this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
302 points (92.4% liked)

News

23667 readers
3639 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Paywall removed: https://archive.is/BHsKJ

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ObamaBinLaden 140 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Building houses to solve the housing crisis implies that the crisis was caused by a lack of homes. Every single one of the 2 million houses would be picked up by a property firm or a Chinese millionaire just the way it has been happening for the last ten years. What you really need is legislation, but what you are getting is more food for the hounds.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Never before have I seen such a confluence of right comment and wrong username

[–] disguy_ovahea 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

OsamaBinLaden is right. Yup. That was weird to type.

We need legislation to prevent REITs and holding companies from purchasing small and medium residential dwellings and properties. The problem that will create when it passes and they relinquish their sizable holdings, is that adjacent properties devalue causing mortgagers to go upside-down. It’s a simple problem to identify, but not an easy one to solve.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Read the username again, it's much worse than that

Be that as it may, Britain in the 1970s and before actually had a really good answer to this: The government just buys enough property and rents it out to people at reasonable rates, to puncture the bubble and make it unprofitable to be a landlord in the first place as a "job." People have affordable places to live, we don't have to have a fight about declaring it "illegal" to own or rent out property, and people with spare cash are motivated to invest it in businesses instead of in properties. Literally everyone wins. Which of course, means America will see it as communism and fight to the death to stop it from happening.

Not saying you're wrong in your solution either, just saying one other way which has a proven track record.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B 7 points 6 months ago

Supply and demand. Corporate interests will only buy homes when theres a profit incentive. A housing shortage makes great profit opportunities.

If there are too many airbnbs so they don’t get rented, there’s no longer a profit. If there are enough houses that you can’t buy to flip at guaranteed markup, there goes the profit. If there’s enough houses that you’re not guaranteed a quick sale on your investment, there goes the profit. The point is there are limits on those ownership patterns so you can build your way out of it

[–] [email protected] 67 points 6 months ago (13 children)

Aren't there currently more empty homes than homeless in the US? Like, by a decent margin, too? I think that statistic is getting a bit dated, but I also don't expect it to have improved. What we really need is to treat homes as homes, as essentials for life, instead of as investments. But, of course, that'd cost rich people money instead of giving them a way to make even more money, so we can't do that. I'm sure some towns and cities could benefit from more homes, but the core of the problem is societal, not material.

[–] Fedizen 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

yes there is currently extra housing but, unfortunately, sites like airbnb have moved large swaths of the housing market to the luxury hotel market leading to a shortage in actual housing as wealthy, investor, and corporate class people pay premiums for short term rentals that most people simply can't compete with.

[–] CaptainSpaceman 26 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Airbnb isnt as big a problem as much as corporate owned housing is.

Companies like Blackstone need to be absorbed by the US Govt.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago

So then our problem is that we allow moneyed interests to monopolize home ownership so they can extract wealth from people who actually generate it. It is quite literally the definition of rent seeking behavior.

[–] Blackbeard 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] AA5B 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

A lot of it is a question of where.

The town I grew up in is a great example: it is n a generally rural area and lost its major employer years ago. The economy never really recovered and the population has dwindled, but that’s also true of the surrounding area. There are many empty homes, even in formerly upscale developments, and I can literally buy one on my credit card.

In my current town, a starter home is like 15x the price, they sell within hours, and there’s no open land left to develop.

The expensive area is where people want to live, but there are all those empty homes selling for very little just a few hours drive away

I believe there’s been a general trend of moving toward cities, that leaves lots of inexpensive empty homes behind

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The US had 3.1m houses sitting empty in 2023

property hoarding is a crime against humanity and should be treated as such, imho. Houses are for living in, not speculation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer 58 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I don't think the US needs more single family homes, I think we need more, or at least more affordable, multifamily housing. Suburbs are expensive, inefficient, and bad for the environment. What we need to be doing is bringing down the cost of housing in cities, as well as making cities as pedestrian friendly as possible, with walking and biking infrastructure, and public transportation.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

Suburbs are expensive, inefficient, and bad for the environment

This is what I'm always saying! Car-centric spaces are also bad socially. They're dehumanizing. You want people walking around if you want a community, and having a strong community is good in many ways.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (5 children)

For us, the suburbs are cheaper than the cities. We basically have no choice. I have to work in the city but can't afford to live there with a family. Mainly the rent/mortgage prices, and groceries. It's all cheaper when I'm willing to drive 30-60 minutes outside of the city.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago

It's cheaper for you because suburbia effectively gets subsidized, and because housing in cities gets artificially limited through ridiculous zoning rules. Ideally, suburbs should have to actually bear the costs of the infrastructure necessary to their existence, and we should do away with things like detached single family housing and absurd parking minimums in urban areas.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I completely agree, but we need much stronger rent and ownership laws, as well as public housing. Companies are bulldozing low income housing, building shiny new apartment buildings, and using algorithmic rent to empty out most of the apartment complex and keep prices artificially high across a city.

https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent

It's so terrible, because the end result is a lot of half empty apartments downtown, and normal people effectively getting pushed to suburbs because there's no way most people could afford an apartment that costs $4k a month. For low income people, it's even worse.

