Someone Explain This So Called Housing Crisis?

[Rob Battisti]

But many people do and they are in fact arguing for it, hence big zoning reform in cities and states across the country.

for mixed zoning specifically? For wanting commercial properties in suburban neighborhoods?

 

[Rob Battisti]

But many people do and they are in fact arguing for it, hence big zoning reform in cities and states across the country.

I couldn’t find a single thing on people trying to eliminate all residential zoning in favor of only having mixed zoning. I’ve never even heard of the idea until you brought it up. I’ve also not seen anyone here support you in your efforts.

 

[jx820]

How do we know that for a fact?

Because there's property management software for landlords that specifically exists for price fixing. It's a federal case.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333

The only parts here that seem obvious to me is the supply problem which is caused by existing homeowners blocking new supply through zoning laws and other mechanisms like environmental impact statements.

Idk what you mean when you talk about commodification of mortgages and corporate competition, how is that affecting prices here?

Corporate competition is when home buyers looking for a residence to live in are forced to compete with enormous corporate interests. So a fund moves into a market, drops a billion or two, buys all the single family homes at 10% above market value, and converts everything to rentals. You simply have to rent, or outbid them.

"In March 2023, investors accounted for 27% of all single-family home purchases; by June, that number was almost unchanged at 26%." - https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-remained-high-early-summer-2023/

Invitation homes owns more than 80,000 single-family rental homes. Jeff Bezos has backed a company called arrived that lets retail investors get in on the act with small dollar positions speculating on residential real estate.

A private equity firm called KKR just bought 5200 apartment units this week. Brookfield bought 7000 units last month. Blackstone just bought 76 rental housing communities.

These players can control supply and manipulate market conditions. You can buy a house out from under them, it'll just cost you.

Comodification of mortgages is the same thing that crashed the housing market. It's not done anywhere near the way it was done in the past, but it is still done. Essentially mortgages are used as financial instruments. Banks can trade them, sell them, combine them into funds, and while FAR more caution is taken today than in the mid-2000s it does lead to a number of undesirable practices.

 

[PBAC]

Housing prices go up when the numbers of buyers increases faster than the number of houses, as well as inflation. Canada has a crazy proportion of immigration compared to their population. It's averaging like 600,000 immigrants coming in each year, but only 200,000 houses built each year. Plus there are not only a lot of Chinese immigrants buying houses, but also Chinese investors buying them, as well as domestic investors. They're banking on people moving in at a faster rate than houses are built, thereby increasing the value of their investment.

One-Third Of Vancouver's Real Estate Market Is Owned By Chinese Buyers

Chinese homebuyers accounted for nearly one-third of Vancouver's real estate market during 2015, according to a new report by the National Bank of Canada.

www.fortunebuilders.com

Chinese scalping operations run unchallenged in the Netherlands particularly in student housing. They are bought almost immediately and sold to Chinese students.

edit: think I already posted this in this thread

 

[Islam Imamate]

Considering this thread feels like ancient history I didn’t remember you had limits on chemical factories.

Given that I've specifically mentioned that argument more than once in these threads I'm inclined to think you were just being dishonest because it was convenient for your argument. After all you were quite confident in saying that I was indeed arguing for chemical plants in neighborhoods but now that I have receipts you want to act like its an honest mistake, you can see why I don't buy that right?

for mixed zoning specifically? For wanting commercial properties in suburban neighborhoods?

Yes of course, there's a reason we're seeing sweeping zoning reform both at the city and state level. Even RDS signed the "Live Local Act" which is meant to streamline the building of multifamily and mixed use developments.

Now in fairness its usually politically easier to allow multifamily, mixed use developments in previously commercial or industrial areas but new urbanists are absolutely fighting for zoning reform that allows multifamily and mixed use developments in R1 suburbs which account for most of the residential land in most US cities.

I couldn’t find a single thing on people trying to eliminate all residential zoning in favor of only having mixed zoning. I’ve never even heard of the idea until you brought it up. I’ve also not seen anyone here support you in your efforts.

