S/O Capitalism/Humanity/Greed

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

I do not think it is and I do not think it should be. We need state and national parks for all our sakes. We need water ways and utilities for all our sakes. We need roads and other facilities (libraries, hospitals, fire stations…) that generally speaking are a cost loss but we can’t maintain modern civilization or progress civilization with them. All of this requires mandates for public lands vs private lands. 

more likely an amalgam of things with various checks and balances. Capitalism isn’t evil unless it’s left unchecked.  Same for socialism.

Personally I think this whole rugged individualism thing will be the end of many countries. 

And honestly it’s pure luck that isn’t us.   But it could be any of our kids. This stress is becoming more and more common for families.  And just like allowing insurance to cover kids until they are 26 doesn’t solve that problem bc not everyone has parents or grandparents they can move in with.  I’m all for multigenerational households in families that can make that work. But there’s nothing in our society set up to foster that dynamic either.

These are all excellent points. That last one is the one I am going to speak to that folks from other countries may not be aware that we have a LOT of zoning restrictions that pertain to it.

In a high percentage of municipalities, homes are zoned as single family residences. This means that another family cannot live with mom and dad or grandma and grandpa. Our area, one that is known for having a low number of restrictions, is one. When our adult college kids lived here, that was not an issue that the zoning board balked at. No one complained. However, if our Dd and sil came to stay with our grandsons, we would be violating the single family residence restriction, and the township, if it found out, would issue a 30 day eviction notice to them, and a large fine to us. They can visit for sure. Families can visit one another. They can't live together under the ordinance. This is very common. The US is not set up for multi-generational homes. When my parents lived with my grandmother long term until she could no longer stay in the home, they were in violation of the ordinance. The board chose not to do anything about it, and kind of looked at grandma as their "dependent", but they could have actually evicted granny. Sometimes this stuff gets overlooked, people just don't report and mind heir own business. But in neighborhoods with HOA's and busy bodies who go around snooping to see who is violating zoning ordinances, you can bet it is an issue.

On top of this, many states will reduce or take away benefits to an elder if other adults live with them. Such is the case for one of our honorary daughters. Her mom is disabled from a major stroke. She and hubby want to live with mama because it would be so much easier to supervise her care if they could, and sharing expenses would be a real financial boon to both mom, and the young couple. But if they move in with her, their income counts against her, and she loses a whole bunch of vital services/safety net which she desperately needs. So they can't live with her. It is literally the dumbest thing, just stupid. And actually, the state would save money because with them sharing expenses and living there, she wouldn't need as many hours of in home health/CNA and housekeeping services. It kind of staggers the imagination, the level of stupid in our bureaucracy!

So we could have dd, sil, and grandsons here for say a long visit...30 days. But if they were discovered here for longer, we could be in trouble with the zoning board. Here is the dumb thing. Since there are no restrictions against rental income, if we declared part of our home to be a rental and charged them, then they could be here as long as they wanted.

A guy down the road bought a house with five acres, and put a cottage on it for his mother in law. She is very, very poor. He has to show he is charging her some sort of rent (probably on paper, I can't imagine he actually collects money from her) in order for the township to allow her to live in it. He didn't think about the consequences of not subdividing the land so that the cottage sat on its own property therefore becoming an independent, single family residence.

Also, home owner's insurance in my county goes up considerably if you allow another family to live with you. Even though your home is set up as a single family residence, having another family automatically makes it a multifamily building. You can get away with not informing your insurance of the situation. That works. So long as nothing happens. But if you have a fire, tornado, etc. and make a claim and they discover the truth, you are in policy violation, and they do not have to cover any of the loss. It seems like a single young adult is still considered acceptable. They don't squawk about college kids, young adults getting launched, even an adult who never launches. But if that person moves a s/o or spouse in, or has kids, it becomes an issue in the long term.

Given what GenZ and Alpha face for housing crisis, we need some serious rethinking of zoning ordinances, housing laws, and cultural biases in order to make multi-generational homes a possibility in every township.

[SKL]

Be careful what you ask for.  Being able to restrict who you are selling to for the sake of the neighborhood has an unpleasant legacy, which is why it's generally illegal.

What percent of US living spaces have been converted from full-time family housing (not vacant dumps) to full-time STRs by mega real estate holders?  Is this really a issue worthy of blanket legislation?  Or does Congress have more pressing issues to address?

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Be careful what you ask for.  Being able to restrict who you are selling to for the sake of the neighborhood has an unpleasant legacy, which is why it's generally illegal.

What percent of US living spaces have been converted from full-time family housing (not vacant dumps) to full-time STRs by mega real estate holders?  Is this really a issue worthy of blanket legislation?  Or does Congress have more pressing issues to address?

According to Pew Trust, as of 2022, 1/4th of all single family residences are owned by investment companies. 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

According to Pew Trust, as of 2022, 1/4th of all single family residences are owned by investment companies. 

That doesn't mean they were converted from individually owned and operated dwellings.

Edited March 6 by SKL

[SKL]

The proportion of Americans owning homes has hovered around 2/3 for a pretty long time.  Meaning it's also pretty normal for about 1/3 of Americans to not own their own homes.  This is not a crisis.

[HomeAgain]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

The proportion of Americans owning homes has hovered around 2/3 for a pretty long time.  Meaning it's also pretty normal for about 1/3 of Americans to not own their own homes.  This is not a crisis.

Isn't this misleading when we factor in generation size to proportional home ownership?  As well as the percentage that neither own a home nor rent, but are effectively homeless due to lack of availability?

