Hacker News Reader

Comment by bugglebeetle | Hacker News Reader

If there’s an affordability housing crisis at the level of Canada, where home prices are so wildly out of whack relative to median incomes, it’s IMO entirely reasonable to ban the purchase of investment properties in the single family homes market for anyone. This will never happen because of the political backlash, but housing as a speculative asset is fundamentally insane and corrosive to societies. Housing affordability is directly tied to all kinds of broader social outcomes, from crime to public health to educational achievement and it makes zero sense to sacrifice these on the altar of “fuck you, I got my house(s).”

View on HN

A person I know of outstanding moral character (has adopted 3 kids) boasts about voting against any development in his area. I don't know what it'll take for people to see what you are saying

I don’t think people with moral character can be reasonably expected to always have moral views on every subject matter. Not to be political but this is what people mean when they talk about intersectionality. For example a women’s rights advocate might unintentionally exclude disabled women, or be harder on black women they work with than white women for being ghetto or ratchet.

You are being downvoted but you are right. It just depresses me to see that people I look up think this way. I have met others who also can't see that building is the solution because of more exotic reasons: those who want to impose price controls because they think this will somehow finally allow them to own that coveted flat in the center, those unwilling to allow the mass building of lower quality stock because who cares about poor people's houses, etc

A multitude of entitled opinions that in a democracy hinder the construction of houses for the future generation

I think the problem is that people have a vote. Most people would like things to stay as it is around where they live. I feel in my country there is not so much tools for NIMBYism as people are not listened to so much. I can support better infrastructure on a city level but can’t really do much if it is decided that the train needs to run over my house.

Yes, people who currently live somewhere get a say, while others who want to move there do not.

Yes, the same people that agree that there’s a housing crisis and that their city should in general have more affordable housing, just not in their specific neighborhood.

Often laws passed by the federal legislature or provincial legislature that, in practice, only effects people living in a small area. I don't see why decisions related to housing can also not be made at larger level.

To put it another way, it often happens that people will vote for candidates at the provincial/federal level that support increased immigration and/or population growth, and simultaneously vote NIMBY at the local level.

Kind of like people in developing countries who want to move to developed countries.

California seems to be forcing zoning changes onto cities that have not allowed enough new housing to be built (things like expediting approvals for allowed development, also allowing R3 to replace R1).

I assume that their politicians were worried about all the people leaving.

It makes sense to set a lot of zoning policy at the state level, where all people are represented, so that incumbent local property owners can't selfishly micromanage everyone else.

Japan is an example of a place that does a great job with this. Housing there is more affordable and convenient. Residential side streets are off-street parking only, and each property can be a triplex, with one unit allowed to be a low-impact business, off-street. These side streets connected to larger roads with denser retail/apartments leading to planned high-rise areas that are allowed to grow when/if the population grows. Industrial areas are separate, on the other side of town.

I suspect the complexity with this approach, is these "investors" are also the source of the majority of rental inventory in the country. As far as I know we don't build rental buildings anymore, it's all condos with 30-80% of the units going to investors who then rent them out.

Also there are situations like, the buyer who buys a run down house to rebuild or do major renovations that would need accounting for in any sort of ban. Or the condo developer who spends millions buying 3-10 houses and turning them into a condo tower for hundreds of people to live in.

Too many people get hung up on the “house” being the thing rapidly appreciating when in areas like major Canadian metros it’s the _land_ sitting under the house that is becoming more and more valuable as the Canadian government is importing more and more full grown adults who need housing _today_ in those major metros.

Okay, then do Georgism or some other form of land value tax. Distinction without a difference. Destroying your society for the benefit of real estate speculators is insanity, is my point.

It's funny because LVT would reward multi family investment properties while raising taxes for single family home owners.

How is that "funny"?

The continued proliferation of cookie-cutter detached single family homes with useless lawns is big part of several problems we currently face as a society.

Incentivizing denser housing is a good idea.

It is funny because people always pitch it in threads about investors. Investors are who will build more housing if zoning laws are changed. An LVT basically encourages investment in the land.

I am in favor of this but it doesn't stick it to who everyone is complaining about here, it benefits them.

Investors (financial speculators) are specifically the kind of people who shouldn't be involved with housing.

Would reward mansion owners even more.

The biggest losers of a LVT are SFH owners living in a humble old near worthless house on relatively valuable land.

The biggest losers of a LVT are SFH owners living in a humble old near worthless house on relatively valuable land.

No, because those folks can sell their property to a developer and earn a nice return while moving to a cheaper area.

The humble house owner can already do that now under the current property tax regime (where they would pay less than under a LVT regime). The only change here is that their taxes go up and they're thus "encouraged" to sell. Seems bad from their POV!

The LVT would zero the tax on improvements, and accordingly the tax on land would have to increase to compensate.

A mansion owner for example may have 40% of their bill be related to the expensive mansion building. Some regular humble house owner may only pay 5% of their tax based on the value of the house. So when the portion of the houses are eliminated and the land tax between them normalized, the mansion owner now pays less and the humble house owner pays more.

Listen I like a LVT I'm just pointing out that it's a big time giveaway for the very rich if it's implemented in a very basic way.

The net result is relatively poor homeowners are shoo'd out of their homes and forced to capitulate and move due to high taxes, while mansion owners get a tax cut.

If we want to bring in a LVT then we should also be bringing in some progressive property taxes on the wealthy.

I don't see a problem whatsoever with someone building a mansion out in the country to save money on taxes. LVT is not about that. It's about taxing the luxury condos downtown, and those definitely are more progressive than property taxes.

While you're spot on, let me know when you can easily pick up a home and move it to cheaper land. It's just not practical to separate the two.

In this proposal, who gets to own the houses that are rented?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com