The Great American Single-Family Home Problem

[fskimospy]

My problem with that idea is that in practice it means when the rich move into your area, everyone else is driven out, away from all their social support networks and their family roots, and potentially out to areas with no jobs. (It seems as if a neighbourhood can either have jobs, or affordable housing, but not both.)

It becomes a form of colonisation and a recipe for segregation by wealth.

This is because not nearly enough housing is being built. People don't seem to see that gentrification isn't rich people moving into poor people's neighborhoods, it's (broadly) super rich people moving into regular rich people's neighborhoods, who then move into middle class neighborhoods, who then move into lower class neighborhoods. Building more housing for the rich lowers the cost of that housing, meaning they are less likely to push out lower income people and so on and so forth.

An area can have both jobs and affordable housing, but people have to get over their NIMBYism. Instead of opposing a new development in your area people should be demanding that if you're going to build one building here you have to build two more.

 

[woolfe9998]

I didn’t say anything about patriotism, I said that they shouldn’t get special privileges simply for living some place for a long time. As for what housing is affordable, those Silicon Valley jerks are currently occupying all the high cost housing and driving up the middle cost housing too. If you build more fancy houses those jerks move into them, freeing up cheaper housing for regular people. Even if they are mostly building higher cost housing it still drives down the cost of all housing, helping everyone.

I’ve never understood this argument that building more housing in super expensive markets somehow won’t lower the cost of housing because the new housing will be high end in a lot of cases. It makes no sense.

Yes, and bear in mind that here in the Bay Area, no community will permit a sizeable housing development which doesn't include some low income housing.

A few years back there was a proposed development in a town nearby. Not only did it include 20% low income housing, but the developers bent over backwards to protect the environment and comply with every conceivable local demand. The low income housing would have allowed teachers, firefighters and police who work here but have to commute from across the bay every day to live here instead, reducing traffic and emissions. The plan passed the Planning Commission and city council unanimously. However, because of the size of the project, it was submitted for voter approval. Turned down by a margin of 10 points.

No development of any kind will ever be approved by voters around here, no matter the particulars. Everyone wants to protect their own property values. Meanwhile, no one who isn't very wealthy can afford to buy even a shack around here. Which is precisely why these things shouldn't be decided by the general public.

 

[K1052]

Yes, and bear in mind that here in the Bay Area, no community will permit a sizeable housing development which doesn't include some low income housing.

A few years back there was a proposed development in a town nearby. Not only did it include 20% low income housing, but the developers bent over backwards to protect the environment and comply with every conceivable local demand. The low income housing would have allowed teachers, firefighters and police who work here but have to commute from across the bay every day to live here instead, reducing traffic and emissions. The plan passed the Planning Commission and city council unanimously. However, because of the size of the project, it was submitted for voter approval. Turned down by a margin of 10 points.

No development of any kind will ever be approved by voters around here, no matter the particulars. Everyone wants to protect their own property values. Meanwhile, no one who isn't very wealthy can afford to buy even a shack around here. Which is precisely why these things shouldn't be decided by the general public.

I've seen similar things happen regularly in many peninsula towns. Though to be fair others are allowing housing to be built but really every municipality needs to let it happen in order to really address the shortage. Lots of "well we need more housing but it should really go over there in town X and not our little slice of heaven".

Attend some entitlement hearings in CA and you'll want to hang yourself hearing the stuff people come up with. A two story apartment building will cause a shadow on a park 5 blocks away. Why is there no playground for children in this rental property composed entirely of studio units? Where will everybody who owns two cars per family member park in this development right on top of two transit lines and a walkable downtown with services? Why doesn't the design meet the stringent aesthetic of our town which is a mishmash of strip malls with cracked parking lots, run down industrial parks, and generic postwar houses?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think you understand the consequences of the policies you're putting forth. If property values fall that might mean those old people don't have a 'nest egg' but many, many times that number of people can... you know... actually afford a place to live. What is more important to you, a large retirement asset for select property owners or affordable housing for everyone?

