Someone Explain This So Called Housing Crisis?

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Vienna Austria consistently ranks as the best city on earth in terms of human happiness, prosperity, quality of life and well-being.

Austria is also considered an expensive place to live.

So explain to me how 75% of the housing in Vienna is government owned and rent Is capped at 15-25% of income?

I was told government housing is communism and can't be done. Yet somehow the #1 city on earth is mostly government housing and people pay very little in rent??

Somehow, some way, in 2024 when all major western countries are going through a housing crisis, Vienna is offering affordable housing in the best city on earth. My god what is their magic secret?

It must be because Vienna doesn't have black people. That's what it is. It's definitely not the very specific system of policies that were deliberately put in place to ensure human prosperity. Nope. It's because black people. Don't look into it anyyyy further. We should keep treating housing like we're trading stocks. Don't do anything differently.

The entire country of Austria has about the same population as New York.

And you can call Austria 'socialist' if you want but it's actually a christian conservative country flirting with a return to fascism.

 

[blackheart]

The entire country of Austria has about the same population as New York.

That means nothing. Economies of scale indicates that we should be able to what they're doing, but even better as we'd have unique advantages with our size.

And you can call Austria 'socialist' if you want but it's actually a christian conservative country flirting with a return to fascism.

It's not me calling Austria socialist. That's you guys. Any laws or policies that are intended to maximize human thriving instead of corporate profits, are labeled socialist by you white trash trailer park types.

You want to sit here and lie to my face and tell me that if 75% of housing in American cities was government owned, it wouldn't be right wingers calling it socialism? Come tf on dude. Let's have conversations about the actual mutually shared reality we inhabit.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

That means nothing. Economies of scale indicates that we should be able to what they're doing, but even better as we'd have unique advantages with our size.

It's not me calling Austria socialist. That's you guys. Any laws or policies that are intended to maximize human thriving instead of corporate profits, are labeled socialist by you white trash trailer park types.

You want to sit here and lie to my face and tell me that if 75% of housing in American cities was government owned, it wouldn't be right wingers calling it socialism? Come tf on dude. Let's have conversations about the actual mutually shared reality we inhabit.

Just revealing that your ideal country is a christian theocracy.

 

[blackheart]

Just revealing that your ideal country is a christian theocracy.

So you have NO comments on anything else that was said? Nothing about the government housing?

Just, "haha your ideal country is white and christian"

jesus christ you people are fucking lame and boring. How is it possible that I called the right wing rebuttal to my comments about Austria, in my original post about Vienna? Predictable buddy. I triangulated your retarded response before you even made it. Doesn't that embarrass you at least a little bit?

Also, "theocracy"? LOL. Austria, a social democrat parliamentary democracy, is a THEOCRACY now? Reach harder bud.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Immigration is simply the only reason. Insane immigration numbers along with immigrants only wanting to live in a select few big cities is what causes the vast majority of housing shortages. Supply is always increasing and has been increasing for hundreds of years. The sole reason for shortages is the demand side which is solely driven by high immigration numbers.

And I constantly hear "just build more bro" which is a simple statement that ignores reality. There are other things that are needed besides simple land capacity (which big cities are already short on). Things like building material availability, sewage processing capacity, electrical capacity, medical capacity (hospitals, doctor offices, doctors, nurses, etc.), transportation, availability of food/water, etc. Even less necessary things like parks, community centers, museums, outdoor areas, etc. All of these things also take massive amounts of land, resources and human capital that a city already at capacity for one or more of these factors may simply not have available to it. Building these also competes on land and resources, driving prices up on housing even further.

The answer is simple: cut demand. Reduce immigration levels until housing prices become affordable again. If you want a lot of immigration then the only viable answers are to build new cities with these numerous factors taken into mind or to send immigrants to cities that have capacity for them which tend to not be the ones immigrants want to go to.

Bingo. The demand for areas in which most people flock to goes well beyond building physical homes but all the infrastructure that goes along with it. Meanwhile, places where all of that are much easier to adapt to and offering cheap plots of land to encourage it just hear crickets.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Normally what would happen is a builder would buy land and build property. Then they'd sell directly real estate agents or individuals. You take a loan out with the bank, you work out an interest rate and then you pay monthly on on it.