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Isn't this misleading when we factor in generation size to proportional home ownership?  As well as the percentage that neither own a home nor rent, but are effectively homeless due to lack of availability?

The number of owner occupied houses in the US has steadily increased over time.

Isn't it a bit much to demand that the government make more houses exist on account of our expectation to have more privately owned square footage?

[Bootsie]

8 hours ago, SHP said:

Is it just an American thing where people view their houses as nearly sacred spaces that they can do anything they want with and if anyone tells them otherwise then that person is a horrible evil person hell bent on stomping on their rights? I know far too many people with this mentality. They live in a house filled to the rafters with trash, the exterior siding crumbling, holes in the roof, and the entire thing posing a danger to the neighbors yet when they are told the house is uninhabitatable they scream about their rights and their house and no one can tell them what to do. Not even condemning the house will stop them from living their threatening everyone. 

 

No, it is not just an American thing.  

[maize]

4 hours ago, DawnM said:

I have not seen this (the bolded) can you elaborate?   Former educators are buying homes to rent them?   Is that what you are saying?   I am in education and haven't hear this, but maybe it is regional?

I do know several homeschoolers who have done this through the years.

She means people who educate about early retirement, not retired teachers.

The kinds of finance gurus who sell books and financial planning services. 

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The word "rights" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. "It protects every one of us to avoid taking rights away from people" is predicated on the assumption that the people getting screwed in this scenario have no rights to begin with, so the only "right" we need to be concerned about is the right of some people to hoard scarce resources in order to increase personal profit. 

Why should we prioritize the "right" of a small minority of people to own as many houses as they can snap up, and rent them for as much as they can get, while other people have zero "right" to even the most basic level of housing security, let alone the right to ever own a modest home of their own? Why should we prioritize the "right" of temporary tourists to stay in a single family home instead of a hotel, over the right of local workers to have an affordable place to live and raise their families?

This is not a system that "protects us all," this is a system that protects the "rights" of the Haves to continually profit from the poverty of the Have Nots — while blaming the Have Nots for not pulling their bootstraps hard enough. 

There is a difference in "right" and "ability". It is not that the person family does not have the right to purchase the house, it is that they do not have the ability to purchase the house.  Those are very different issues that need to be addressed differently.  

[frogger]

52 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

There is a difference in "right" and "ability". It is not that the person family does not have the right to purchase the house, it is that they do not have the ability to purchase the house.  Those are very different issues that need to be addressed differently.  

I do agree.

But I do believe the right to own a home has been inhibited especially by local governments. Zoning, emenient domain destroying homes for freeways, rules and regulations that increase costs, mandatory parking reqiirements all use government to purposefully and forcefully restrict supply. Everyone blames capitalism but it is always the most regulated industries that government has strangled that are the most expensive like housing and healthcare and often providers of housing and healthcare that are increasing supply are slammed by laws be it zoning for housing or con laws for hospitals. These are enacted by local homeowners or current health facilities that want to keep profits up and are willing to take away the rights of others to do so. 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

The number of owner occupied houses in the US has steadily increased over time.

Isn't it a bit much to demand that the government make more houses exist on account of our expectation to have more privately owned square footage?

It’s a valid question, but it’s one that was asked and answered in the 40s/50s. Should the answer be different today? Of course, at the time, it was mainly geared towards white families, so it has to be different in that aspect. But it was also geared toward everyday workers with single income households, so that’d be nice to uphold. 

[fraidycat]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Be careful what you ask for.  Being able to restrict who you are selling to for the sake of the neighborhood has an unpleasant legacy, which is why it's generally illegal.

What percent of US living spaces have been converted from full-time family housing (not vacant dumps) to full-time STRs by mega real estate holders?  Is this really a issue worthy of blanket legislation?  Or does Congress have more pressing issues to address?

You really are having your own conversation here, aren't you? First everyone hates business, and now we're restricting who houses are sold to? No.

The discussion is using zoned property for the type of usage it was zoned for.

Residential properties are ... residential. Not commercial. Not to be used for high-turnover business purposes. If corporations want to buy the house for LTR, then it is what it is. It's not an individual family owning, but at least it is long-term housing designed and zoned for that purpose.

@DawnM, I see someone upthread answered your question, but I just want to confirm that is what I meant. People who educate specifically about how to get financially independent and possibly retire early.

[Murphy101]

29 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

It’s a valid question, but it’s one that was asked and answered in the 40s/50s. Should the answer be different today? Of course, at the time, it was mainly geared towards white families, so it has to be different in that aspect. But it was also geared toward everyday workers with single income households, so that’d be nice to uphold. 

I do not think anyone has a right per se necessary to be a home owner.  But I do think the ability own where we live is a benefit to making people franchised in their communities and country. It offers a kind of freedom and stability that renting or share cropping fail to manage.

Now whether they buy a house or a condo or whatever. Or even an apartment - in many places there are ways to buy an apartment, not just rent it - I think especially for major cities this is something Americans should consider making an option more often.   But home ownership does tend to bring certain social positives for multiple generations that we should encourage.

For one thing, even if my children never move back to our house - knowing they can absolutely affects their decisions. Compare that to the grown children of renters. Or just to inherit something even if only to sell it. The ability to modify the home for medical needs. The ability to have a pet or a garden. A place to park the car that lowers insurance rates. There’s a lot of benefits to home ownership for individuals and communities. 

Edited March 6 by Murphy101

[SHP]

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

These are all excellent points. That last one is the one I am going to speak to that folks from other countries may not be aware that we have a LOT of zoning restrictions that pertain to it.