It was like when another poster earlier in this thread unironically decried how that old person's house would be replaced by 5 hipsters living together. Do you know why those five hipsters are living together? Because they're rendered so poor by housing prices inflated by the policies you want that they have to cram five of them into a one bedroom apartment.



That's the point though, I'm the one who is actually looking out for the welfare of people. You guys see a few old people forced out of their homes and your response is to enact policies that prevent many many times that many people who are far poorer from having homes to begin with. Those cardboard slums you are talking about? They already exist, in significant part due to the housing policies you're trying to protect. In case you didn't notice, homelessness is skyrocketing in California despite a booming economy. You guys might think you're doing good things but you're part of the problem. Maybe it's the human bias to loss aversion that makes it so people value someone losing a house more than ten people who couldn't get one to begin with.

I will have to put the 'you are willing to accept pricing old people out of homes so that we can have affordable housing for everyone. Therefore, you should have no problem with a national genocide' right up there in the annals of ridiculous hyperbole for here though, haha.

You put old people out but there will still be no affordable housing. That high value of their property will just transfer to some person with the wealth to buy them out and ride up the endless housing inflation wave until a new generation finds a way to throw them out. It doesn't matter if it's one or five. Location location location. Everything that costs a fortune now was once affordable. Bu whatever means you make affordable where people will want to live will become priced beyond the reach of most within a few years. I think the problem is that the homeless suffer from unemployment and mental illness and are too poor to buy shoes much less a house. My bias, I believe, is that you look at the issue with your own ox in the game and not from the perspective of those who scrimped and saved to have something only to have an endless horde of hungry savages seeking ways to take what they made.

 

[fskimospy]

You put old people out but there will still be no affordable housing. That high value of their property will just transfer to some person with the wealth to buy them out and ride up the endless housing inflation wave until a new generation finds a way to throw them out. It doesn't matter if it's one or five. Location location location. Everything that costs a fortune now was once affordable. Bu whatever means you make affordable where people will want to live will become priced beyond the reach of most within a few years.

There is no magical law of economics that real estate in certain areas has suddenly become exempt from in recent years. This is simple supply and demand. They spent years not building houses and encouraging people to turtle in the ones they had, and now society is paying the price. You don't like the solution so you are hand waving it away.

You've spent a lot of time thinking about the elderly that will be put out if they have to pay taxes on the actual value of their homes. I would ask that you put the same amount of thought into the 5 children crammed into one room, the people living in their cars, the people commuting 3 hours each way, and the people who will never get to own a home all so those elderly people can have their places. And remember, the ask isn't special privileges for them, it's to STOP giving special privileges to others.

I think the problem is that the homeless suffer from unemployment and mental illness and are too poor to buy shoes much less a house.

Employment in California is at record highs and yet homelessness continues to increase. While mental illness certainly impacts homelessness you know what else does? The price of having a home.

My bias, I believe, is that you look at the issue with your own ox in the game and not from the perspective of those who scrimped and saved to have something only to have an endless horde of hungry savages seeking ways to take what they made.

I am a current homeowner in a high cost area where I strongly advocate more home building. I would be directly negatively impacted by lower home values and I'm someone who scrimped and saved to have something so my 'ox' is the exact opposite side of what you claim. This is about helping other people achieve the same thing. The endless horde of hungry savages are the homeowners who are picking the pockets of their neighbors and of anyone who wants to live near them.

 

[pmv]

This is because not nearly enough housing is being built. People don't seem to see that gentrification isn't rich people moving into poor people's neighborhoods, it's (broadly) super rich people moving into regular rich people's neighborhoods, who then move into middle class neighborhoods, who then move into lower class neighborhoods. Building more housing for the rich lowers the cost of that housing, meaning they are less likely to push out lower income people and so on and so forth.

An area can have both jobs and affordable housing, but people have to get over their NIMBYism. Instead of opposing a new development in your area people should be demanding that if you're going to build one building here you have to build two more.

