Someone Explain This So Called Housing Crisis?

[Islam Imamate]

It's about making sure the laws in place keep owners on the level. Nobody's taking anything away.

I've seen entire buildings in Montréal where renters were evicted for bogus reasons by owners who knew the fines were the price of doing business. You find that okay?

What political purposes? I don't get it.

Scapegoat? Because some point at them as a contributing factor?

As in I haven't been convinced that they are a significant part of the problem but people perceive them to be so it might be the case that to make a housing reform bill politically viable you would have to restrict STRs.

Those safe mixed areas with lots and lots of traffic have more crime than safe mixed use areas with low low traffic and also there's policing for that which we don't have in our neighborhoods.

But it doesn't matter because no matter what... nobody lets little kids run free like we do in good neighborhoods in mixed use areas like that.

You guys want to commercialize and commoditize our living spaces and it's a sickening form of capitalism that really bothers me.

Japanese kids are well known for their independence at a young age and they live in the pinnacle of dense, mixed use, multifamily urbanism. I think you're way too wedded to this point because its basically conventional American wisdom but its deeply wrong.

You never apologized for our last discussion where you were absolutely unhinged and rude and lied and were disingenuous. So I just thought that's the kind of interaction you wanted to have with me after I thought we had a decent relationship for years. We had just got into the details about the Muslim religion when you started calling me ant islam instead of engaging the points.

You ducked out of that conversation as soon as we got into details which I'm noticing is a pattern with you. You are unable to provide details. If I was going to advocate for a position like this you bet I would have first principles down pat already.

I didn't duck out of the conversation, I just wasn't going to address every point in a huge wall of text. I don't think we always have to have the answers, in fact in my religion its a virtue to admit "I don't know" when you, in fact, don't know.

It is also a lie to pretend that I'm advocating for central planners to have too much power seeing as how I've told you that the community has to be involved.

The fact is we need first principles that people can build upon in unique ways in individual locations. But what we need are really really well thought out first principles from philosophers, psychologists, designers and artists and the community involved. I can think of so many problems that you've never thought of with this and I know you haven't thought of and won't think of. And I know damn well that the people who pass new laws that allow rezoning won't have thought of them either and that's the problem. It's reckless and ill thought out. This will just off gas a bunch of problems onto the community that haven't been thought through because they are really driven by trying to reduce emissions.

You're just trying to solve one problem by creating a bunch of other problems.

Asking me to somehow come up with some incredibly detailed, foolproof plan just strikes me as a bit absurd tbh. Of course I don't have all the answers, I never claimed to. Part of what I'm arguing is that we don't need so many strict rules, you can set some general ground rules but allow our cities and neighborhoods to evolve organically through the decisions of property owners and renters whose sum total of small decisions creates an emergent and efficient order.

There's obviously limits to that, a Mumbai slum is an organic, emergent order and no one wants that here. But I think there's a lot of middle ground between a typical American R1 suburb that only allows single family homes and a Mumbai slum. Case in point, Japanese urban planning. Japan is one of the safest countries in the world and its renowned for its urban planning which incorporates many of the ideas I've mentioned here. Why can't we learn lessons from them? I've asked you repeatedly to show me what you think is so dangerous and insane about Japanese urban planning and yet you won't answer, why? Isn't that a fair question?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

As in I haven't been convinced that they are a significant part of the problem but people perceive them to be so it might be the case that to make a housing reform bill politically viable you would have to restrict STRs.

Japanese kids are well known for their independence at a young age and they live in the pinnacle of dense, mixed use, multifamily urbanism. I think you're way too wedded to this point because its basically conventional American wisdom but its deeply wrong.

I didn't duck out of the conversation, I just wasn't going to address every point in a huge wall of text. I don't think we always have to have the answers, in fact in my religion its a virtue to admit "I don't know" when you, in fact, don't know.

Asking me to somehow come up with some incredibly detailed, foolproof plan just strikes me as a bit absurd tbh. Of course I don't have all the answers, I never claimed to. Part of what I'm arguing is that we don't need so many strict rules, you can set some general ground rules but allow our cities and neighborhoods to evolve organically through the decisions of property owners and renters whose sum total of small decisions creates an emergent and efficient order.