You haven't heard of the Urbanist movement? Strong Towns is the most well known org that pushes for these ideas and there you'll find lots of pieces on the benefits of mixed used neighborhoods.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Why is it weird to want to have certain commercial establishments like cafés, diners, grocers, and pharmacies within a residential neighborhood?

No it wasn't, in fact I've said the opposite


Why can't you just be honest here and address what I'm actually arguing? Why is it wrong to have small scale, low impact, homeowner run businesses? Again, not talking chemical plants and strip clubs but cafés, diners, bookstores and the like.

I didn't back out, I gave you a reasonable response which is that of course I can't give you some extremely detailed plan of what this would look like in part because part of the problem with modern urban planning is the need to meticulously plan every detail instead of allowing organic order to emerge. For the record here's that post again.


Yes banning chemical plants from residential neighborhoods is reasonable in a way that banning duplexes and cafes is not. The weird position is acting like those two things have the same kind of impact. There's a reason you don't see chemical plants in the middle of a strip mall where you might see a café.

If you don't give detailed responses with pictures of the kind of neighborhoods you're describing then What I realized is we're having a completely different discussions. This is a discussion that requires very accurate and fine pointed distinctions.

You're thinking of neighborhoods in deep in cities and the people that are against it are talking about neighborhoods out in suburbs and so when they hear you say you want a restaurant in the middle of their neighborhood, they hear absolute batshit Insanity. But it's probably not what you mean, but you're not speaking clearly enough to define it.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Given that I've specifically mentioned that argument more than once in these threads I'm inclined to think you were just being dishonest because it was convenient for your argument. After all you were quite confident in saying that I was indeed arguing for chemical plants in neighborhoods but now that I have receipts you want to act like its an honest mistake, you can see why I don't buy that right?

Yes of course, there's a reason we're seeing sweeping zoning reform both at the city and state level. Even RDS signed the "Live Local Act" which is meant to streamline the building of multifamily and mixed use developments.

Now in fairness its usually politically easier to allow multifamily, mixed use developments in previously commercial or industrial areas but new urbanists are absolutely fighting for zoning reform that allows multifamily and mixed use developments in R1 suburbs which account for most of the residential land in most US cities.

You haven't heard of the Urbanist movement? Strong Towns is the most well known org that pushes for these ideas and there you'll find lots of pieces on the benefits of mixed used neighborhoods.

You can either believe that in a thread that is months old I forgot someone’s specific stance or believe I remembered it and am lying. Up to you.

Nothing you presented is lobbying for the elimination of residential only zoning. Even your strong towns link doesn’t say it wants that, unless it’s hidden in their agenda.

I am for mixed use. I have no issue with mixed use. Mixed use is great when you’re young and want that.

You want to eliminate residential only, which is something no one sane has ever wanted.

I live in a suburban neighborhood. At the end of the entrance of my neighborhood is a doughnut shop, a dentist, a liquor store, a gas station with a grocer and a little cupcake shop. I walk there nearly every other day.

I think that’s great. My neighbors think it’s great.

No one wants there to be any of those things next door. You know why? Because we have families and value privacy, safety, quiet and peace.

Also, I have no idea how putting a McDonalds in a suburban neighborhood fixes the housing crisis.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Because there's property management software for landlords that specifically exists for price fixing. It's a federal case.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333

Sounds familiar, I'll look into it but I'm skeptical this is a core driver of the price surge across various metro areas in the country.

Corporate competition is when home buyers looking for a residence to live in are forced to compete with enormous corporate interests. So a fund moves into a market, drops a billion or two, buys all the single family homes at 10% above market value, and converts everything to rentals. You simply have to rent, or outbid them.

"In March 2023, investors accounted for 27% of all single-family home purchases; by June, that number was almost unchanged at 26%." - https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-remained-high-early-summer-2023/

Invitation homes owns more than 80,000 single-family rental homes. Jeff Bezos has backed a company called arrived that lets retail investors get in on the act with small dollar positions speculating on residential real estate.