I've just realised why I've been partly getting the wrong end of the stick on the discussion. It's because when you say 'property taxes' you presumably actually mean property taxes. Here the tax, while constantly refered to as a property tax, is on residency not property. Tenants and owner-occupiers alike pay taxes based on the value of the building they are living in. So if 'property taxes' go up, all residents take a hit, including tenants. I forgot that in some places "property taxes" actually are property taxes, levied on the basis of ownership not residency. That does change the issue somewhat.

Though ideally it should be a land tax, and be based on the value of the land rather than the building. It's the land that is the crucial resource, whose increasing value is not dependent on the labour of the property owner, and I'm not sure it's right that the tax should go up if someone simply puts in the work to improve the actual building.

I still have doubts that 'house building' works out as you say, in practice. In practice the demand for 'houses for the super rich' appears to be insatiable, so however many they build (to sit empty, their owners not even living in the country) the prices continue to rise.

Edit - it seems the only force powerful enough to stop house prices rising at astronomical rates, is Brexit. San Fransciso clearly needs its own version of Brexit. Do something economically foolish, and housing will start to become more affordable.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no magical law of economics that real estate in certain areas has suddenly become exempt from in recent years. This is simple supply and demand. They spent years not building houses and encouraging people to turtle in the ones they had, and now society is paying the price. You don't like the solution so you are hand waving it away.

You've spent a lot of time thinking about the elderly that will be put out if they have to pay taxes on the actual value of their homes. I would ask that you put the same amount of thought into the 5 children crammed into one room, the people living in their cars, the people commuting 3 hours each way, and the people who will never get to own a home all so those elderly people can have their places. And remember, the ask isn't special privileges for them, it's to STOP giving special privileges to others.



Employment in California is at record highs and yet homelessness continues to increase. While mental illness certainly impacts homelessness you know what else does? The price of having a home.



I am a current homeowner in a high cost area where I strongly advocate more home building. I would be directly negatively impacted by lower home values and I'm someone who scrimped and saved to have something so my 'ox' is the exact opposite side of what you claim. This is about helping other people achieve the same thing. The endless horde of hungry savages are the homeowners who are picking the pockets of their neighbors and of anyone who wants to live near them.

Old people are a drain on the economy. They raise healthcare costs, they get government pensions, they accumulate property and valuables that younger people need. Just exterminate them at some agreed upon age. The worthless bastards are just taking up space. I remember a time when kids wanted their parents to have an easy life when they got old.

Maybe what you are trying to do is fix a broken system. How about housing and a job are a human right the government must supply to all.

 

[fskimospy]

Old people are a drain on the economy. They raise healthcare costs, they get government pensions, they accumulate property and valuables that younger people need. Just exterminate them at some agreed upon age. The worthless bastards are just taking up space. I remember a time when kids wanted their parents to have an easy life when they got old.

Maybe what you are trying to do is fix a broken system. How about housing and a job are a human right the government must supply to all.

You’re being ridiculous and not addressing anything I said.

 

[OutHouse]

This is why the state should step in and simply remove the power of community boards to excessively restrict development like this. It's a few greedy people trying to make a cash grab with property. It's not an easy thing to make real estate developers the good guy in a scenario, but somehow shitty homeowners, in CA especially, have succeeded in doing this.

Spoken like a good communist. do you have a picture of Lenin on you wall?

 

[Brainonska511]

Spoken like a good communist. do you have a picture of Lenin on you wall?

How is any of that communism?

 

[ivwshane]

My opinion is that people shouldn’t get extra special tax breaks based on how long they have occupied a specific address. If you are taxing property it makes no sense to tax two equally valuable pieces of property different amounts based on how long someone has lived there.

Every argument I see in favor of prop 13 is an emotional one about how people should be able to live in a house they bought a long time ago in perpetuity. I see no reason for this



It has so many benefits it’s just crazy. Prop 13 is seriously one of the worst pieces of ‘legislation’ ever created in the US.

First, it would vastly increase housing market liquidity by removing the incentive to turtle. For example, say you are a couple that used to have a bunch of kids in the house that all grew up and want to downsize from a four bedroom house to a more modest one because you can’t use the space. If you move to that one bedroom across the street though, your property taxes get reset at a new, much higher level, so now you don’t save anything. What do you do instead? Stay there and leave three bedrooms empty because it’s actually cheaper to waste space even during a housing crisis.

