In reply to pheller :
I agree. Housing should be affordable relative to local employment market. So, sell your house cheap enough to be called "affordable". Don't force the idea on other people.
I gave up 10 years of my career making housing affordable. PLEASE GET INVOLVED.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Steve_Jones said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:If you are younger and don't have a whole lot of money you will end up renting for the rest of your life and possibly be angry about it.
Everyone was younger with no money at some point, but they figured it out. I'd guess 99% of current homeowners started out as renters.
And 100% of us started out as babies. What does that mean?
You stated "if you are younger and don't have money you will end up renting for the rest of your life" all I stated was most started that way and did not end up renters. When did it change? I was younger and had no money, yet I'm not a renter anymore, why not?
SV reX said:In reply to pheller :
You have never once shown "profiteering land holding speculation" to be a reality. You are offering your opinion, and I don't think that problem exists in a scale that has any impact. I think it is a fabricated problem.
But if it exists in your community, I suggest you take real life action and get involved.
I showed him affordable vacant land in his town 2 years ago. He could buy it and do whatever he wanted with it.
He did nothing.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
Yup
Steve_Jones said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Steve_Jones said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:If you are younger and don't have a whole lot of money you will end up renting for the rest of your life and possibly be angry about it.
Everyone was younger with no money at some point, but they figured it out. I'd guess 99% of current homeowners started out as renters.
And 100% of us started out as babies. What does that mean?
You stated "if you are younger and don't have money you will end up renting for the rest of your life" all I stated was most started that way and did not end up renters. When did it change? I was younger and had no money, yet I'm not a renter anymore, why not?
When were you young with no money? It is different today.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/23/key-facts-about-housing-affordability-in-the-u-s/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-estate-home-prices-middle-class-affordability-2022-02-23/
https://www.realestatewitch.com/house-price-to-income-ratio-2021/
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
My Son was 19 and making $24k a year when he bought his first house. I know, I know, things were different 10 years ago....
I bet I can find a similar article from 2013 saying the same thing. Good thing he didn't believe it huh?
I'm pretty sure Paul's kid bought one between page one of this thread and now, so when exactly did it change?
Steve_Jones said:SV reX said:In reply to pheller :
You have never once shown "profiteering land holding speculation" to be a reality. You are offering your opinion, and I don't think that problem exists in a scale that has any impact. I think it is a fabricated problem.
But if it exists in your community, I suggest you take real life action and get involved.
I showed him affordable vacant land in his town 2 years ago. He could buy it and do whatever he wanted with it.
He did nothing.
I'm not sure I remember that.
In any case, whether I have the ability to buy something or not doesn't translate into why housing is expensive in my town, nor the solution to it.
I could buy a property and develop it sure, but why would I compete in a system where the only way you can win (or stay in business) is to gouge those who need affordable housing? It's like joining the military as a grunt instead of as a medic when your goal was to help people.
That's why "do something yourself" doesn't work. The system doesn't care about what's fair or what's right or what's equitable or what's good for society. It cares about money. That's it.
That's why I propose a tax on vacant land. It impacts everyone with vacant land equally. If I wanted to buy some vacant land to join the fray, I'd go into it knowing that I had to develop the property immediately to avoid the tax.
Currently, if I join the system as it exists, I'm competing against the guy who bought land 30 years ago for dirt cheap. Why would I do that?
In reply to pheller :
I don't think we should give houses to high-school graduates who haven't worked a day in their life.
So when do they deserve houses? I say when they earn enough to buy one, do you think differently?
But I definitely think we should provide housing to retirees who unfortunately have worked their entire life with not much to show for it. Or people who have mental health issues they need to deal with. Or people who have lost their jobs and haven't found ones that pay enough to make ends meet.
While I would prefer education early and helping people avoid a reckless/poorly planned lifestyle that would result in elderly that can't afford homes, I think there should be provisions for the elderly that can't provide for themselves. Which there already are. I know elderly people that made horrible life choices, they already have taxpayer funded places to live. They aren't on the street unless they choose to be. I think we have done a horrible disservice to the mentally ill and to society just turning them loose on the street. There are plenary of housing options, but they are voluntary. It's not the lack of roof space. CA spends $42k for each homeless person, state money only- not counting local and federal money. Money isn't solving the issue.