A private equity firm called KKR just bought 5200 apartment units this week. Brookfield bought 7000 units last month. Blackstone just bought 76 rental housing communities.

These players can control supply and manipulate market conditions. You can buy a house out from under them, it'll just cost you.

Comodification of mortgages is the same thing that crashed the housing market. It's not done anywhere near the way it was done in the past, but it is still done. Essentially mortgages are used as financial instruments. Banks can trade them, sell them, combine them into funds, and while FAR more caution is taken today than in the mid-2000s it does lead to a number of undesirable practices.

Your own link says this:

As the total number of investor purchases declines, smaller investors are growing their market share. Figure 3 shows that throughout 2023, mega-investors (those that own 1,000 or more properties) and large investors (those that own 100 to 999 properties) have both held market shares of between 8% and 10% in each month. In the case of mega-investors, this is a drastic decline from the high of 17% of all investor purchases recorded in June 2022. Medium investors (those that own 10 to 99 properties) saw a modest decrease in activity, from 37% to 35%.

Typical housing market investors are becoming more and more likely to operate smaller scale (owning three to nine properties). In June, this group accounted for 47% of investor purchases, the highest level since 2011, according to CoreLogic data.

Spoiler

Most investor purchases were either small(1 to 9 properties) or medium (10 to 99 properties) investors. Your average prospective buyer seems more likely to be competing with aspiring Boomer landlords than corporations if anything.

If you don't give detailed responses with pictures of the kind of neighborhoods you're describing then What I realized is we're having a completely different discussions. This is a discussion that requires very accurate and fine pointed distinctions.

You're thinking of neighborhoods in deep in cities and the people that are against it are talking about neighborhoods out in suburbs and so when they hear you say you want a restaurant in the middle of their neighborhood, they hear absolute batshit Insanity. But it's probably not what you mean, but you're not speaking clearly enough to define it.

No I am talking about suburbs, they should be mixed use and allow for small scale, low impact businesses like corner stores, grocers, cafes, diners and so on. Something like this

Spoiler

A small building with little to no parking for customers that it more or less the size of adjacent residential buildings which is low impact and ideally run by a local homeowner.

When you think of a McDonald's in your local neighborhood you're probably imagining a typical drive thru establishment like this

Spoiler

But the whole point of mixed use, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods is to reduce car dependence so if its not already clear I would never want any drive-thru business in a neighborhood. Again, I'm talking small scale, low impact businesses that can be run out of a garage or a retrofitted SFH.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You can either believe that in a thread that is months old I forgot someone’s specific stance or believe I remembered it and am lying. Up to you.

You say that but then go on to say this

Also, I have no idea how putting a McDonalds in a suburban neighborhood fixes the housing crisis.

even though I never argued that. You're quick to lie about my views when it convenient for your argument but then when I point out your lies you want to act like it was an honest mistake despite the pattern of lying. For whatever reason you seem incapable of engaging honestly on this issue.

 

[Rob Battisti]

“If elected I’ll get rid of all residential zoning!” Imagine someone wanting that

 

[Rob Battisti]

You say that but then go on to say this

even though I never argued that. You're quick to lie about my views when it convenient for your argument but then when I point out your lies you want to act like it was an honest mistake despite the pattern of lying. For whatever reason you seem incapable of engaging honestly on this issue.

You have limits then. Which defeats your argument. It’s an end to residential zoning. Why can’t McDonalds move in if other restaurants can?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Sounds familiar, I'll look into it but I'm skeptical this is a core driver of the price surge across various metro areas in the country.

Your own link says this:

Spoiler

Most investor purchases were either small(1 to 9 properties) or medium (10 to 99 properties) investors. Your average prospective buyer seems more likely to be competing with aspiring Boomer landlords than corporations if anything.