In a high percentage of municipalities, homes are zoned as single family residences. This means that another family cannot live with mom and dad or grandma and grandpa. Our area, one that is known for having a low number of restrictions, is one. When our adult college kids lived here, that was not an issue that the zoning board balked at. No one complained. However, if our Dd and sil came to stay with our grandsons, we would be violating the single family residence restriction, and the township, if it found out, would issue a 30 day eviction notice to them, and a large fine to us. They can visit for sure. Families can visit one another. They can't live together under the ordinance. This is very common. The US is not set up for multi-generational homes. When my parents lived with my grandmother long term until she could no longer stay in the home, they were in violation of the ordinance. The board chose not to do anything about it, and kind of looked at grandma as their "dependent", but they could have actually evicted granny. Sometimes this stuff gets overlooked, people just don't report and mind heir own business. But in neighborhoods with HOA's and busy bodies who go around snooping to see who is violating zoning ordinances, you can bet it is an issue.

On top of this, many states will reduce or take away benefits to an elder if other adults live with them. Such is the case for one of our honorary daughters. Her mom is disabled from a major stroke. She and hubby want to live with mama because it would be so much easier to supervise her care if they could, and sharing expenses would be a real financial boon to both mom, and the young couple. But if they move in with her, their income counts against her, and she loses a whole bunch of vital services/safety net which she desperately needs. So they can't live with her. It is literally the dumbest thing, just stupid. And actually, the state would save money because with them sharing expenses and living there, she wouldn't need as many hours of in home health/CNA and housekeeping services. It kind of staggers the imagination, the level of stupid in our bureaucracy!

So we could have dd, sil, and grandsons here for say a long visit...30 days. But if they were discovered here for longer, we could be in trouble with the zoning board. Here is the dumb thing. Since there are no restrictions against rental income, if we declared part of our home to be a rental and charged them, then they could be here as long as they wanted.

A guy down the road bought a house with five acres, and put a cottage on it for his mother in law. She is very, very poor. He has to show he is charging her some sort of rent (probably on paper, I can't imagine he actually collects money from her) in order for the township to allow her to live in it. He didn't think about the consequences of not subdividing the land so that the cottage sat on its own property therefore becoming an independent, single family residence.

Also, home owner's insurance in my county goes up considerably if you allow another family to live with you. Even though your home is set up as a single family residence, having another family automatically makes it a multifamily building. You can get away with not informing your insurance of the situation. That works. So long as nothing happens. But if you have a fire, tornado, etc. and make a claim and they discover the truth, you are in policy violation, and they do not have to cover any of the loss. It seems like a single young adult is still considered acceptable. They don't squawk about college kids, young adults getting launched, even an adult who never launches. But if that person moves a s/o or spouse in, or has kids, it becomes an issue in the long term.

Given what GenZ and Alpha face for housing crisis, we need some serious rethinking of zoning ordinances, housing laws, and cultural biases in order to make multi-generational homes a possibility in every township.

We are zone single family. Multi family is very very specific and means the building has a second "kitchen" which is like a sink and something to cook on. The mean a stove but it is so open ended that technically I cannot set up a hot plate in my bathroom. Not that I would, but I am sure someone somewhere has.

Anyway, I can have as many unrelated people living here as I want as long as I don't have a second kitchen and am in compliance with the single family zoning. Roommates are not illegal here. 

The laws are completely different for a friend in a different state. Their law is written to be no more than X unrelated people living together. So no roomates. But grandma can live there, so can an adult child and their family as long as everyone is related. Married child with stepchild yes, unmarried child with partner's child, no. This was done specifically to target the homesharing trend, specifically a website that does only this. 

What is the homesharing trend? Glad you asked! It is basically dorm style living in a house. Residents have a private room they can lock and share the kitchen and livingroom. Bathrooms may or may not be private. 

[SHP]

The homesharing trend is different than just having a roommate. The houses are often converted to make as many bedrooms as possible without  consideration for safety, like tenements

[SHP]

6 hours ago, DawnM said:

I have not seen this (the bolded) can you elaborate?   Former educators are buying homes to rent them?   Is that what you are saying?   I am in education and haven't hear this, but maybe it is regional?

I do know several homeschoolers who have done this through the years.

I don't see how educators in this country can afford to buy a home, let alone enough to make a profit. 

[Murphy101]

Even when the zoning doesn’t limit family living together - there’s other ways it’s actively discouraged.

For example there may be a limit to cars per dwelling. I have a friend whose HOA doesn’t allow any cars to be parked in the street overnight and no commercial vehicles in driveways or street unless in use. So the plumber can park his van there if he is working on the house, but he has to park it in his garage if he lives there. The fine is not small either. Iirc it starts at $50 per day/incursion.  Somewhere with transit might not be an issue but here if there’s 4 adults and a teen driver - that’s very commonly going to mean 4-5 cars and the house only has 2 garage slots and maybe 2 driveway spots. Somebody is unable to park their car. 

There’s other social economic issues too.  Car insurance for another. Many insurance companies presume that all drivers in the household have to be on each car in the household. You would not believe what I have had to go through to prove that a grown kid moved out and should not be on our insurance. We had two policies refuse to renew unless I added those grown and moved out adults or proved that they both moved out and had their own insurance. I think it should be illegal but as always, we have no rights we can’t afford to defend.  Thankfully I’m on decent terms with most of my grown children and could provide that info. Bc otherwise - how do you make a grown adult give you proof of anything?!

which brings me to my complaint about FAFSA… but that’s another topic. 

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, SHP said:

The homesharing trend is different than just having a roommate. The houses are often converted to make as many bedrooms as possible without  consideration for safety, like tenements

Yeah. It can be a fine line between a reputable hostel and just glorified tenements. I agree with that. 

