rich landlords for housing. They will always be outbid every time. Then the landlords have a monopoly, so they can keep raising the rents endlessly. Which makes them even richer so they can afford to pay even more for real estate, to ensure that poor and working people will never be able to afford to own their own homes, and they have to continue paying ever increasing rent prices, until they can no longer afford rent and eventually become homeless.
As for who is more angry, I think it's you guys. You are always crying about the homeless problem in Oregon, which you created, and how we need more laws and more cops to run the homeless out of town. Good luck with that, especially when your ideology keeps growing the homeless population.
And yet there is no doubt that private rentals, especially vacation type rentals, are driving rents up and availability down, to the point of making housing in more and more areas unaffordable for residents.
Hosing, like every other good in the marketplace follows microeconomic laws of supply and demand.
Demand is really difficult or impossible to manage in a metro area without plunging the region into a depression. If you want a vibrant economy, that means jobs, which means demand for housing. There are plenty of parts of the US with little demand for housing like the great plains and upper Midwest. That is what demand-side solutions to housing shortages look like.
Unless you want to plunge the region into a permanent depression, that leaves supply management as the only real way to reduce housing shortages. And we can examine every housing-related regulation from the filter of supply. Will it increase or decrease the supply of homes:
Short-term rentals? Obviously decreases the supply of long-term rentals and takes homes off the market that might otherwise be sold. So short-term housing decreases supply. And regulating or prohibiting short-term rentals would likely increase the supply of long-term rentals and/or homes for sale.
Single-family zoning? Decreases the amount of housing available. Both by restricting the amount of new housing that can be constructed and by forcing the construction that does occur to be the the most expensive type possible. And increasing sprawl which increases costs (more highways, sewers, water mains, etc.)
Investor-owned single family homes? This is actually probably a wash. When investors buy up single family homes, it doesn't actually reduce the housing stock (supply). The homes are still there and people are still living in them. What it does is convert homes from owner-occupied to renter-occupied. I'm not even convinced this is a bad thing overall, especially given how economically segregated our society it. It simply means that poorer families have a greater chance to move into fancier neighborhoods like Lake Oswego where there are good schools, parks, etc. Than they ever could if they were forced to buy. I have a hard time caring if the existence of rentals means that places like Lake Oswego lose a bit of their wealthy exclusivity. On balance, the existence of investor-owned single family homes may actually increase the supply if builders are motivated to build more homes due to an increase in buyers.
Inclusionary zoning? Probably decreases the supply since it increases the cost of new construction. Less total housing units get built when regulations increase the cost of construction or reduce the revenue from new projects. A few lucky people might get a few new units, but at the expense of raising the cost of housing for everyone else in the city by constricting supply.
Building codes? This is an enormous subject that we can't do justice to here. But there are endless gratuitous building codes from parking minimums to elevator requirements to setbacks that cumulatively make housing in the US far more expensive than it otherwise would need to be.
Public housing? Unless we do it on an absolutely massive scale like Vienna, it is probably the least cost-effective way to lower housing costs. We spend hundreds of millions or billions of taxpayer dollars on a few expensive public housing projects that do virtually nothing to affect the overall supply of housing in a city while setting enormous amounts of money on fire. In the US context, it is mostly a band-aid for liberals who don't actually want to change course and fix any of other things above that would actually increase housing supply. Public agencies in the US are famously horrible at building public housing cheaply and efficiently. They make the Pentagon look efficient.
Curious if any place has actually tried this, I looked it up. The Dutch did in Amsterdam a couple years ago and the result you're assuming above would occur did not. Of course, this is just a small sample so "for what it's worth". It does suggest, however, that there is no straightforward solution to this housing problem.
Housing should be for people to live in, not a commodity to be bought and sold. The poor and middle class will never be able to compete with rich landlords for housing. They will always be outbid every time. Then the landlords have a monopoly, so they can keep raising the rents endlessly. Which makes them even richer so they can afford to pay even more for real estate, to ensure that poor and working people will never be able to afford to own their own homes, and they have to continue paying ever increasing rent prices, until they can no longer afford rent and eventually become homeless.
