Social US homelessness up 12% to highest reported level as rents soar and coronavirus pandemic aid lapses

[helltoupee]

The fact that we prioritize the interests of wealthy homeowners over society at large is partly why we have a housing crisis in the first place. If anything homeowners are usually favored when it comes to paying taxes in two primary ways; limits on how much property taxes can be increased and assessed home values that are often lower than the market value of the house.

Don't forget they also get a Federal $500K exclusion on the gain of the sale, limiting the taxes. Agree with you, the incentives should be the other way around so that young families can afford a roof over their heads.

 

[Cajun]

The fact that we prioritize the interests of wealthy homeowners over society at large is partly why we have a housing crisis in the first place. If anything homeowners are usually favored when it comes to paying taxes in two primary ways; limits on how much property taxes can be increased and assessed home values that are often lower than the market value of the house.

Well, it doesn't mean he's wealthy. But investing in houses as far as we know.. smart imo. Shouldn't be punished

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well, it doesn't mean he's wealthy. But investing in houses as far as we know.. smart imo. Shouldn't be punished

He owns three homes but somehow that doesn't mean he's wealthy? The median home value in the US is ~$400,000 so if he owns those homes outright and isn't still paying a mortgage on any of them he's probably a millionaire or close to it.

The reason investing in houses is smart is because the system is designed to benefit people who invest in and own housing to the detriment of those who don't.

Paying taxes isn't a punishment and as I said if anything the government goes out of its way to alleviate the tax burden on homeowners.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

You're preaching to the choir here, I don't think a single neighborhood should be zoned exclusively for SFH. That's not to say developers should be allowed to build skyscrapers wherever they want but homeowners should have the option to build/renovate 2-4 units on a given property.

Has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the restrictive housing market. What's funny is that normally this kind of government intervention that leads to inefficiencies and negative externalities is exactly the kind of thing libertarians and free market folks complain about. And yet because in this instance it benefits important constituencies like older homeowners many will lose the courage of their convictions and look the other way as local government strangles housing supply and kneecap the economy.

I strongly disagree. Single-family home neighborhoods tend to be more stable, safe, and overall just much nicer than neighborhoods with multifamily properties, especially if the multifamily properties contain rentals. Single-family homes should be encouraged not discouraged.

I also disagree with the idea the restricting the housing market is a bad thing. Places that are already overcrowded should not continuously build. That makes an existing problem worse. It increases overpopulation and all of the problems that come with it including crime, traffic, and a strain on public services.

I know it really bothers people that some can be priced out of certain areas. IMO, it's preferable to have some people priced out from entering than it is to have existing residents driven out by crime, traffic, and bad schools.

For those that are priced out, the state should assist with relocation, so that there aren't tent communities within major cities.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I strongly disagree.

The feeling is mutual.

After all, why is it your business if your neighbor wants to convert his SFH into a Duplex? Or run a cafe out of his garage? Imagine if you wanted to build a pool in your yard and your neighbor blocked from doing so because it'd "ruin neighborhood character"? Its absurd.

 

[Cajun]

He owns three homes but somehow that doesn't mean he's wealthy? The median home value in the US is ~$400,000 so if he owns those homes outright and isn't still paying a mortgage on any of them he's probably a millionaire or close to it.

The reason investing in houses is smart is because the system is designed to benefit people who invest in and own housing to the detriment of those who don't.

Paying taxes isn't a punishment and as I said if anything the government goes out of its way to alleviate the tax burden on homeowners.

Not his fault imo. Many use it as retirement vs trusting our current state. Either way I won't comment either way on that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not his fault imo. Many use it as retirement vs trusting our current state. Either way I won't comment either way on that.

Sure but let's not pretend that anyone is "punishing" homeowners when in fact its the opposite.

 

[Cajun]

Sure but let's not pretend that anyone is "punishing" homeowners when in fact its the opposite.

Wouldn't say punishing either. But def felt if your aren't outright rich..got a pipe fitter bud bought 5 houses in Delaware. Retiring on that. Def not saying punishing but definitely not the guys fault.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Wouldn't say punishing either. But def felt if your aren't outright rich..got a pipe fitter bud bought 5 houses in Delaware. Retiring on that. Def not saying punishing but definitely not the guys fault.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. Someone complaining about property taxes in a thread about homelessness is going to come off as tone deaf especially in light of the fact that in the US homeowners are cushioned from taxes in all sorts of ways. Is the fact that they have to pay at all the problem here? Or are you arguing that if the value of their home goes up they shouldn't have to pay more in taxes?

 

[Loiosh]

You're preaching to the choir here, I don't think a single neighborhood should be zoned exclusively for SFH. That's not to say developers should be allowed to build skyscrapers wherever they want but homeowners should have the option to build/renovate 2-4 units on a given property.

I figured but I wanted to be crystal clear for everyone else. The west loves it's white picket fences and three cars per household. Fuck climate change and sustainable housing.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I figured but I wanted to be crystal clear for everyone else. The west loves it's white picket fences and three cars per household. Fuck climate change and sustainable housing.

I actually prefer suburbs over the city but I just wish they could be mixed use and allow small multifamily units.

 

[Loiosh]

I actually prefer suburbs over the city but I just wish they could be mixed use and allow multifamily units.