What evidence to you have that shows people stay in their houses, turtle, because of their low property taxes? I've literally never heard a single person talking about not moving because their property taxes are low.

Second, it returns balance to the tax system by eliminating the super regressive nature of prop 13. Currently, newer and less wealthy people pay vastly higher taxes on their property than older and wealthier people. For every poor grandma on a fixed income not getting forced out of their home you have tons of people with very high incomes in their 50’s paying a small fraction of what younger, poorer people are paying in property taxes. It’s yet another intergenerational transfer of wealth. Don’t even get me started on how it does nothing to protect the people who actually tend to get priced out, poor renters.

I'm not following. Without prop 13 newer and wealthy people would still be paying the exact same property tax they would have paid with prop 13 when they first but their house. The difference, of course, is that with prop 13 their property taxes wouldn't go up beyond a certain amount/rate, which would allow them to plan and buy according to what they can afford and what they believe they will be able to afford in the future.

Third, it removes a massive source of instability from government. As woolfe mentioned since prop 13 kneecapped property tax revenues California has raised other taxes to compensate, ones like the sales tax which is highly unstable. This is one of the reasons California almost went bankrupt during the financial crisis as they are now vulnerable to huge swings in revenue.

How can a tax that is based on a formula with a cap lead to instability in tax revenue? Its certainly more stable than a tax based on the whims of what the current market is doing (I could only imagine the budget nightmares California would have had trying to figure out what their property tax revenue would have been in 2007 and after the housing crash).

I could go on, but that’s a bunch of pretty great things for California to achieve. Everyone likes to focus on grandma sitting in her house and nobody likes to focus on the suffering inflicted on other people in order to do that.

Response in bold.

I don't think you've sufficiently made your case. In fact, prior to prop 13 people in California were still being priced out of the market and inflation was rising.

In my opinion prop 13 does two things: it creates a property tax calculation that is more stable which allows people to not only but accordingly but also allows for people to better plan for retirement.
It also effectively limits government growth as property tax revenue growth is restricted and it offers a more predictable revenue stream (you can predict what the max revenue increase would be because of the 2% cap as opposed to also having to predict what the following year's home values would be, especially in this housing climate).

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think you understand the consequences of the policies you're putting forth. If property values fall that might mean those old people don't have a 'nest egg' but many, many times that number of people can... you know... actually afford a place to live. What is more important to you, a large retirement asset for select property owners or affordable housing for everyone?

It was like when another poster earlier in this thread unironically decried how that old person's house would be replaced by 5 hipsters living together. Do you know why those five hipsters are living together? Because they're rendered so poor by housing prices inflated by the policies you want that they have to cram five of them into a one bedroom apartment.



That's the point though, I'm the one who is actually looking out for the welfare of people. You guys see a few old people forced out of their homes and your response is to enact policies that prevent many many times that many people who are far poorer from having homes to begin with. Those cardboard slums you are talking about? They already exist, in significant part due to the housing policies you're trying to protect. In case you didn't notice, homelessness is skyrocketing in California despite a booming economy. You guys might think you're doing good things but you're part of the problem. Maybe it's the human bias to loss aversion that makes it so people value someone losing a house more than ten people who couldn't get one to begin with.

I will have to put the 'you are willing to accept pricing old people out of homes so that we can have affordable housing for everyone. Therefore, you should have no problem with a national genocide' right up there in the annals of ridiculous hyperbole for here though, haha.

They existed well before those policies were in place and I'd argue that homelessness was worse then than it is now.

I would also like to tell you about another factor which may have been designed to do the very thing you are wanting to encourage, older people moving out of their homes.

In my area, and I would imagine these places exist throughout California, there are parts of cities that are zoned for residential areas but are exclusively built for seniors. People who are looking to downsize and get support look to move to these communities.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Which is precisely why these things shouldn't be decided by the general public.