[KSera]

5 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

In a high percentage of municipalities, homes are zoned as single family residences. This means that another family cannot live with mom and dad or grandma and grandpa. Our area, one that is known for having a low number of restrictions, is one. When our adult college kids lived here, that was not an issue that the zoning board balked at. No one complained. However, if our Dd and sil came to stay with our grandsons, we would be violating the single family residence restriction, and the township, if it found out, would issue a 30 day eviction notice to them, and a large fine to us. They can visit for sure. Families can visit one another. They can't live together under the ordinance. This is very common. The US is not set up for multi-generational homes.

I have never seen this. Single family zoning typically means no condos or other housing setups with more than one separate dwelling on a single piece of land. Multi family is different than multi-generational. I'm interested to see if this is the case that there are places where related family members can not live in the same house if they are not the same generation. The complaints I see usually relate to multi family housing zoning restrictions, but I can't find any place that doesn't allow multiple generations of the same family.

It's true that social security benefits [eta: specifically SSI] become more complicated when people share a household, which is frustrating. Benefits are reduced by an amount if housing is provided and the benefit recipient isn't paying for their share of housing.

Edited March 6 by KSera
Clarifying which benefits

[Pawz4me]

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

It's true that social security and other benefits become more complicated when people share a household, which is frustrating. Benefits are reduced by an amount if housing is provided and the benefit recipient isn't paying for their share of housing.

Just for clarity -- That might apply to SSI (I'm not knowledgeable about that). It doesn't apply for SSDI or traditional SS retirement benefits.

[KSera]

12 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Just for clarity -- That might apply to SSI (I'm not knowledgeable about that). It doesn't apply for SSDI or traditional SS retirement benefits.

SSI is the one I’ve dealt with. I’m still trying to figure out if and when to have a disabled kid pay some rent in order to optimize future benefits. If I recall incorrectly, I believe it reduces their payment up to a third. That’s like from $900 something a month down to $600 something as the max payment if they’re not paying rent. Since fair market rent would be more than $300 around here, I’m not sure it’s worth having them pay. It might just be better for them to take the reduction.

eta: it’s good to hear it doesn’t apply that way to SSDI

Edited March 6 by KSera

[SHP]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

SSI is the one I’ve dealt with. I’m still trying to figure out if and when to have a disabled kid pay some rent in order to optimize future benefits. If I recall incorrectly, I believe it reduces their payment up to a third. That’s like from $900 something a month down to $600 something as the max payment if they’re not paying rent. Since fair market rent would be more than $300 around here, I’m not sure it’s worth having them pay. It might just be better for them to take the reduction.

eta: it’s good to hear it doesn’t apply that way to SSDI

Fair market is different than their share of the expenses. If you bought your house way back when and have a lower mortgage then $300 might be more than enough to cover their share of expenses. I have no clue what the current rules are for it though

[SHP]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

 You would not believe what I have had to go through to prove that a grown kid moved out and should not be on our insurance. We had two policies refuse to renew unless I added those grown and moved out adults or proved that they both moved out and had their own insurance. I think it should be illegal but as always, we have no rights we can’t afford to defend.  Thankfully I’m on decent terms with most of my grown children and could provide that info. Bc otherwise - how do you make a grown adult give you proof of anything?!

 

Odd. We just put a rider on our policy that specific adultlings were not allowed to drive specific cars.

[Lady Florida.]

I live in a town where short term rentals such as VRBO and Airbnb are prohibited and affordable housing is still an issue. Housing prices here are starting to come down but are still way overinflated. Young people are priced out of either renting or owning. 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

I live in a town where short term rentals such as VRBO and Airbnb are prohibited and affordable housing is still an issue. Housing prices here are starting to come down but are still way overinflated. Young people are priced out of either renting or owning. 

They aren’t the *whole* problem, that’s for sure. But like anything else, there is a domino effect. My neighborhood (like an HOA) prohibits STRs. My old neighborhood (also like an HOA) basically encourages them. Their home prices and availability still impact the prices and availability over here when it comes to non-STR buyers. 

[Happy2BaMom]

On 3/5/2024 at 2:06 PM, Condessa said:

I would much rather increase affordable housing options through other means than by restricting the property rights of individuals who have already acquired homes.  (In my region, specifically, I think that the government should increase the supply of affordable property by gradually selling down their excess land holdings).  

I do not think any government should (further) restrict property rights of individuals who own & live in their own single family home/property. I disagree that government should be limited from restricting those individuals or corporations who own multiple homes (of any sort). I do think those restrictions should be driven by state and local governments, to allow more localized decision making, but citizens have little recourse to control STRs & corporate ownership other than through government.

I'm curious - exactly what excess land holdings are you referring to? The only excess land most towns hold are parks. Ditto for states, albeit there are also state forests. As far as federal lands, there are some states where the feds hold a lot of land, but much of that land is designated as National Forest, Wilderness Refuge, and/or BLM land. Most of the land the federal government holds are in the western states and much of the land is not near a population center, so it's not going to help anyone looking for housing near a city.

Not to mention that what you're really talking about is taking the last bits of green or open space that remain and allowing them to be carved up and paved over.

 

 

Edited March 6 by Happy2BaMom

[Rosie_0801]

6 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I do not think anyone has a right per se necessary to be a home owner.  But I do think the ability own where we live is a benefit to making people franchised in their communities and country. It offers a kind of freedom and stability that renting or share cropping fail to manage.

Article 17 of the Declaration of Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Apparently it is a right. A theoretical sort of right anyway.