There's obviously limits to that, a Mumbai slum is an organic, emergent order and no one wants that here. But I think there's a lot of middle ground between a typical American R1 suburb that only allows single family homes and a Mumbai suburb. Case in point, Japanese urban planning. Japan is one of the safest countries in the world and its renowned for its urban planning which incorporates many of the ideas I've mentioned here. Why can't we learn lessons from them? I've asked you repeatedly to show me what you think is so dangerous and insane about Japanese urban planning and yet you won't answer, why? Isn't that a fair question?

That "wall of text" wasn't much longer than what you've written to me in this thread several times. In either case, assuming that I was disingenuous without actually engaging, my points was itself disingenuous and slanderous and wrong and it really bothered me and I'm not over it because I couldn't comprehend you acting that way

As far as this discussion goes, you're just not prepared to discuss it if you don't have first principles worked out. I don't think it would be very hard to work out some really solid first principles by the way. It would definitely take more time than I'm willing to take on sherdog, but I think I could do it in a couple hours. I would certainly do it if it had to do with a position I advocated for.

We can agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[Sinister]

it's not true because banking is also tied into housing

here is one of the core components of the article:

"From 2000 to 2010 the U.S. had a surplus of 4.6 million housing units, while in the following decade there was a shortage of 1.3 million fewer units than population growth would demand. All combined, that nets out to a surplus of 3.3 million homes from 2000 to 2020."

the numbers in the 2000's had horrible banking practices, essentially DEI of mortgages, which lead to the ballooning of prices.... did we really have a surplus? curiously, 2010 was added into that timeframe, the market had already crashed and bottomed at that point, stats and lies and all that.

anecdotally, housing is a bit of a lost cause without ample mult family units. Any and EVERYTIME I see a building being built, it's luxury homes with luxury prices. That goes for 20 years ago when KB was still building mcmansions, to now, still building mcmansions, this is just how it is all throughout the world as living standards increase.

the argument that the article makes is that we have the supply, but not enough for the given income, and it's a weird twist on the subject, and it's not totally wrong, we are lacking supply of affordable housing

Dont get it twisted, I'm an urbanist. I'm all for more affordable housing. Hell I'm for Hosing First programs for the homeless. This is just about the idea that there is an over all shortage of housing. It's more nuanced than that, especially given the NAR and RealPage lawsuits, AND terrible banking practices.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That "wall of text" wasn't much longer than what you've written to me in this thread several times. In either case, assuming that I was disingenuous without actually engaging, my points was itself disingenuous and slanderous and wrong and it really bothered me and I'm not over it because I couldn't comprehend you acting that way

Well see you could've just led with that.

If all you want is an apology I can't say that's too much to ask so sorry pal, perhaps I was unfair to you then.

As far as this discussion goes, you're just not prepared to discuss it if you don't have first principles worked out. I don't think it would be very hard to work out some really solid first principles by the way. It would definitely take more time than I'm willing to take on sherdog, but I think I could do it in a couple hours. I would certainly do it if it had to do with a position I advocated for.


We can agree to disagree on this issue.

You can agree to disagree but I don't think what you've wrote here is a fair description of my position, I do have first principles. For one I specifically repeated that the businesses in a mixed use residential neighborhood need to be small scale and low impact. That is specifically to address concerns about negative externalities from businesses and yet you and others ignored that.

 

[Renard]

The Century Initiative has its' eye on Canada having a population of 100M by 2100. At over 1M immigrants coming in a year, it's set to hit that target with time to spare. If you think the housing crisis is bad now, it's going to be a completely different ballgame with 60M people more. The solution isn't building a horizon of tenements and stacking people in it like rats. Not creating the problem in the first place would have been the solution.