Now, businesses are buying entire neighborhoods before they even have a chance to go to market or, give crazy offers to existing home owners. They then usually lease them out instead of selling them to have a constant flow of income. It's basically apartment renting except they are homes.

This is a vastly overrated problem, most investors in real estate are "mom and pop" investors who own fewer than ten properties.

Spoiler: Investor Home Purchases by Size of investor

Some states have proposed banning businesses from buying homes and I'd be totally down for that. If you as an individual want to lease our your home, that's on you but I think neighborhoods should be required to have at least 80% home owners instead of renters.

Why should that be required? What if there aren't enough buyers for a given neighborhood? Why can't we just let the market sort these things out?

 

[panamaican]

This is a vastly overrated problem, most investors in real estate are "mom and pop" investors who own fewer than ten properties.

Spoiler: Investor Home Purchases by Size of investor

Why should that be required? What if there aren't enough buyers for a given neighborhood? Why can't we just let the market sort these things out?

Most investors are mom and pop investors but that's because corporate investors are more strategic. They primarily focus on the high demand areas, which is what ultimately leads to the increase in prices.

As I understand it, they're using the housing data to identify the most in demand areas for single family homes (around a major employer or well-ranked public school for example), acquire in those areas and then rent. This pushes the market for regular buyers and investors further out, increasing competition in less desired areas and pushing up the prices of properties there.

They don't need to be the biggest investment group if they're the most strategic.

 

[44nutman]

The current problem is supply. If you have an interest rate of 3% you ain’t selling unless you have too. They call that a Golden Handcuff in real estate terms. That said house sales increased last month but until the supply shortage gets settled the prices will not fall.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

This is a vastly overrated problem, most investors in real estate are "mom and pop" investors who own fewer than ten properties.

Spoiler: Investor Home Purchases by Size of investor

Why should that be required? What if there aren't enough buyers for a given neighborhood? Why can't we just let the market sort these things out?

I'm fine with having provisions in place where if a house is on the market for say an X number of years, it can be sold to a corporation but I can't see homes going unpurchased unless you overbuilt in a really rural area. We need more housing, not less. That's why there are so many apartments complexes.

I don't agree with the free market. The free market leads to the 1%, monopolies, outsourcing and greed. You have to regulate business which is what I'm proposing here.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Most investors are mom and pop investors but that's because corporate investors are more strategic. They primarily focus on the high demand areas, which is what ultimately leads to the increase in prices.

As I understand it, they're using the housing data to identify the most in demand areas for single family homes (around a major employer or well-ranked public school for example), acquire in those areas and then rent. This pushes the market for regular buyers and investors further out, increasing competition in less desired areas and pushing up the prices of properties there.

They don't need to be the biggest investment group if they're the most strategic.

That's true but I don't fundamentally think its the core problem, at worst its a periphery one to the fact that we have low housing supply. I don't think it matters if we have corporate landlords if the market is able to respond to demand more effectively and I don't think having a non-corporate landlord is much of an advantage if supply is constricted.

I'm fine with having provisions in place where if a house is on the market for say an X number of years, it can be sold to a corporation but I can't see homes going unpurchased unless you overbuilt in a really rural area. We need more housing, not less. That's where there are so many apartments complexes.

Just seems like a solution to a non-issue if you ask me.

I don't agree with the free market. The free market leads to the 1%, monopolies, outsourcing and greed. You have to regulate business which is what I'm proposing here.

There are market failures that sometimes have to be accounted for but with the housing market I think we have the opposite problem of excessive regulation via zoning laws and environmental review. And its usually not corporations supporting and abusing these regulations but rather NIMBY homeowners.

 

[RoastBeast]

Austria has one of the highest tax rates in the world.

It's always funny to watch people advocate against their own best interests. They work hard their entire lives to earn a higher wage while simultaneously advocating for the government to take that money from them.

 

[rikibobby]

Austria has one of the highest tax rates in the world.

It's always funny to watch people advocate against their own best interests. They work hard their entire lives to earn a higher wage while simultaneously advocating for the government to take that money from them.

Canadian Liberals want cradle to grave care from their government. They make life so expensive with this stupid ideology.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Austria has one of the highest tax rates in the world.

It's always funny to watch people advocate against their own best interests. They work hard their entire lives to earn a higher wage while simultaneously advocating for the government to take that money from them.

