Hacker News Reader

Comment by OldSchoolJohnny | Hacker News Reader

Speaking as someone who is experiencing the implications of a super low rental vacancy rate, I think most people in my situation are with me when we say shut it down, entirely, in any city with a low tenancy vacancy rate. It's hurting society at large to the benefit of a precious few.

View on HN

I think most people in my situation are with me when we say shut it down, entirely, in any city with a low tenancy vacancy rate. It's hurting society at large to the benefit of a precious few.

You know, I've heard about some crazy cutting-edge technologies like steel frames and elevators that can allow us to raise the vacancy rate by increasing the total number of usable units in a given metro area.

We might need to consider not all cities are made to be tall. You cannot make Lisbon or Vienna go tall, otherwise it's not Lisbon or Vienna anymore... Also, it's silly to move local residents to the outskirts to have tourists right in the city center as tourists don't have to commute on a daily basis, they can be away from the center, it's perfectly fine for them.

Even steel frames are unnecessary in a lot of cities with a housing shortage. A cheaper wood frame can get you up to 5 stories at a fraction of the cost. I'd say a bigger problem is local low-density zoning restrictions, where it's legally prohibited to build more than one or two units per lot.

"Everything must be like a commieblock!"

Well I'm in your situation, and I disagree. Under the current socioeconomic system and pricing I'll likely never afford to own where I live, but things which make house pricing more efficient aren't the enemy.

I'd kill stamp duty (uk tax on buying/selling properties), push for higher urban density, push for wealth taxes because there are underlying problems, trying to bluntly manipulate the market doesn't generally have great outcomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com