For starters nobody was asked whether they wanted this. It was imposed on us against our knowledge, against our consent, and against the citizens' very interests in having a good life. A country with 100M people, housing only for millionaires, taxed to shit, yet with a poorly performing economy and stagnant wages has no future. Only lefties are stupid enough to defend the situation that was forced onto them.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

When demand exceeds supply, prices rise. Most of the limits on supply are artificial and meant to benefit existing homeowners at the expense of new ones.

Immigration is way down the list of reasons houses are expensive.

This is it.

Laws are written by home owners who are funded by home owners. It's not corruption or anything like that just shared interest between those in power and a huge portion of the population.

This leads to housing being to much of an asset class and not enough of fundamental of human requirement.

Housing instability almost always has a negative effect on people, and people are the nation.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

Nailed it.
Also, developers no longer want to build starter homes - small homes with one or two bedrooms that are affordable for those who have never before bought a home. They only want to build McMansions now.

As for how mortgages work, they work exactly like a loan. Because that’s what they are.

Say your house costs $400k, and you have saved maybe $20k for a down payment. A bank loans you $380k and you spend 30 years paying it back month by month.

However, because of the hedge funds, Chinese investors, and even universities piling all their money to buy up all the residential property they can, regular people don’t even have enough money to afford a house with a loan.

Also, sellers always prefer cash. And investors, like Wall Street, always pay cash. Even if you could match their price, you would lose the bid because they pay cash.

It's weird how wherever you are, paying cash matters, while in Australia, size of payment is the only concern besides the settlement period.
Cash or loan is rather meaningless to the seller.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

It's weird how wherever you are, paying cash matters, while in Australia, size of payment is the only concern besides the settlement period.
Cash or loan is rather meaningless to the seller.

Because, and this is especially true for investors, they can invest that cash immediately and earn interest.

But it does seem a bit disproportionate.

 

[lifelessheap]

Print money = assets must rise in relation to amount printed. Housing = assets.

Over regulate and tax and put fees on building makes it expensive. I did owner/builder in California and MY GOD, they make it difficult to build and expensive.

 

[I Am Legion]

By me it is simply supply and demand. Population increases. Immigrants flooded the city and are forcing lower middle-class people to flee to the suburbs. They go in with other family members and buy multigenerational homes. This causes the boom and people are paying stupid money for smaller started homes. At least 500k here.
The main factor in many other places is China. Somehow, we allow Chinese corporations to buy up whole college towns and areas around metro areas. Billions. That takes inventory out of normal buyers hands.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

Because, and this is especially true for investors, they can invest that cash immediately and earn interest.

But it does seem a bit disproportionate.

Here the payment from someone buying in cash arrives at the same time as it would if buying with a loan.

It's really interesting to me how different home buying is in every country.

Fixed vs variable
Buy side agents
Walk away loans
Tax deductibility of interest

 

[Natural Order]

The Century Initiative has its' eye on Canada having a population of 100M by 2100. At over 1M immigrants coming in a year, it's set to hit that target with time to spare. If you think the housing crisis is bad now, it's going to be a completely different ballgame with 60M people more. The solution isn't building a horizon of tenements and stacking people in it like rats. Not creating the problem in the first place would have been the solution.

For starters nobody was asked whether they wanted this. It was imposed on us against our knowledge, against our consent, and against the citizens' very interests in having a good life. A country with 100M people, housing only for millionaires, taxed to shit, yet with a poorly performing economy and stagnant wages has no future. Only lefties are stupid enough to defend the situation that was forced onto them.

The armpit of Canada (Nova Scotia) wants to double it's population by 2100. I'm assuming this is in line with the Century Initiative.

We're currently at about a million, so that would double it. There isn't a single, well run, funded program for the existing 1 million. We haven't even discussed homes and doctors. We're fucked without a proper plan, and there's no real plan in sight.

 

[avenue94]

By me it is simply supply and demand. Population increases. Immigrants flooded the city and are forcing lower middle-class people to flee to the suburbs. They go in with other family members and buy multigenerational homes. This causes the boom and people are paying stupid money for smaller started homes. At least 500k here.
The main factor in many other places is China. Somehow, we allow Chinese corporations to buy up whole college towns and areas around metro areas. Billions. That takes inventory out of normal buyers hands.