As to the rest of your quote here, I agree. Back in the day, our federal government sold off public housing for exactly those reasons. That was great and would've worked well a few more times if only successive governments had built more.

[Condessa]

3 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

I do not think any government should (further) restrict property rights of individuals who own & live in their own single family home/property. I disagree that government should be limited from restricting those individuals or corporations who own multiple homes (of any sort). I do think those restrictions should be driven by state and local governments, to allow more localized decision making, but citizens have little recourse to control STRs & corporate ownership other than through government.

I'm curious - exactly what excess land holdings are you referring to? The only excess land most towns hold are parks. Ditto for states, albeit there are also state forests. As far as federal lands, there are some states where the feds hold a lot of land, but much of that land is designated as National Forest, Wilderness Refuge, and/or BLM land. Most of the land the federal government holds are in the western states and much of the land is not near a population center, so it's not going to help anyone looking for housing near a city.

Not to mention that what you're really talking about is taking the last bits of green or open space that remain and allowing them to be carved up and paved over.

The federal government owns the majority of the land in my state.  (They own 47% of all land in the western states).  I am totally in favor of the government maintaining national and state parks, but most of this land in my area is not in the form of parks that the public can make use of.  It is mostly vast tracts of land managed by the BLM or the forest service, usually rented out for use by private ranchers as grazing here or to logging companies near our old town for profit.  In our neighboring state, these vast government lands lie right on the edge of the state capitol which has been undergoing exponential growth in recent years.  Within twenty minutes' drive of my town in more than one direction, I can reach vast tracts of government land that take hours to drive through.  It is not the most desirable locations, but neither is it useless or so out of the way that no one would be interested in buying it, rather it is identical to the privately owned lands of ranches and smaller, affordable outlying communities like ours.  The government lands near my old town on the other side of the state would actually be very desirable based on their proximity to desirable locations and are close to an area with an extreme housing crunch, but it is also very profitable to the government through the logging industry.  I am not talking about the last bits of green or open space, but places where there is far more open space than there is land owned privately.

I recognise that this is a regional issue that doesn't apply in many other areas, but in much of the western U.S., government held lands are a huge factor in keeping the housing supply limited.

Edited March 7 by Condessa

[Heartstrings]

29 minutes ago, Condessa said:

The federal government owns the majority of the land in my state.  (They own 47% of all land in the western states).  I am totally in favor of the government maintaining national and state parks, but most of this land in my area is not in the form of parks that the public can make use of.  It is mostly vast tracts of land managed by the BLM or the forest service, usually rented out for use by private ranchers as grazing here or to logging companies near our old town for profit.  In our neighboring state, these vast government lands lie right on the edge of the state capitol which has been undergoing exponential growth in recent years.  Within twenty minutes' drive of my town in more than one direction, I can reach vast tracts of government land that take hours to drive through.  It is not the most desirable locations, but neither is it useless or so out of the way that no one would be interested in buying it, rather it is identical to the privately owned lands of ranches and smaller, affordable outlying communities like ours.  The government lands near my old town on the other side of the state would actually be very desirable based on their proximity to desirable locations and are close to an area with an extreme housing crunch, but it is also very profitable to the government through the logging industry.  I am not talking about the last bits of green or open space, but places where there is far more open space than there is land owned privately.

I recognise that this is a regional issue that doesn't apply in many other areas, but in much of the western U.S., government held lands are a huge factor in keeping the housing supply limited.

But where will we hide the UFOs and aliens? 👽 

[Lady Florida.]

7 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

They aren’t the *whole* problem, that’s for sure. But like anything else, there is a domino effect. My neighborhood (like an HOA) prohibits STRs. My old neighborhood (also like an HOA) basically encourages them. Their home prices and availability still impact the prices and availability over here when it comes to non-STR buyers. 

I definitely agree.

[Carrie12345]

7 hours ago, Condessa said:

 

I recognise that this is a regional issue that doesn't apply in many other areas, but in much of the western U.S., government held lands are a huge factor in keeping the housing supply limited.

Quoting not to address the specific scenario given, but a jumping point. 

The majority of the land area in my township is owned by the conservation district and another government entity for supplying water to other areas. This is frustrating to our local government because it restricts our tax base. BUT, a large portion of that land is unbuildable, and the area around it would negatively impact those wetlands if built up.

Anyway, I’m just saying I support building more affordable housing, but not all raw land can be considered for that purpose. We know enough now that we shouldn’t be bulldozing giant swaths for large houses on postage stamp lots, but some places allow it anyway.  It’d be cool to see some quaint apartments go up instead of more strip malls or warehouses. Or  a tract of 20 moderate homes on a half acre each rather than 10 expensive houses on an acre each.   
(Typical lot sizes for my area, to accommodate septic and well.)

 

[Happy2BaMom]

8 hours ago, Condessa said:

The federal government owns the majority of the land in my state.  (They own 47% of all land in the western states).  I am totally in favor of the government maintaining national and state parks, but most of this land in my area is not in the form of parks that the public can make use of.  It is mostly vast tracts of land managed by the BLM or the forest service, usually rented out for use by private ranchers as grazing here or to logging companies near our old town for profit.  In our neighboring state, these vast government lands lie right on the edge of the state capitol which has been undergoing exponential growth in recent years.  Within twenty minutes' drive of my town in more than one direction, I can reach vast tracts of government land that take hours to drive through.  It is not the most desirable locations, but neither is it useless or so out of the way that no one would be interested in buying it, rather it is identical to the privately owned lands of ranches and smaller, affordable outlying communities like ours.  The government lands near my old town on the other side of the state would actually be very desirable based on their proximity to desirable locations and are close to an area with an extreme housing crunch, but it is also very profitable to the government through the logging industry.  I am not talking about the last bits of green or open space, but places where there is far more open space than there is land owned privately.

