> Decreasing the value of nearby homes (supply and demand)
Or rephrased: "Making housing affordable".
I mean you're right, but this is the entire point of building more housing!
Or rephrased: "Making housing affordable".
I mean you're right, but this is the entire point of building more housing!
That's why it's not as simple as "build more affordable housing", not everyone wins if it's done too fast.
While we need to provide affordable housing there are reasonable economic / environmental / community reasons why some small towns don't want it in their own backyard.
I see your point, so please don't accuse me of missing it. However comparing an underwater loan to living on the streets is absurd. If the house isn't worth the mortgage file bankruptcy and move on with your life. If you're living on the streets the chances of getting another chance are razor thin. We all should take a hard look at our privilege before we compare the pains of bankruptcy to the immediately life threatening hellscape that is homelessness.
I doubt homeless shelters produce this effect on existing home prices.
And yes, telling a hard working middle class family with kids to just declare bankruptcy and move on is a big deal and worth examining the impact before you create policies that make that a real possibility.
Would I feel bad for someone who bought a sfh and went underwater. You betcha. That's life though. Most car loans are underwater from day 1. Should be artificially restrict the number of cars on the road so car owners can sell their worn and breaking down clunker for a profit too? Should we continue to limit this dynamic to scalable profit generating schemes that disproportionately benefit millionaires and billionaires?