As for who is more angry, I think it's you guys. You are always crying about the homeless problem in Oregon, which you created, and how we need more laws and more cops to run the homeless out of town. Good luck with that, especially when your ideology keeps growing the homeless population.
The landlords don't have a monopoly on housing and they raise rents per supply and demand.
I help middle-class people invest all the time. You are mistaken that they don't invest. Many investors own just one rental property. Something like 70% of rentals are owned by ma and pa landlords. While I am not a fan of Wall Street owning housing stock, you are mistaken that they are a monopoly.
I'm not crying about the homeless problem. I understand the complex dynamics that go into our current situation. I don't have any magical thinking going on. It is a multi-faceted problem that requires multiple solutions. My ideology in no way shape or form keeps the homeless population growing. Simplistic thinking does because it doesn't allow for effective solutions to be created because it keeps people entrenched in the thought that there is one cause for it when there isn't.
Hosing, like every other good in the marketplace follows microeconomic laws of supply and demand.
Demand is really difficult or impossible to manage in a metro area without plunging the region into a depression. If you want a vibrant economy, that means jobs, which means demand for housing. There are plenty of parts of the US with little demand for housing like the great plains and upper Midwest. That is what demand-side solutions to housing shortages look like.
Unless you want to plunge the region into a permanent depression, that leaves supply management as the only real way to reduce housing shortages. And we can examine every housing-related regulation from the filter of supply. Will it increase or decrease the supply of homes:
Short-term rentals? Obviously decreases the supply of long-term rentals and takes homes off the market that might otherwise be sold. So short-term housing decreases supply. And regulating or prohibiting short-term rentals would likely increase the supply of long-term rentals and/or homes for sale.
Single-family zoning? Decreases the amount of housing available. Both by restricting the amount of new housing that can be constructed and by forcing the construction that does occur to be the the most expensive type possible. And increasing sprawl which increases costs (more highways, sewers, water mains, etc.)
Investor-owned single family homes? This is actually probably a wash. When investors buy up single family homes, it doesn't actually reduce the housing stock (supply). The homes are still there and people are still living in them. What it does is convert homes from owner-occupied to renter-occupied. I'm not even convinced this is a bad thing overall, especially given how economically segregated our society it. It simply means that poorer families have a greater chance to move into fancier neighborhoods like Lake Oswego where there are good schools, parks, etc. Than they ever could if they were forced to buy. I have a hard time caring if the existence of rentals means that places like Lake Oswego lose a bit of their wealthy exclusivity. On balance, the existence of investor-owned single family homes may actually increase the supply if builders are motivated to build more homes due to an increase in buyers.
Inclusionary zoning? Probably decreases the supply since it increases the cost of new construction. Less total housing units get built when regulations increase the cost of construction or reduce the revenue from new projects. A few lucky people might get a few new units, but at the expense of raising the cost of housing for everyone else in the city by constricting supply.
Building codes? This is an enormous subject that we can't do justice to here. But there are endless gratuitous building codes from parking minimums to elevator requirements to setbacks that cumulatively make housing in the US far more expensive than it otherwise would need to be.
Public housing? Unless we do it on an absolutely massive scale like Vienna, it is probably the least cost-effective way to lower housing costs. We spend hundreds of millions or billions of taxpayer dollars on a few expensive public housing projects that do virtually nothing to affect the overall supply of housing in a city while setting enormous amounts of money on fire. In the US context, it is mostly a band-aid for liberals who don't actually want to change course and fix any of other things above that would actually increase housing supply. Public agencies in the US are famously horrible at building public housing cheaply and efficiently. They make the Pentagon look efficient.
The system development charges/requirements from the city can be overwhelming and make it impossible to develop. For example, there is no building going on in Stayton which is historically one of the most affordable areas in the Salem metro area. They require developers to manage the stormwater for each home on the land itself because they were sued by Salem for dumping stormwater into Salem's water supply. Builders can't do that and make building pencil so no homes.
Why anyone would want that city to develop, build, and maintain affordable housing would be beyond me.
I just have them DD it so I don't have to go collect a check.
Nice. Free, money, no work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