I'm not against the Vienna model of public housing in theory but in the US it is not politically viable because it would require too much spending.

Deregulating the housing market is the way to go to add supply but sadly even that is controversial as evidenced by the NIMBYs ITT.

 

[panamaican]

That's true but I don't fundamentally think its the core problem, at worst its a periphery one to the fact that we have low housing supply. I don't think it matters if we have corporate landlords if the market is able to respond to demand more effectively and I don't think having a non-corporate landlord is much of an advantage if supply is constricted.

It is a fundamental problem (not the only one but a significant one) because of how it distorts the market and normal buy/sell dynamics.

First, we don't have low housing supply. We have low housing supply in the areas that are most desired for people looking to become home owners. We don't have a shortage of rental units.

Second, the corporate issue here is that corporations are buying up single family homes at large numbers. This is a different issue from buying multi-family residences, like condos, triplexes, etc. Single family homes were usually not pursued by investment landlords because the absence of multiple units increased the loss probability when a tenant left. Evictions, repairs, etc. are all harder to manage when there are no other units to offset the cost.

Because of the loss profile, mom and pop investors tend to not spend a lot of time buying single family residences in high desire areas for rental purposes. The margins are just harder. That's fine because it allows potential home owners an opportunity to compete for those homes on a more even scale.

But large corporations, who are buying dozens or even hundreds of such properties, can acquire enough such properties to essentially skip past that economic hurdle. Turning neighborhoods into sprawling apartments. Because they don't have the same risk of loss profile as a mom and pop investor, they can acquire significantly more properties and pay more upfront to acquire them.

Building more properties in high desire areas doesn't solve the problem because corporate vs. family competitive dynamic doesn't change. The corporation will simply outbid the family for the new housing.

This pushes families further away from the areas they want to live and drives up the cost there. That pushes lower income families further away from the areas that they used to live and drives up the cost wherever they end up. If you go out far enough, there's plenty of housing. But that's small consolation to the person who now has to drive 2 hours to get to work or overpay to be within 45 of that same place. Or...rent forever and thus never build wealth.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It is a fundamental problem (not the only one but a significant one) because of how it distorts the market and normal buy/sell dynamics.

First, we don't have low housing supply. We have low housing supply in the areas that are most desired for people looking to become home owners. We don't have a shortage of rental units.

Second, the corporate issue here is that corporations are buying up single family homes at large numbers. This is a different issue from buying multi-family residences, like condos, triplexes, etc. Single family homes were usually not pursued by investment landlords because the absence of multiple units increased the loss probability when a tenant left. Evictions, repairs, etc. are all harder to manage when there are no other units to offset the cost.

Because of the loss profile, mom and pop investors tend to not spend a lot of time buying single family residences in high desire areas for rental purposes. The margins are just harder. That's fine because it allows potential home owners an opportunity to compete for those homes on a more even scale.

But large corporations, who are buying dozens or even hundreds of such properties, can acquire enough such properties to essentially skip past that economic hurdle. Turning neighborhoods into sprawling apartments. Because they don't have the same risk of loss profile as a mom and pop investor, they can acquire significantly more properties and pay more upfront to acquire them.

Building more properties in high desire areas doesn't solve the problem because corporate vs. family competitive dynamic doesn't change. The corporation will simply outbid the family for the new housing.

This pushes families further away from the areas they want to live and drives up the cost there. That pushes lower income families further away from the areas that they used to live and drives up the cost wherever they end up. If you go out far enough, there's plenty of housing. But that's small consolation to the person who now has to drive 2 hours to get to work or overpay to be within 45 of that same place. Or...rent forever and thus never build wealth.

We have low housing supply in the major metro areas which are the engines of the economy. Yeah of course you can go buy a home in West Virginia but as you yourself said that's a small consolation.

I don't think its the case that we have enough rental units. In the dense downtown cores there are lots of apartments but most metro areas have zoned most of their residential land for R1 zoning which means the supply of housing is artificially constrained. On average about 75% of residential land is zoned for R1 and in some cities like San Jose its as high as 93%(unsurprisingly San Jose also some of, if not the, highest housing costs in the nation).

Allowing diverse kinds of dense, multifamily housing units to be built in the suburbs of these major metro areas that are currently exclusively zoned for SFHs will allow the market to add more units and thus to accommodate more people across various price points. That its illegal to do so is to me the core problem.