Notice I saying "housing". Not houses. Not even ownership. Just a place to live.
We have plenty of that, and they are building more. If CA is the leader, you too should be getting Soviet Eastern Bloc style housing projects near you. They are popping up everywhere here, an effort to spread out the urban dwellers to the suburbs. Very weird seeing them pop up in small rural farming communities.
The trouble is, the American economy is quickly approaching a point where all the jobs are concentrated around the areas with the highest housing costs, rent included. Live out in the middle of a flyover state and you have no jobs, and require government assistance there too.
"California Forever" and a few others are trying an interesting idea - create new cities where there are none now, allowing a tech companies to attract workers with high wages and cheap housing...of course, we all know the catch involved with company towns.
I'm familiar with the "California Forever" project in Solano County because it is pretty much in my back yard. They freaked a lot of people out by quietly buying up 50,000 acres of rural farmland near a major Air Force base. They want to build a mini Silicon Valley in the cheapest of the 9 Bay Area counties. I live a short drive away- do you think it will lower or raise home prices in my area?
Lets stop using our GRM kids as examples of how everything's alright.
Honesty, Grassroots Motorsports is made up of users who are likely above median income, who are well educated, critical thinkers, etc. We're .00000001% of the total population. How we ended up or our kids ended up has no bearing on the majority of Americans and future performance. We can only hope that things turn out as well for our kids as what it did for us.
Some of you seem to think that everything's ok and will continue to be ok.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I suspect that the California Forever project will likely provide housing that's cheaper than existing popular areas, but far more expensive than housing Solano County currently.
I don't know how you reduce prices in an urban area without making it undesirable, but I'm sure there are way of making the cost of living in an area better by raising wages relative to housing costs (via more supply?). That doesn't help people who aren't working for whatever reason. Nor does it help if there isn't enough supply to result in competitiveness in rental or real estate markets.
In reply to pheller :
Housing was expensive in Flagstaff relative to wages when I lived there. People were saying "someone" needed to do "something". There were also plots of vacant commercial land.
32 years ago.
I will ask as others have many times in the last 3 years. What is your solution, and what have you done to help? Blaming some magical "rich guy" is neither a solution nor help.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
There are only so many single family homes. There are only so many single family homes in areas where you can actually find a decent job. The more houses investors buy up with cash and park their money in, the fewer houses there are available for middle class people who need a mortgage to buy. If you are a smart investor you will buy up as many houses as you can afford, and you can't really blame them. Its a good investment. If you are an old fart like me and you bought before prices quadrupled, you would be a fool to sell now and give up your cheap housing, so you don't. If you are younger and don't have a whole lot of money you will end up renting for the rest of your life and possibly be angry about it.
And so it goes...
I've proven this false multiple times in this thread. The percent of homes occupied by the owners has changed little in the last 50 plus years. The rest are occupied by renters who cannot afford to or chose not to own. Without investors, they wouldn't even have homes to rent.
Reduce property taxes on improvements to 0% of the total property tax bill.
Increase property taxes on the land value to 100% of the total property tax bill.
While I'm not sure about scrapping zoning as a whole, I do think it needs a serious rework. Lot coverage maximums are ridiculous. I'm a big fan of "phased by-right zoning" - if your neighbor builds an apartment complex, you shouldn't have to go the zoning hearing board to build the same, they've already changed the character of the neighborhood.
Lot coverage maximums are NOT ridiculous. Water in the form of rain has to go somewhere, especially true in a state like Florida. If not lot coverage maximums, then you should spec required holding ponds to control the runoff.
pheller said:Steve_Jones said:SV reX said:In reply to pheller :
You have never once shown "profiteering land holding speculation" to be a reality. You are offering your opinion, and I don't think that problem exists in a scale that has any impact. I think it is a fabricated problem.
But if it exists in your community, I suggest you take real life action and get involved.
I showed him affordable vacant land in his town 2 years ago. He could buy it and do whatever he wanted with it.
He did nothing.
I'm not sure I remember that.