You mean the immigrants who disproportionately work in construction and subsidize the cost of owning and maintaining a home in the US?

Not to mention the complaint about multigenerational housing makes no sense since by definition a multi generational household is a more efficient use of housing stock than a single family or couple.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Here the payment from someone buying in cash arrives at the same time as it would if buying with a loan.

It's really interesting to me how different home buying is in every country.

Fixed vs variable
Buy side agents
Walk away loans
Tax deductibility of interest

Yeah, I’ve sold a home and it’s not like they paid us in installments. That’s why you take out a loan. The bank pays the seller, and you pay the bank. I’m not really a finance guy, so there must be something I’m missing about why a cash offer is valued so much more than any other offer.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

Yeah, I’ve sold a home and it’s not like they paid us in installments. That’s why you take out a loan. The bank pays the seller, and you pay the bank. I’m not really a finance guy, so there must be something I’m missing about why a cash offer is valued so much more than any other offer.

I'm kinda a finance guy, and it makes no sense to me either.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Canadian government is moronic as all hell.

They open the floodgates and just shove people in. Lack of housing is only 1 aspect of the insanity. People are going 2 or 3 or more catchments away for school. The hospitals are grossly understaffed. Infastructure is brutal. Im currently in BC and its insane.

Im leaving in about 2 years. This place has gone to utter shit. The politics is not really my thing either. Way too liberal for my liking.

 

[mkess101]

Yeah, I’ve sold a home and it’s not like they paid us in installments. That’s why you take out a loan. The bank pays the seller, and you pay the bank. I’m not really a finance guy, so there must be something I’m missing about why a cash offer is valued so much more than any other offer.

Generally (but not always) there's just less risk to the seller of a deal falling through if it's a cash offer. And given the seller's market we've had now for years and years, they can afford to be choosy.

People obviously show pre-approval letters from the bank but there can be snags that come up on the financing end that trip up a deal. A buyer could lose their job between accepted offer and closing. Shit happens.

And don't get me wrong it can happen with cash offers too but it's less common. Often, cash offers come with significantly more earnest money involved which makes it far more painful for a buyer to walk away. I'll give you an example:

Friends of ours sold their house last year. I think was right around $1m, just a shade under. They sold it to a very young lady who'd just graduated college and accepted a job in the area. Her parents were wealthy and paid cash for the house and she was just gonna make payments to them apparently. A big selling point to our friends was that the parents put up $200k in earnest $ to ensure they got the house in a red hot market. You'd pretty much never see that from someone who was gonna take out a mortgage. So let's say the daughter changed her mind and took a different job in another city--the parents wouldn't walk away and lose their earnest $. They'd simply go through with the purchase and relist the house. Assuming they sold for the same amount they paid, they'd likely be out the 5% or so realtor commission but losing that $50k would be better than losing the $200k.

And when it's corporations buying as investments, sellers don't even have to worry about the personal life stuff that can undo deals. They just see deep corporate pockets that want what they have and are willing to pay for it.

 

[lowlife]

slow train coming, been on it's way since the end of the gold standard and inception of the federal reserve. The answer to most questions can be traced back to greed.

 

[I Am Legion]

You mean the immigrants who disproportionately work in construction and subsidize the cost of owning and maintaining a home in the US?

Not to mention the complaint about multigenerational housing makes no sense since by definition a multi generational household is a more efficient use of housing stock than a single family or couple.

Subsidize the cost of owning and maintaining a home? What the heck does that even mean? They don't subsidize shit. The ones that work off the books don't pay taxes. By me they earn $500 a day. The skilled ones name their price. The only savings for the builders now is not paying health insurance. And I never said bad or good about the multigenerational housing purchases, just that they create more demand, which they do. I will make a comment on the quality of neighbor they are....a 3 bedroom house shouldn't have 12 family members living in it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm kinda a finance guy, and it makes no sense to me either.

Cash offers close faster, have less bullshit involved, and are less likely to fall apart. There's no financial benefit.