I recognise that this is a regional issue that doesn't apply in many other areas, but in much of the western U.S., government held lands are a huge factor in keeping the housing supply limited.

National Forests (30% of federal holdings & only 8% of total US land) supply ~3 Billion board feet of timber per year (mandated for use in the US), with hunting, mining, drilling and fracking also allowed. One can argue about the appropriateness of those uses, but the US has no other domestic sources to replace them. National Forests are also a significant source of recreation for many, many other people, and one of the few places left in the US for wildlife (whose populations are universally crashing) to continue to try and exist.

The state you're most likely referring to is Idaho (& it's capitol, Boise), with the Boise National Forest lying just outside. The BNF is a major source of recreation & tourism dollars for the Boise area, as well as the other products mentioned above. I'm sure there is some percentage of people willing to chop it into little parcels for suburban development and ranchettes, but it would also permanently remove that land (& the important economic & social benefits it supplies) from many in Idaho, as well as the rest of the US public.

I disagree that government held lands are a "huge factor" in keeping the housing supply limited in the West. Here's a breakdown/map of all federal land holdings in the US. The majority of it is in low & lower-populated areas. Much of it is BLM land, located in rural desert (& semi-desert) areas, but which still provide significant benefits to the US public.

To me, expecting public lands (that provide ongoing economic & social benefits to the US as a whole) to be sold to benefit a very few private individuals, constitutes a form of entitlement.

The US has one of the lowest housing densities in the entire world. Much of the housing crisis could be solved through building higher-density housing units, but we lack the will and don't want to face the fact that an ever-expanding population (>200,000 net people each day on earth, and >1 million new people each year in the US) on a planet and in a country with finite space will require many to live in high-density units. 

(Side note: for the curious, remaining federal lands are held by Fish & Wildlife (from memory, ~14%), the National Parks, the military, and a few random other entities.)

 

Edited March 7 by Happy2BaMom
grammar

[SHP]

3 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

National Forests (30% of federal holdings & only 8% of total US land) supply ~3 Billion board feet of timber per year (mandated for use in the US), with hunting, mining, drilling and fracking also allowed. One can argue about the appropriateness of those uses, but the US has no other domestic sources to replace them. National Forests are also a significant source of recreation for many, many other people, and one of the few places left in the US for wildlife (whose populations are universally crashing) to continue to try and exist.

The US has one of the lowest housing densities in the entire world. Much of the housing crisis could be solved through building higher-density housing units, but we lack the will and don't want to face the fact that an ever-expanding population (>200,000 net people each day on earth, and >1 million new people each year in the US) on a planet and in a country with finite space will require many to live in high-density units. 

 

 

There are problems with building high density. Big box stores tend to avoid those areas or their prices are insanely high. There isn't enough parking for mom, dad, and 2 teens to all have their own cars.

People want their Target and to be able to drive there and park reasonably close. People do not want to pay an extra 40% for a grocery store that is a mile a way and easy to access via bus. They would rather drive 30 minutes to get the better price. 

By people I mean white people. 

 

[SHP]

The only reason there is interest in the housing crisis is because middle class white people are impacted. No one cared about the struggles of black and brown people in relation to housing that have been an issue for decades.

There I said it. 

[SKL]

I was listening to someone chatting on the internet yesterday (yeah, I know, the internet, but he's a well-known guy with some credibility though I won't name him for other reasons).

He said that regulations against building smaller houses is a significant reason why younger adults can't afford to buy homes these days.  Is there any validity to this?  If so, that ought to be a fairly easy fix in areas where the need is great.

[Murphy101]

57 minutes ago, SHP said:

There are problems with building high density. Big box stores tend to avoid those areas or their prices are insanely high. There isn't enough parking for mom, dad, and 2 teens to all have their own cars.

People want their Target and to be able to drive there and park reasonably close. People do not want to pay an extra 40% for a grocery store that is a mile a way and easy to access via bus. They would rather drive 30 minutes to get the better price. 

By people I mean white people. 

 

Are there non-white people who wouldn’t do that?

And it’s not like NYC and Houston and LA don’t have Targets.  What they also have is a transit system and more pedestrian city planning.

Most city planning is a PITA bc of cars. This is a universal city planning pita regardless of country or demographic.

Most of the comments I hear and read for why things will “hurt property value and shouldn’t be done” is not about race but poverty. How dare them poor people bring their crime here if we put a transit stop nearby type of comments.  The poor in that area might tend to have darker skin, but it really wouldn’t matter if they were Snow White. Because the attitude is that poverty is dirty and they don’t want to see that dirt in their neighborhood. Because the attitude is that poorer people are poor because they somehow deserve it and so the poor haven’t earned the right to such social improvements.

I’m not saying racism isn’t real bc obviously it is.

But also. Why slap the hands stretched out to help positively change things just bc some of the hands might be too pale?

[Murphy101]

36 minutes ago, SKL said:

I was listening to someone chatting on the internet yesterday (yeah, I know, the internet, but he's a well-known guy with some credibility though I won't name him for other reasons).

He said that regulations against building smaller houses is a significant reason why younger adults can't afford to buy homes these days.  Is there any validity to this?  If so, that ought to be a fairly easy fix in areas where the need is great.

I don’t think so. Bc a tiny house still needs more property. The cheapest way to build is to build UP.  Same allotment of land but going up allows more home space.  Tiny homes also contribute to urban sprawl bc they aren’t likely to have access to already developed land in the city due to cost of property, so they tend to be on the outskirts away from easier access to city options.

