Opinion Easy solution to the housing shortage

[djacobox372]

This problem isn't complicated.

Build more houses! and take every measure possible to make that a reality.

Right now we are doing the opposite.

 

[Mr Holmes]

LFG!!!!!!!

 

[nostradumbass]

You guys?

Not sure who you're lumping me in with.

Anyway, building more houses won't solve the problem if some giant corporations can simply buy them up.

This doesn't make any sense. Corporations aren't "buying up" new homes, nor are houses just being built for nobody in particular for corporations to even be able to buy. You, the buyer, would be the one who has the house built. The exception is occasionally an HOA development will pay to expand the neighborhood and build more houses, but those are usually up for sale before the house is even done, and that has nothing to do with your ability to have a house built. Around 90% of the "corporate owned" single family homes aren't even what you think a "corporation" is, they're people with 1-5, and most of them buy the houses to renovate and resell.

It's not even a good use money for them to buy a bunch of single family homes, which is why most of the "housing units" owned by larger investors are apartment buildings and complexes, because it's not worth buying single family houses to rent them out if you have enough money to buy a whole apartment building and collect rent from like 30 different apartments, which is why actual big investors only own about 2-3% of single family homes.

The problem is like 10 different things, and the solution isn't that easy either. Building more would help, but it's not really the magic pill some people think it is because land value was about 15-16% of a home's price 50 years ago, and the average is now 41%, so on the supply end, it certainly isn't just a matter of construction.

The demand side is a higher percentage of the population are adults since we're importing adults to make up for the children people aren't having, and a much higher percentage of a much larger population are single person households. The number of single person households was 7% in 1940, to 17% in 1970, to now almost 30%, and 35% of the population was under 18 in 1970, now it's 21%. The population has increased by like 150 million with a higher percentage of a much larger number being single person households.

 

[Deaths Head]

Most people don't rent out their second home, it's just empty usually.

Unless there’s a phrogger .

 

[cincymma79]

Bernie

they were redistributed to him though

 

[N13]

Can't they just progressively tax each house a person (or company) owns?

So your first house has very low taxes, because you need a place to live.

But of you own a second house, it's taxed a little higher. A third house is taxed even more, a 4th house even more than that, and so on.

That way more people can afford a first house but if they want to keep using homes as income properties then at some point it no longer makes economic sense.

You wouldn't have people trying to own 50 houses, nor would you have big corporations buying thousands of homes and driving up the prices.

What would be the drawback?

If that would happen, then the rent for a 4th house would be much higher.

The additional taxes would be part of the cost of doing business, so it would be passed on to the renter. Same goes if the 4th home buyer wanted to sell that property.

 

[Fedorgasm]

If that would happen, then the rent for a 4th house would be much higher.

The additional taxes would be part of the cost of doing business, so it would be passed on to the renter. Same goes if the 4th home buyer wanted to sell that property.

No it wouldn't. Because everyone can rent and buy from people who only have a 2nd house. That will keep prices low. Someone with a 20th house can't rent it out as cheaply, so they'll have trouble finding tenants, and end up just selling the house because it's not worth having that many houses.

 

[N13]

No it wouldn't. Because everyone can rent and buy from people who only have a 2nd house. That will keep prices low. Someone with a 20th house can't rent it out as cheaply, so they'll have trouble finding tenants, and end up just selling the house because it's not worth having that many houses.

The RE investors wouldn't buy that house in the first place.

There are only so many homes available for renters, this program of yours would result in less supply, higher prices.

Build more homes and apartments to increase supply. Reduce demand by removing the criminal illegals. Then you get what you want. Lower rents and sales prices.

 

[Andy Capp]

It's a real problem in Canada. Not sure whether the US is similar, but it seems pretty likely to me.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/housing-investors-canada-bc-1.6743083

1 in 5 properties across much of Canada are owned by investors. That makes it harder for 1st-time buyers
Experts say recently-released data, which covers 5 provinces, has major implications for housing policy

 

[N13]

Give builders of real estate, tax incentives to increase the supply.

 

[N13]

The federal reserve could Lower interest rates.

 

[chardog]

Yes I'm familiar with that argument and agree completely.

Just look across the "skyline" of the SanFran and you'll see virtually no skyscrapers despite this being one of the wealthiest parts of the country

Newsome passed since reforms over the last few years to deal with this but that takes time to take effect and NIMBYs have other tools to block housing. Not that I'm a huge Newsome fan but he did move the state in the right direction on this one issue.

Newsome's big thing was ADU, and graham had that issue in the video. Because they are so frequent, there are folks that have been building these before they came into existence, unlicensed unregulated.

a lot of folks dont understand the costs it takes to build one of these things, the permitting costs are often 20K and I've build one of these before, the material cost to build is well UNDER that amount..... the permit costs more than the materials.

There are still a ton of people building these things because the rent to investment ratio is still relatively good for california standards, but you're still getting ripped off, and ripping people off means that many will NOT participate in solving the housing shortage despite decent profits. It only costs 30-60K to really build up an ADU, but costs of permits and contractors willing to deal with the bullshit means that the costs end up being 100-200K.

the issue with real estate is that no one wants to live in the boonies and even in the boonies, their price is sky high. Americans in general, dont like to live simple, they want big and bold. I own five properties and I see it first hand, quite an interesting phenomenon. Also due to taxation, there's no reason I would release my property to some other family that needs it.

I do want to note one thing, while housing is terrible in America, it can definitely get WORSE, there's room for that. There are places like Canada and Australia that are even worse than America, so the idea that housing prices have stabled or are on a slight downturn, I seriously doubt of long term softening, it's only going to get worse with no end in sight.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Impose new taxes/penalties on anyone who owns single-family homes which are not being used as their primary residence (which is supposed to be their intended purpose). Use the tax revenue to give incentives for building more single family homes.

This taxes/penalties alone should be enough to push the needed inventory into the market. Its pretty simple, but nobody in Washington wants to do it.

 

[Kassitus]

You guys will think of anything to avoid just letting people build more houses won't you?

The less houses built, the less of the environment and farmland is destroyed.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The less houses built, the less of the environment and farmland is destroyed.

Wrong, suburban sprawl destroys natural areas and farmland while providing less housing.

 

[luckyshot]

We just call those projects in the states.

And we dont have enough of them.

 

[The XL]

Deport illegals and prevent corporations and foreign governments from buying as much as they want and this problem would be solved tomorrow.

 

[AWilder]

how do "illegals" buy homes?

 

[Kassitus]

Wrong, suburban sprawl destroys natural areas and farmland while providing less housing.

So what's the solution then? Demolish houses and replace them with condos?

 

[Islam Imamate]

So what's the solution then? Demolish houses and replace them with condos?

Let people build multifamily housing without all the excessive permitting and arbitrary regulations.