This is a nation of "We, The People", like it or not. And if you don't like it, may I suggest moving to a Communist country, where everything is decided for you, since birth.

 

[woolfe9998]

This is a nation of "We, The People", like it or not. And if you don't like it, may I suggest moving to a Communist country, where everything is decided for you, since birth.

Great idea. I don't want every house built on someone's privately owned property to be subject to voter approval and so I want to live in a "communist" country. I'm pretty sure what I'm suggesting is quite opposite of communism. At least, for those who actually understand what that word means.

How about this: next you you want to take dump in your own toilet, you must seek the approval of your neighbors first, and if you don't like that, you're a "communist."

You are deeply confused.

 

[Moonbeam]

You’re being ridiculous and not addressing anything I said.

Hehehehe. You wales into a thread spouting nonsense that is a complete contradiction of the natural human love of place telling me my human nature must be suspended so that five other humans can take my place who will in a short time be fighting to the death to keep 25 more from replacing them, and I'm the one that is ridiculous. That to me is a textbook example of being a pin head liberal. Think of my neighborhood as Yosemite National Park and I'm one of the local bears. You don't get to move in, only drive through. Make a reservation. Let the rats in and Yosemite Village will become Mexico City. Try building high rise on church property or cemeteries. What a waste of space those are, right..

 

[fskimospy]

Hehehehe. You wales into a thread spouting nonsense that is a complete contradiction of the natural human love of place telling me my human nature must be suspended so that five other humans can take my place who will in a short time be fighting to the death to keep 25 more from replacing them, and I'm the one that is ridiculous. That to me is a textbook example of being a pin head liberal. Think of my neighborhood as Yosemite National Park and I'm one of the local bears. You don't get to move in, only drive through. Make a reservation. Let the rats in and Yosemite Village will become Mexico City. Try building high rise on church property or cemeteries. What a waste of space those are, right..

You are saying that people not getting special tax treatment for living somewhere a long time is the equivalent of genociding 90% of our population. So yes, you are being ridiculous.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are saying that people not getting special tax treatment for living somewhere a long time is the equivalent of genociding 90% of our population. So yes, you are being ridiculous.

No, what I was saying is that your capacity to justifying your desire to shuttle off the old to someplace they have no desire to move to, an act that will break or kill many of them is just the a first step in the justification that will see a 90% extermination event in a positive light. In for a penny in for a pound as they say. Just label them Jews and put them in ovens. It's all the same thing. All you need is to justify it to yourself. I don't approve of that as a solution. One can't be rational if it turns out that being rational is also heartless and cruel. Sorry, your justifications do not appeal to me. I would seek a different solution in the form of scientifically designed new cities with the eventual rebuilding of the ones that we have on humanly ergonomic holistic principles. In the mean time the government needs to hire and train the homeless to build their own places to live.

 

[fskimospy]

No, what I was saying is that your capacity to justifying your desire to shuttle off the old to someplace they have no desire to move to, an act that will break or kill many of them is just the a first step in the justification that will see a 90% extermination event in a positive light. In for a penny in for a pound as they say. Just label them Jews and put them in ovens. It's all the same thing. All you need is to justify it to yourself. I don't approve of that as a solution. One can't be rational if it turns out that being rational is also heartless and cruel. Sorry, your justifications do not appeal to me. I would seek a different solution in the form of scientifically designed new cities with the eventual rebuilding of the ones that we have on humanly ergonomic holistic principles. In the mean time the government needs to hire and train the homeless to build their own places to live.

It's hard to argue with that logic, haha. Now not giving wealthy older people extra special tax breaks (but notably, NOT giving those tax breaks to poorer, non-property owning old people) --> Auschwitz. You've decided to justify a system where large swaths of the population can no longer afford housing in order to preserve the status of older, wealthy homeowners. Somehow you've convinced yourself that's the moral choice by convincing yourself that not privileging them = Hitler.

I like you and I feel there's a good chance you're just being contrary for your own amusement. In case you aren't though, I hope you can come to a place where you understand how deeply crazy this position is.