No I am talking about suburbs, they should be mixed use and allow for small scale, low impact businesses like corner stores, grocers, cafes, diners and so on. Something like this

Spoiler

A small building with little to no parking for customers that it more or less the size of adjacent residential buildings which is low impact and ideally run by a local homeowner.

When you think of a McDonald's in your local neighborhood you're probably imagining a typical drive thru establishment like this

Spoiler

But the whole point of mixed use, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods is to reduce car dependence so if its not already clear I would never want any drive-thru business in a neighborhood. Again, I'm talking small scale, low impact businesses that can be run out of a garage or a retrofitted SFH.

If you were actually talking about suburbs then the conversation is over because that's just an absolute hard pass from me and everybody I know and there's just no point discussing it. We just have a profound disagreement. I don't want crime in my neighborhood. I don't want people walking into my neighborhood to go to restaurants and McDonald's for God's sakes man... that is so absurd I can't believe it. I don't want signage in my neighborhood at freaking 11:00 at night lighting up the neighborhood with a McDonald's sign. The truth is man I think you're mentally ill if you really want this in suburbs.

As I said before, that can be done when it's designed from the ground up and there are neighborhoods in my city like that and they're just fine but they can't be added in ad hoc later because it looks like s***.

What we have are kids playing all over the neighborhood because there's a neighborhood of loving people to watch out for the other. We can't have that when they're strangers coming in and out all the time.

You want to turn our living spaces into a place of commerce.

 

[avenue94]

You have limits then. Which defeats your argument. It’s an end to residential zoning. Why can’t McDonalds move in if other restaurants can?

You clearly have never attended a city council meeting since you don't realize how much regulatory hoops you have to jump through to even have a drive thru in a city.

 

[Rob Battisti]

If you were actually talking about suburbs then the conversation is over because that's just an absolute hard pass from me and everybody I know and there's just no point discussing it. We just have a profound disagreement. I don't want crime in my neighborhood. I don't want people walking into my neighborhood to go to restaurants and McDonald's for God's sakes man... that is so absurd I can't believe it. I don't want signage in my neighborhood at freaking 11:00 at night lighting up the neighborhood with a McDonald's sign. The truth is man I think you're mentally ill if you really want this in suburbs.

As I said before, that can be done when it's designed from the ground up and there are neighborhoods in my city like that and they're just fine but they can't be added in ad hoc later because it looks like s***.

What we have are kids playing all over the neighborhood because there's a neighborhood of loving people to watch out for the other. We can't have that when they're strangers coming in and out all the time.

You want to turn our living spaces into a place of commerce.

That’s what he isn’t getting. Want more mixed zone? Build it! Go for it! No issue.

There is residential zoning for a reason.

Also, if a community wants to vote for it, go for it. Don’t force it from a state or federal level. Eliminating residential zoning — good grief.

 

[chardog]

If we want more "affordable" housing(don't really like the framing of affordable/luxury tbh) then we need to lower the barrier to entry. All the cheapest units in my area are efficiencies rented out by the resident homeowner. Americans don't like the idea of their neighbors building accessory dwelling units but if they had the freedom to I'm sure many Americans would want one for themselves if it wasn't much of a hassle and meant an extra revenue stream. Right now we empower the busybody neighbor over the homeowner but if you turn that on its head I think we'd see more affordable ADUs on the market.

I have an ADU, and I rent it out dirt cheap because I'm not a monster, but I cant deny looking at surrounding competition rents for MUCH higher by 50% at minimum... and even then, I'm still profiting a good amount. Same with my rental unit home, surrounding homes have shot up 50%, which is a massive amount, but I have good tenants, so I'm not bothered raising the rent. I guess if they screw me over one day, I may go scorched earth an raise prices on all units or let me wife run the business, she's cutthroat as hell

it would probably be better if homes/properties were held by shit tier businessmen like me, cutthroat corporations that only care about the bottom line.

 

[koquerelle]

I wouldn't be surprised if it factored in on some level but I also think that people want a scapegoat and short term rentals(STRs) are an easy one to point to.

