The YIMBYs Won over the Democrats
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
But it's the only way to invest rent money.
With a reverse mortgage.
Seems like less of a left/right axis and more of a for/against change axis.
My landlord’s children can inherit a tax advantage, based on a property valuation from the 1970s, for a fully paid-off building. By extension, they are then more or less guaranteed to collect 30+% of other people’s income because these insane market distortions have priced most everyone else out. It’s practically feudal.
"Trust us to put the fire out on housing crisis!"
(Proceeds to hide the complete mayhem that is CA housing or any other major metro that is 100% dominated by democrats)
Those not-dense places are as dense as they want to be. Why does anyone else think they have the right to force them to become denser so that they can cram in?
It's not like they are prevented from building in new empty places. Even IN California let alone just stay in Arkansas or wherever they already were before they decided some already occupied place in California owes them an appartment.
> Those not-dense places are as dense as they want to be.
By whose account? Last time I checked, owning property doesn’t get you extra votes, although real estate investors do spend a lot of money bribing politicians to make things that way. But all of California’s major cities are underbuilt relative to comparable global population centers though, so this is just a bullshit argument on its face.
Here's a few character flaws to consider: Making assumptions. Attacking the person instead of the argument. Saying "character flaws" in response to "does not agree with me".
I haven't said anything that depends on being falsifiable, unless you can say that Californias "housing crisis" is the result of the children of preexisting Californian residents, and/or that California does not allow any building anywhere.
But you can't say either of this things. If there are too many people in California, most of them are immigrants, and being unable to build housing in a particular place while being able to a few miles away is not a crisis, it's just something some people want, and I don't see how they have any special right to get what they want.
You can argue those points, but accusing me of nimbyism is not such an argument. It's just namecalling.
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-californ...
But why let that get in the way of all those immigrant monsters hiding in your closet?
I think this should be done very carefully. Everyone wants more housing but there are home inspectors on YouTube who document how much builders cut corners and try to gaslight people into thinking the damage is normal for new builds. See Cy Porter's channel as an example.
My overall point is that building booms don't necessarily = good. We get housing but also the pleasure of filing complaints and fighting with the builders over shoddy work. Is it worth it?
The regulation changes are not related to the quality or safety of a dwelling.
America’s housing stock has always been on the cheap side. Coming from the buildings in Europe, it all seems like flimsy stick construction anyway.
That's the thing, city inspectors (the government) sign off on these houses and third party inspectors come and find broken trusses in the attic. Sure, it didn't fall down but that's a serious structural issue. Not to mention all the water leaks from showers etc... that can cause mold issues later on.
The chinese are able to build hospitals in 2 weeks. In other places you build concrete houses at a 3rd of the cost and in 1/2 the time.
Tells you something about how much fat there is to cut.
Demand has driven up the cost of housing much more than $300/month, whether you're renting an apartment or buying a house. For most renters that's close to what their landlords profit on top of an over-leveraged mortgage or what they can save by buying if there was any affordable real estate.
Instead of slogans, it would be healthier to be honest and promote the paradigm that more houses necessarily means more error.
On a grand scale, the more you relax rules, the more you get of it, and the faster prices drop due to supply, but also the more bad actors are attracted to the mix.
The truth is, some developers will cut corners legitimately as a test of whether X process is necessary only to find out later that indeed it was needed.
But you need to accept error in the system because if you dont you end up with massive affordability problems, housing shortages, and homeless on the streets.
In construction the innovation improvements have been completely offset by the inefficiencies of the regulations incrementally imposed.
And, of course, when you talk about errors in the system you are mainly talking about the system itself - - which as anybody who has studied bureaucracies knows exist to support and extend itself, not to provide the service for which it was originally created
I would definitely take a reasonably priced fixer-upper over paying rent.
Because lets be honest that is the two realistic choices we have before us.