 

[Corn]

It's hard to argue with that logic, haha. Now not giving wealthy older people extra special tax breaks (but notably, NOT giving those tax breaks to poorer, non-property owning old people) --> Auschwitz. You've decided to justify a system where large swaths of the population can no longer afford housing in order to preserve the status of older, wealthy homeowners. Somehow you've convinced yourself that's the moral choice by convincing yourself that not privileging them = Hitler.

I like you and I feel there's a good chance you're just being contrary for your own amusement. In case you aren't though, I hope you can come to a place where you understand how deeply crazy this position is.

So prop 13 only applies to wealthy homeowners, not all homeowners?

 

[fskimospy]

So prop 13 only applies to wealthy homeowners, not all homeowners?

If your house hasn't dramatically increased in value prop 13 doesn't do much for you. The whole point was to protect people from having to pay higher property taxes on houses that had appreciated significantly.

It also doesn't apply to renters at all and actually makes their situation worse through higher property prices, and renters are far more likely to be displaced by rising house prices than homeowners. If your goal is to stop people from being displaced by rising prices prop 13 makes things worse, not better. This is why basically everyone who works in public policy thinks prop 13 is a disaster.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Hovering over the prop13 discussion here, I've got my own grievances about housing prices in the US, specifically housing prices vs income levels and cost of living levels... I live in a relatively unique area, rural(ish) community, relatively small town, which houses an Ivy League University. As a result, there's a ton of very expensive houses in the area ($700k+), and a ton of pretty expensive apartments ($800+/mo for slummy, $2k+/mo for nice stuff near downtown/public transportation). Many of the homes and whatnot are a bit outside of town, 15m or so, which isn't terrible, and can sometimes insulate you against the rich students who don't bother to have a car, as reliance on public transportation tends to drive them inward toward the expensive apartments. The problem I have is that, I can't afford a $700k house, period, that's just not happening. I can afford a $150-$250k house, if I stretch it (dropping about $1400/mo on a duplex rental right now). Unfortunately, every single house within a half hour commute (mind the winters) is either a) new, and very expensive for what you get, b) old, and falling apart, would require $40k of renovations to be desirable, c) new, cheaper than a, but made like absolute garbage. To add to the fun, all the land is overpriced because everyone's decided the land is worth a ton due to the ability to price houses at $700k in the area (nevermind the fact half are empty/for sale).

So to have a decent place at a not-stupid-price-point, I've gotta buy some overpriced land from some asshat developer, and get a house built to my specifications, just so I know it's not horribly built, as all the ones in my area seem to be.

I didn't have any issues like this in my first home, because the housing prices were actually reasonable for the area. Supply and demand seems all sorts of jacked up once you get a handful of buyers that can afford something expensive... it's like the developers start licking their chops and pump out $500k+ homes as soon as a single one sells, regardless of what the market can actually support.

EDIT: For perspective, the average household income of the city is $30k, right now there's just as many homes for sale over $300k as under $300k. That seems so heavily weighted on the top end I don't understand how a builder can justify building new, 4,000+sqft McMansions, but sure enough they keep cranking them out.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's hard to argue with that logic, haha. Now not giving wealthy older people extra special tax breaks (but notably, NOT giving those tax breaks to poorer, non-property owning old people) --> Auschwitz. You've decided to justify a system where large swaths of the population can no longer afford housing in order to preserve the status of older, wealthy homeowners. Somehow you've convinced yourself that's the moral choice by convincing yourself that not privileging them = Hitler.

I like you and I feel there's a good chance you're just being contrary for your own amusement. In case you aren't though, I hope you can come to a place where you understand how deeply crazy this position is.

That's because those old so called wealthy people are wealthy in a useless way. The only reason they have what they have is because they sacrificed in the past to live in the most desirable places they could, paying a much larger percent of their income for those mortgages than normal, and people who will do what they can to stay where they are on vastly reduced retirement incomes. Why not put reverse mortgage vultures out of business and have the government reverse buy their properties for those desiring to go that route. Your rationalization only works when you call those people rich who have chosen to live poor to live where they are.