However I think city planning could work with developers in many cities to offer small home options that might not necessarily bc the American traditional house. For example, a small store owner could build housing for his family above his store. (Most zoning here currently in the books doesn’t allow for such a combination. Tho some areas are starting to be more open to it.) Rent it or use it.  Sell it separate from the store. The ability to buy a condo doesn’t have to be restricted to condos. It could be apartments too. So instead of a shopping center away from where people live, there’s places for people to live and have easy access to nearby stores. Green ways and dog parks nearby. 

Tiny homes or garage apartments are fine but I don’t think millions of them are a sustainable or socially good option. Humans aren’t meant to live in isolation and those living accommodations tend towards individuals bc there’s not space for more than 1 person. Which small apartments might be like that too, but they usually are within city access and not so isolated. 

Edited March 7 by Murphy101

[Heartstrings]

12 minutes ago, SKL said:

I was listening to someone chatting on the internet yesterday (yeah, I know, the internet, but he's a well-known guy with some credibility though I won't name him for other reasons).

He said that regulations against building smaller houses is a significant reason why younger adults can't afford to buy homes these days.  Is there any validity to this?  If so, that ought to be a fairly easy fix in areas where the need is great.

I would say he is right.  A lot of places have square footage minimums, which make houses more expensive.    In places where it isn’t required it’s usually that way anyway because builders choose to build bigger houses that are more profitable for them, which is rational on the builders part.  We just need to figure out how to incentivize them to also build smaller homes that are affordable for an average family.

 
There are lots of complaints that young people want it all on day one, but there really aren’t a lot of smaller starter homes available and those that are usually bought by investors to use as rentals or are in such poor condition that the investors won’t buy them.   

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

How dare them poor people bring their crime here if we put a transit stop nearby type of comments.

Disappointing to hear that’s not just here. That’s precisely what I hear about expanding transit here. People are terrified people from the city will make it out to their house and commit crimes.  

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Because the attitude is that poorer people are poor because they somehow deserve it and so the poor haven’t earned the right to such social improvements.

So much of this. They are certain that if poor people had just done things the way they did things, they wouldn’t be poor. The judgement I hear about poverty (and most especially the homeless kind of poverty) is horrible. They don’t want to see people living in the streets and in parks (nor do I), but they also don’t think we should spend any money to get people housed, because that feels unfair to them. I can only conclude they’d just like the people to stop existing altogether so they neither have to see nor help them. 

[Heartstrings]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

I don’t think so. Bc a tiny house still needs more property. The cheapest way to build is to build UP.  Same allotment of land but going up allows more home space.  Tiny homes also contribute to urban sprawl bc they aren’t likely to have access to already developed land in the city due to cost of property, so they tend to be on the outskirts away from easier access to city options.

However I think city planning could work with developers in many cities to offer small home options that might not necessarily bc the American traditional house. For example, a small store owner could build housing for his family above his store. (Most zoning here currently in the books doesn’t allow for such a combination. Tho some areas are starting to be more open to it.) Rent it or use it.  Sell it separate from the store. The ability to buy a condo doesn’t have to be restricted to condos. It could be apartments too. So instead of a shopping center away from where people live, there’s places for people to live and have easy access to nearby stores. Green ways and dog parks nearby. 

Tiny homes or garage apartments are fine but I don’t think millions of them are not a sustainable or socially good option. Humans aren’t meant to live in isolation and those living accommodations tend towards individuals bc there’s not space for more than 1 person. Which small apartments might be like that too, but they usually are within city access and not so isolated. 

A lot of cities don’t allow tiny homes, period, not even if you already own the land.  

[Murphy101]

5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

A lot of cities don’t allow tiny homes, period, not even if you already own the land.  

Right. And I’m not entirely in disagreement with them pending the type of zoning they have. I think zoning should be a hot mix of type and sizes all within a 3-5 mile area. Within that 3-4 mile are should be big expensive-ish homes, smaller 1000sq ft houses, upscale appartments and Lowe scale apartments, parks and playgrounds, basic shopping, pedestrian access everywhere and several transit stops.  I also see little value in putty a tiny 400sq fr house on a normal sized lot. And I think building codes are legit worries. How is the local EMT going to get someone out of that place if they need help? I look at a lot of tiny houses and think, “That’s cute until they break a leg.”  

Edited March 7 by Murphy101

[SHP]

21 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Are there non-white people who wouldn’t do that?

And it’s not like NYC and Houston and LA don’t have Targets.  What they also have is a transit system and more pedestrian city planning.

Most city planning is a PITA bc of cars. This is a universal city planning pita regardless of country or demographic.

Most of the comments I hear and read for why things will “hurt property value and shouldn’t be done” is not about race but poverty. How dare them poor people bring their crime here if we put a transit stop nearby type of comments.  The poor in that area might tend to have darker skin, but it really wouldn’t matter if they were Snow White. Because the attitude is that poverty is dirty and they don’t want to see that dirt in their neighborhood. Because the attitude is that poorer people are poor because they somehow deserve it and so the poor haven’t earned the right to such social improvements.

I’m not saying racism isn’t real bc obviously it is.

But also. Why slap the hands stretched out to help positively change things just bc some of the hands might be too pale?

Poverty is code for black and brown people from people who don't want to sound racist.

White people policies ensured generational poverty of minorities and they used housing restrictions to do it. 

 

I am 100% positive that the black people who have been working for the past two decades (that I have been aware) for grocery stores in their neighborhoods would love reliable transit and closer stores, like Target, let's pick on Target since I have to go there today. Target doesn't want to go to Those Places. If they did they would already be there. 