Most people, including me, do. I'm actually much worse than this, I always wanted to retire in an old farm house in the country all by myself.

Talk about an unnecessary carbon footprint.

I may still do that, because I'm a huge hypocrite. Responsibility for thee, but not for me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Most people, including me, do. I'm actually much worse than this, I always wanted to retire in an old farm house in the country all by myself.

Talk about an unnecessary carbon footprint.

I may still do that, because I'm a huge hypocrite. Responsibility for thee, but not for me.

Wanting to retire to a remote area is not wrong and I have a similar fantasy. My friend's parents did so and he moved in with them because he's close to them and loves that life, he only moved out because he got a better job that wasn't WFH.

What's wrong is when homeowners in the suburbs of major metro areas want to block any new housing that isn't a SFH because of "neighborhood character" and end up making these places unaffordable for everyone else.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

The feeling is mutual.

After all, why is it your business if your neighbor wants to convert his SFH into a Duplex? Or run a cafe out of his garage? Imagine if you wanted to build a pool in your yard and your neighbor blocked from doing so because it'd "ruin neighborhood character"? Its absurd.

It actually is your business if you live in the same community though. What your neighbor does also effects you. If your neighbor turns a single family home into a rental property for multiple families it increases the likelihood of crime and increases the likelihood of lowering the value of your own house. That's the whole reason behind neighborhood restrictions. So that your neighbors don't do things that impact your safety or the value of your property.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It actually is your business if you live in the same community though. What your neighbor does also effects you. If your neighbor turns a single family home into a rental property for multiple families it increases the likelihood of crime and increases the likelihood of lowering the value of your own house. That's the whole reason behind neighborhood restrictions. So that your neighbors don't do things that impact your safety or the value of your property.

All things equal areas with more dense housing have higher home values, not lower ones. Either I don't believe busybody neighbors have the right to tell property owners what they can and can't do based on so called "neighborhood character"

If you want to go out and live in the middle of nowhere be my guest but you shouldn't be allowed to artificially restrict the supply of housing in major metro areas just because you're afraid it might affect your home value.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

you shouldn't be allowed to artificially restrict the supply of housing in major metro areas just because you're afraid it might affect your home value.

It can be argued that from a public policy standpoint that the needs of the many are more inportant than the needs of the few, but no one should blame existing homeowners for wanting to protect their property. It isn't absurd of them to do so. They aren't just being busy bodies. They have a legitimate concern that their quality of life will be reduced and it is very understandable that they would want to push back against that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It can be argued that from a public policy standpoint that the needs of the many are more inportant than the needs of the few, but no one should blame existing homeowners for wanting to protect their property. It isn't absurd of them to do so. They aren't just being busy bodies. They have a legitimate concern that their quality of life will be reduced and it is very understandable that they would want to push back against that.

They're making everyone else's quality of life worse by strangling housing supply so yes I am going to blame them for the housing crisis when NIMBYism is the core reason we have one. If you don't want a skyscraper going up in the middle of a neighborhood of SFH I get that but people should be allowed to convert their SFH into duplexes and fourplexes or to add an accessory dwelling/commercial unit. Those are all things that increase property values so if you're so worried about property value you'd allow people to invest in their own homes in that way.

 

[Cajun]

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. Someone complaining about property taxes in a thread about homelessness is going to come off as tone deaf especially in light of the fact that in the US homeowners are cushioned from taxes in all sorts of ways. Is the fact that they have to pay at all the problem here? Or are you arguing that if the value of their home goes up they shouldn't have to pay more in taxes?

The article is about homelessness but also connected to redic housing prices. Housing in general now is a mess. It leads to the headline imo.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The article is about homelessness but also connected to redic housing prices. Housing in general now is a mess. It leads to the headline imo.

I agree that homes prices are relevant but I don't like the framing of homeowners paying taxes as somehow being a punishment. I get this comes off as nitpicking ad petty but part of the reason the housing market is so screwed right now is because of the way the government caters to homeowners.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

They're making everyone else's quality of life worse by strangling housing supply so yes I am going to blame them for the housing crisis when NIMBYism is the core reason we have one. If you don't want a skyscraper going up in the middle of a neighborhood of SFH I get that but people should be allowed to convert their SFH into duplexes and fourplexes or to add an accessory dwelling/commercial unit. Those are all things that increase property values so if you're so worried about property value you'd allow people to invest in their own homes in that way.

These two sides will always be at odds because what helps one group, hurts the other. Your wish is to make places less nice so that more people can live there. My wish is to not make places worse even if it means less new people can move there.

Converting single family homes into duplexes and fourplexes hurts the value of neighboring homes.

You can't make an existing neighborhood a better place by creating lower income housing within it. That's what happens when you convert existing homes into affordable but less good multi family properties. It increases the risk of crime and lowers property values of all of the existing residents of the neighborhood. That's the whole reason for the NIMBYism. That's why they push back on it. No one wants their place to become less valuble and less safe. Also, it puts an additional strain on city services. It impacts school, policing, traffic, etc...

The real reason these places are not affordable is because they are overcrowded. Overcrowding is what created the housing scarcity, and you want to fix over crowding by making it where more people can be housed there.