I don't see it as the main factor, but I think it should be looked it seriously. Every bit count at this point.

 

[Jack V Savage]

For whatever reason you seem incapable of engaging honestly on this issue.

That guy never engages honestly on any issue. I sincerely think he doesn't know how to. Like, he forms views based on his gut/party lines, and then when someone disagrees, he has a negative affect and mischaracterizes their views in response.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't see it as the main factor, but I think it should be looked it seriously. Every bit count at this point.

Why? What's the benefit that overweighs the harm of taking away a business that people like (as both buyers and sellers)?

 

[Islam Imamate]

You have limits then. Which defeats your argument. It’s an end to residential zoning. Why can’t McDonalds move in if other restaurants can?

It doesn't defeat my argument, you're either intentionally misrepresenting my argument or incapable of understanding it.

In theory a McDonald's could move in if a homeowner was the franchisee and the McDonald's was willing to allow them to operate the McDonald's in a small scale, low impact manner. In practice big chain restaurants have lots of demands that tend to be at odds with that such as requiring a drive-thru, a certain minimum number of parking spaces, and large well lit signs that are visible from cars so the result is that more often than not local homeowners won't franchise and instead operate their own businesses which they have full control over and which are less disruptive to the neighborhood.

If you were actually talking about suburbs then the conversation is over because that's just an absolute hard pass from me and everybody I know and there's just no point discussing it. We just have a profound disagreement. I don't want crime in my neighborhood. I don't want people walking into my neighborhood to go to restaurants and McDonald's for God's sakes man... that is so absurd I can't believe it. I don't want signage in my neighborhood at freaking 11:00 at night lighting up the neighborhood with a McDonald's sign. The truth is man I think you're mentally ill if you really want this in suburbs.

As I said before, that can be done when it's designed from the ground up and there are neighborhoods in my city like that and they're just fine but they can't be added in ad hoc later because it looks like s***.

Incredibly rude to call me mentally ill, don't know what's gotten into you lately.

Nothing is weird about what I'm calling for here. Japan is a far safer country than the US and their suburbs are mixed use. Here are some images of mixed use Japanese suburb, tell me what part of this looks insane or dangerous to you

Spoiler

I have an ADU, and I rent it out dirt cheap because I'm not a monster, but I cant deny looking at surrounding competition rents for MUCH higher by 50% at minimum... and even then, I'm still profiting a good amount. Same with my rental unit home, surrounding homes have shot up 50%, which is a massive amount, but I have good tenants, so I'm not bothered raising the rent. I guess if they screw me over one day, I may go scorched earth an raise prices on all units or let me wife run the business, she's cutthroat as hell

it would probably be better if homes/properties were held by shit tier businessmen like me, cutthroat corporations that only care about the bottom line.

That's the thing, when you have a "mom and pop" landlord who is only renting out an ADU on their property they will have different priorities. They will prefer good tenants and will keep rent prices low to maintain them because they suffer more directly from the effect of bad tenants. In theory there's no reason we shouldn't allow homeowners to rent out accessory commercial units or ACUs either as long as, again, the businesses are low impact and small scale.

A homeowner who builds an ADU to rent it out or wants to operate a business out of their garage is often prioritizing convenience over profits, that's really the main selling point of running your business out of your home or renting out a unit from your residential property.

I don't see it as the main factor, but I think it should be looked it seriously. Every bit count at this point.

I personally think its a non-issue but for political purposes it might make sense to regulate them out of residential neighborhoods since they're such a common scapegoat. I'm all for deregulating our onerous zoning laws but if I had a politically viable zoning reform bill at the county or state level and the one thing blocking it is was concern over STRs I'm going to concede that one point.

 

[Andy Capp]

I wonder how Airbnb contribute to the problem. Plenty of owners in Montréal find ways to evict tenants, then they renovate the building and go the Airbnb way. The city put certain rules in place, but they have proven to be easy to circumvent.

It's a huge factor, well, them and the others like them.