 

[Sinister]

That's true but I don't fundamentally think its the core problem, at worst its a periphery one to the fact that we have low housing supply. I don't think it matters if we have corporate landlords if the market is able to respond to demand more effectively and I don't think having a non-corporate landlord is much of an advantage if supply is constricted.

Just seems like a solution to a non-issue if you ask me.

There are market failures that sometimes have to be accounted for but with the housing market I think we have the opposite problem of excessive regulation via zoning laws and environmental review. And its usually not corporations supporting and abusing these regulations but rather NIMBY homeowners.

The "excessive regulation" is lobbied for by large developers. It's not happening autonomously. They want to build what they feel has the most value, not what is needed. NIMBYism is exploited in this context to get people to continue to vote for the sentiment. Its not just the politicians deciding for no reason other than racism/classism. Those elements are working together.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The "excessive regulation" is lobbied for by large developers. It's not happening autonomously. They want to build what they feel has the most value, not what is needed. NIMBYism is exploited in this context to get people to continue to vote for the sentiment. Its not just the politicians deciding for no reason other than racism/classism. Those elements are working together.

No, developers want the regulations gone so they can just build. The regulations are lobbied for by NIMBY homeowners who want to preserve their low density neighborhoods. Even when the regulations are removed developments are still stalled by excessive community oversight meetings and its not developers attending these meetings, its NIMBYs.

There's not always a corporate boogeyman behind a given problem.

 

[Sinister]

No, developers want the regulations gone so they can just build. The regulations are lobbied for by NIMBY homeowners who want to preserve their low density neighborhoods. Even when the regulations are removed developments are still stalled by excessive community oversight meetings and its not developers attending these meetings, its NIMBYs.

There's not always a corporate boogeyman behind a given problem.

No, its not JUST NIMBY homeowners. You're generalizing developers in a way you think I am generalizing developers. There are definitely developers who prefer certain types of projects even at the expense of other developers, and with keeping regulations costly and time-consuming:

There Are 3 Different Kinds of Developers

So you've heard that "developers" wield a lot of power in your city, or that certain actions will or won’t benefit them? It matters which ones you’re talking about.

www.strongtowns.org

 

[Islam Imamate]

No, its not JUST NIMBY homeowners. You're generalizing developers in a way you think I am generalizing developers. There are definitely developers who prefer certain types of projects even at the expense of other developers, and with keeping regulations costly and time-consuming:

There Are 3 Different Kinds of Developers

So you've heard that "developers" wield a lot of power in your city, or that certain actions will or won’t benefit them? It matters which ones you’re talking about.

www.strongtowns.org

I've read that article, its insightful. Its true some developers benefit from the regulations, I've made this argument many times on the forum. But I don't think they are the primary drivers of these regulations, they just happened to find that niche as a result of them. My impression is that NIMBYism is the primary driver because these regulations tend to be local and older homeowners are much more likely to be plugged into local politics.

 

[Sinister]

I've read that article, its insightful. Its true some developers benefit from the regulations, I've made this argument many times on the forum. But I don't think they are the primary drivers of these regulations, they just happened to find that niche as a result of them. My impression is that NIMBYism is the primary driver because these regulations tend to be local and older homeowners are much more likely to be plugged into local politics.

I think that's just a good incidental excuse to push for more developments that are large and expensive. But the money and political clout is on the side of the developers. It makes more sense to me that they would win over a population with grandiose visions of "more homes" and "better economy" with their political contributions fueling agreement of legislators. I mean let's not forget how many actual laws are written by lobbying groups and how many politicians dont even know what's in those texts they're calling for votes for. That's likely to be worse on the local level as people are less politically savvy there.

In the threads about water shortages I often post that situation in that Arizona community the Rio Verde Foothills. That happened because of collusion between a large developer and local politicians. The developers wanted to erect a planned community in the middle of the desert but ran into the problem of there not being a sufficient sustainable water source. The laws in AZ require something other than groundwater to be used as a source, because its unstable. The developers lobbied for that law to be changed. Ipso facto, the entire community ended up with no water, most of whom spent their life savings on very large beautiful homes there, in an unincorporated town (that was a selling point), and no water.