In any case, whether I have the ability to buy something or not doesn't translate into why housing is expensive in my town, nor the solution to it.
I could buy a property and develop it sure, but why would I compete in a system where the only way you can win (or stay in business) is to gouge those who need affordable housing? It's like joining the military as a grunt instead of as a medic when your goal was to help people.
That's why "do something yourself" doesn't work. The system doesn't care about what's fair or what's right or what's equitable or what's good for society. It cares about money. That's it.
That's why I propose a tax on vacant land. It impacts everyone with vacant land equally. If I wanted to buy some vacant land to join the fray, I'd go into it knowing that I had to develop the property immediately to avoid the tax.
Currently, if I join the system as it exists, I'm competing against the guy who bought land 30 years ago for dirt cheap. Why would I do that?
Frankly, being as kind as I possibly can, everything in this post is crap.
EVERYONE who has ever bought land competed against someone wh bought land 30 years ago.
Why do you keep talking about gouging people who need affordable housing, then use examples of commercial development land? Absolutely, completely irrelevant.
In reply to pheller :
"Phased by right"... that's what slums are made of.
Getting a variance on a specific property does NOT change the zoning of the entire district. It needs to be a case-by-case basis.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
When were you young with no money? It is different today.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/23/key-facts-about-housing-affordability-in-the-u-s/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/real-estate-home-prices-middle-class-affordability-2022-02-23/
https://www.realestatewitch.com/house-price-to-income-ratio-2021/
It's always been "different today." Still, proven methods have had good results, regardless of the decade. Excuses have never helped anyone. If I could start over today, I would in a heartbeat. It took me longer than I would have liked to figure things out with more peaks and valleys. I didn't have much guidance and had to figure it out on my own. Some of us are trying to share out "secrets" while others are saying "that will never work." To the people that made it work? I have nieces and nephews that are just starting out, and they have everything in front of them. I don't feel bad for them, I see them as lucky. They have limitless opportunity, and I'm doing my best to guide them.
One nephew just graduated, and is getting ready to start school as a lineman. There are lots of high paying jobs waiting for him on the other side. We have had many talks about investing, and how if he starts now he will easily be a multi millionaire before 50. While waiting for classes to start, he took a job a Home Depot making $18 an hour to bring in carts. He has already started investing.
Another nephew just turned 20. He has had a pilot's license since 16. He lives in a trailer at an airfield where he also works as an airplane mechanic saving all of his money. He makes more in a summer crop dusting than most people make in a year. He goes where the work is and has lived in a hanger for a summer. He just bought a twin engine plane. We talk about investing, and he lives on a small fraction of what he makes. He will do just fine. BTW, he did this with the help of supportive parents, but nothing different than supporting a kid that plays a sport. They didn't come from money. He took advantage of every program he could find and funded most of his training through sweat equity. He swept hangers for flight time.
I didn't say the entire district. I said the neighboring proprieties.
Case-by-Case basis just fuels NIMBYISM and beaurcracy that so many people say prohibits them from building more housing.
In reply to pheller :
With HfH I spent years fighting NIMBYism. It's pretty normal human reactions.
Would YOU be ok with the adjoining property to your home being made into low income multi family housing?
Yep. Didn't think so.
In reply to pheller :
Have you called your commissioner yet?
pheller said:What's sad/great is that we got 74 pages of pointless banter WITHOUT ChatGPT bots. Imagine if they started spamming comments? They'd probably sound a lot like me.
The discussion surrounding the ethics of real estate investment, particularly in the context of housing crises and NIMBYism, is both complex and highly relevant. It touches on critical issues related to affordability, property ownership, and community development.
The concern you raise about the fine line between providing rental housing and properties being held purely for speculative or investment purposes is valid. It's a challenge many places face, where increasing property values and speculative investment can push housing out of reach for those looking to buy, perpetuating the cycle of renting and making homeownership an elusive dream for many.
The idea of reevaluating zoning regulations, as mentioned in your discussion, is an interesting approach to fostering infill development and increasing housing density. The concept of a "zoning fade" could help communities evolve gradually, addressing both the need for housing and the concerns of long-term property owners. However, the risk of property speculation and neglect should be considered and mitigated through appropriate policies.