Even just having some (30%) mandatory $500/mo rent apartments in all new construction over 30 units could help.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crystalmerchant 33 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But whatever will poor Blackrock do with their real estate portfolio??

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 555 28 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yeah but also charge less than $200k for a 3b 2b with a 2 car garage.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (8 children)

I thought Americans used sq ft to casually describe houses? Please don't switch to number of bedrooms. That's what we do in UK and it's led to house builders squeezing closet-sized bedrooms into a house so they can sell it as a 4-bed.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Americans use any/all of bedrooms/bathrooms/square footage/lot size

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] shalafi 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A coworker just bought a 1.5 bath, 2 car garage, 3 bed for $500,000+ in Portland, basically no yard/outdoor area.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Maybe just redistribute some wealth? The richest nation in the world can afford to home everyone. Homelessness is a policy decision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Equity firms own 1.6 million homes in the US (both single family and multi family units).

Just saying, that would get us most of the way there.

[–] sudo42 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What's to keep Equity firms from buying those 2 million homes? Won't that just leave us back where we are now?

Do we think we can build more homes than Equity firms can spend other people's money on?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What's to keep Equity firms from buying those 2 million homes?

Ideally, Madame Guillotine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Olhonestjim 26 points 6 months ago

Nope. Just need to force all landlords to sell. Make tax on rent ruinous. Tax additional homes. Make it illegal for corporations to own residential property.

[–] PancakeTrebuchet 22 points 6 months ago

Cool, landlords can buy all of these up too!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And how many empty houses are there already?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

15 million vacant houses. Around 600,000 homeless people. If only 10% of all vacant homes in the use were liveable we could still give every homeless person two and have some left over.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The systems in place are broken. I work 12hr days, with overtime. Credit score over 750. And there is no chance I can afford a house in my area.

[–] Pacattack57 22 points 6 months ago

Have you tried uprooting your family and moving to a place no one wants to live? Something something bootstraps.

[–] LordCrom 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Property hoarding could be solved by quadrupling propert taxes on any home that isn't a primary residence of the property owner.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Phegan 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are enough homes to house everyone, supply isn't the problem, greed is.

[–] Noodle07 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's also probably a location issue, might not have enough houses where people want to live even though there's empty ones in buttfuck nowhere.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EvilEyedPanda 18 points 6 months ago (9 children)

Or maybe billion dollar companies should be forced to sell so the average person can buy them

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago

or better yet, overcome neoliberalism, the cursed legacy of Ronald Reagan

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

"An influx of immigrants in the country also isn't helping the housing affordability equation as it has in the past."

Go fuck yourself business insider. The ol' "America is full" bit is it? The Great Enemy: the poor immigrant who is going to steal your piss poor paying job, but somehow also "steals" your super fucking overpriced house that even natural born citizens with full time jobs can't afford.

Get fucked.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Building those houses means current homeowners would miss out on hundreds of thousands of dollars when they eventually sell their homes.

If you were to ask most politicians to describe their constituents, they would said 'married, kids, two cars, and a house with a mortgage'. That's who they are looking after, that's their priority. You are not considered a real person or a focus unless you fall into the above description.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] peopleproblems 13 points 6 months ago

This bubble will be disastrous beyond imagination once it bursts.

[–] Fedizen 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I actually think the best solution would be the government to build a bunch of extra housing and crash the rental market with a two pronged supply approach:

  1. sell housing to first time home buyers at 50% off under the condition they don't resale for 5 years and the government gets any value gains over the sale price for 10 years.

  2. triple the existing public housing stock while slashing requirements to get into public housing

[–] TeoTwawki 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"The US needs to reclaim 2 million houses from firms to revive the American dream of homeownership"

Fixed. The housing exists, it's just bought up so you can't have it because they want more profit.

Also fck HOAs and the horse they road in on.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

That won't fix shit, that's 2 million homes that corporations will buy up to jack the rent up. Shit should be illegal.

load more comments
view more: next ›