Your proposal of a "resident worker tax credit" also has potential to encourage property owners to reside in the cities where they own property, contributing to the local community. It's an innovative idea that could help address the issue of absentee property ownership.
The rise of short-term rentals like Airbnb has indeed transformed property ownership dynamics, sometimes leading to a significant portion of properties being owned by non-residents. While this can boost local economies, it can also have adverse effects on housing availability and the sense of community.
Ultimately, finding a balance between property investment, affordable housing, and community well-being is a complex challenge. It requires thoughtful policies, collaboration between stakeholders, and a focus on the long-term sustainability and inclusivity of cities and neighborhoods. Your discussion highlights the importance of addressing these issues to create more equitable and vibrant communities.
Steve_Jones said:SV reX said:In reply to pheller :
You have never once shown "profiteering land holding speculation" to be a reality. You are offering your opinion, and I don't think that problem exists in a scale that has any impact. I think it is a fabricated problem.
But if it exists in your community, I suggest you take real life action and get involved.
I showed him affordable vacant land in his town 2 years ago. He could buy it and do whatever he wanted with it.
He did nothing.
It's much easier to sit behind the keyboard and rage against the "rich".
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
There are only so many single family homes. There are only so many single family homes in areas where you can actually find a decent job. The more houses investors buy up with cash and park their money in, the fewer houses there are available for middle class people who need a mortgage to buy. If you are a smart investor you will buy up as many houses as you can afford, and you can't really blame them. Its a good investment. If you are an old fart like me and you bought before prices quadrupled, you would be a fool to sell now and give up your cheap housing, so you don't. If you are younger and don't have a whole lot of money you will end up renting for the rest of your life and possibly be angry about it.
And so it goes...
I've proven this false multiple times in this thread. The percent of homes occupied by the owners has changed little in the last 50 plus years. The rest are occupied by renters who cannot afford to or chose not to own. Without investors, they wouldn't even have homes to rent.
I don't agree with this, and quite honestly, you really haven't convinced me of anything. I don't think you are changing any minds here. But I was late for my dog training class today doing research on the subject. Then when I got back and sat down at my computer Mrs. Snowdoggie asked me if I was going to ignore her and spend the rest of the evening arguing with people I didn't know on a "that stupid Internet forum". Then my three dogs came in and tried to distract me from the keyboard.
Some people here have compared hanging out in a thread here to going to a bar. Well, I walked in last night and heard loud voices arguing. The guy at the door told me that the bartender threw somebody out a couple of nights ago and that the crowd can get a bit rowdy as the night goes on, so I might want to watch myself. Sitting at the bar were a couple of people I like and a few more I really don't care for. Overall I really don't like the atmosphere here anymore. So after one drink and the usual argument, I decided to leave. I might go to the bar next door tomorrow night because in that bar the spend less time arguing and more time talking about cars that I like.
Yeah. I know. The guys I left behind are going to laugh at me and trash my male ego talking about how I left the bar with my tail between my legs, and blah blah blah and quack quack quack. But you know, I am a lot happier not hanging out there. And the few guys in this bar that I do like will eventually show up at the bar next door and want to see my new pickup project. The guys I don't care for will be easy to avoid because they tend to spend most of their time in bars I don't need to go into, and often those bars get locked so they all have to move to another one and take it over.
I'm sure this thread will go on another 80 pages repeating the same arguments over and over and I know there are people who really like this sort of thing. But its time for me to step away from the computer for a while and go back to real life. Good luck to you all.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
He's not going to convince you of anything. You made up your mind long ago and refuse to accept that there MIGHT be another answer/option/reality to what you see. Its called confirmation bias and it goes both ways.
Lots of right vs. left wing disagreement going on here. Probably time to find some common ground.
Can everybody agree that the united states has a housing shortage of between 2.5-6 million units?
-Freddie Mac says 2.5-3.3M depending on how you measure the shortage: https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20200227-the-housing-supply-shortage
-Realtor.com says 2.5-6M: https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/the-housing-shortage-has-hit-crisis-levels/
If that's the case, can everybody also get behind the idea that building more units will help lower prices?
You'll need to log in to post.