The public transit and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure here is halfway decent when serving the white areas. The poor/brown/black/disabled areas? Not so much. I have noticed this in other places as well, if I am frustrated with how infrequent and unreliable a bus is you can bet when I finally board one that there aren't any white people on it.

[SKL]

25 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I don’t think so. Bc a tiny house still needs more property. The cheapest way to build is to build UP.  Same allotment of land but going up allows more home space.  Tiny homes also contribute to urban sprawl bc they aren’t likely to have access to already developed land in the city due to cost of property, so they tend to be on the outskirts away from easier access to city options.

However I think city planning could work with developers in many cities to offer small home options that might not necessarily bc the American traditional house. For example, a small store owner could build housing for his family above his store. (Most zoning here currently in the books doesn’t allow for such a combination. Tho some areas are starting to be more open to it.) Rent it or use it.  Sell it separate from the store. The ability to buy a condo doesn’t have to be restricted to condos. It could be apartments too. So instead of a shopping center away from where people live, there’s places for people to live and have easy access to nearby stores. Green ways and dog parks nearby. 

Tiny homes or garage apartments are fine but I don’t think millions of them are a sustainable or socially good option. Humans aren’t meant to live in isolation and those living accommodations tend towards individuals bc there’s not space for more than 1 person. Which small apartments might be like that too, but they usually are within city access and not so isolated. 

I don't think they were talking about "tiny" homes.  I think they meant the more traditional size that regular people used to own in the mid-20th century.

[Condessa]

5 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

I disagree that government held lands are a "huge factor" in keeping the housing supply limited in the West. Here's a breakdown/map of all federal land holdings in the US. The majority of it is in low & lower-populated areas. Much of it is BLM land, located in rural desert (& semi-desert) areas, but which still provide significant benefits to the US public.

To me, expecting public lands (that provide ongoing economic & social benefits to the US as a whole) to be sold to benefit a very few private individuals, constitutes a form of entitlement.

So restricted housing supply driving prices up is a terrible crisis that we desperately need to address when you see STRs as a driving factor of the restricted supply, but when the restriction is driven by the federal government holding that land for renting out to businesses for profit, this is a non issue?  Restricting individuals from using second homes for income purposes so as to make more homes available at lower prices is a great public good for those most disenfranchised, but restricting the government from holding the majority of the land for income purposes to make more property available at lower prices is "benefit[ing] a very few private individuals, constitut[ing] a form of entitlement"? 

Make up your mind.  Are the people who would be helped by increasing affordable housing supply (by whatever means) a very few private individuals seeking entitlement, or are they a significant portion of the population that needs help to overcome current disadvantages?  

[Condessa]

6 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

The US has one of the lowest housing densities in the entire world. Much of the housing crisis could be solved through building higher-density housing units, but we lack the will and don't want to face the fact that an ever-expanding population (>200,000 net people each day on earth, and >1 million new people each year in the US) on a planet and in a country with finite space will require many to live in high-density units. 

I agree with you on this point.  I think that a lot of good would be done by removing many residential zoning restrictions that restrict higher-density housing from being built in many areas.  People who dislike higher density housing and want to live in neighborhoods without it nearby could still choose neighborhoods with CC&Rs restricting that, and all other residential property owners could have the option of building several smaller dwellings, or duplexes, or adding a tiny home to the yard, or tearing houses down to build apartments, or taking in several roommates, and the supply of affordable housing would increase.  This is especially a great option to increase the housing supply in higher population centers.

Edited March 7 by Condessa

[Corraleno]

53 minutes ago, SKL said:

I was listening to someone chatting on the internet yesterday (yeah, I know, the internet, but he's a well-known guy with some credibility though I won't name him for other reasons).

He said that regulations against building smaller houses is a significant reason why younger adults can't afford to buy homes these days.  Is there any validity to this?  If so, that ought to be a fairly easy fix in areas where the need is great.

In theory, he's correct that many places have minimum sq' requirements that preclude smaller homes, but in reality that is not why builders are not building smaller homes. There is currently a shortage of more than 5 million homes in the US, and there is pent up demand at all levels of size/price, so of course builders are going to build the houses that are most profitable for them, which are large, high-end homes. They are not going to build small, more affordable homes without some kind of incentive, like requiring developers to build a certain number of affordable units in return for approving projects with lots of large expensive homes.

In my city, where there is desperate need for affordable housing, the only two types of building projects I see happening right now are huge new apartment complexes near the city center and McMansions being built on tiny lots near the edges of town where there is still land to build on. The apartments will at least provide housing close to jobs (and we do have very good public transit here), but won't really solve the problem of no starter homes for young families. You'd have to go pretty far west or south of here to find a 50-60 year old 1000 sq' foot starter home for under half a million — and then you'd probably need a real estate agent to tip you off before it gets listed, because rental companies are snapping those up for cash with no contingencies and turning them into rentals.

[Carol in Cal.]

I’m not sure that building ‘up’ makes much sense where civil services like electricity are intermittent.

I live in Silicon Valley, and when we had several day power outages last month there were apartment buildings where the water supply stopped immediately because to generate enough pressure to get the water to the higher floors required electrically powered pumps, unbeknownst to just about everyone.  

The last time there was a semi major earthquake here, the power plant that supplied the whole area was knocked out.  Power was restored within a day or so, IIRC, but that was only because a Major Tech Company happened to have a lot of kerosene powered generators, enough to power the whole county, and volunteered to apply them to that purpose for a while.  Otherwise the power would have been out for several weeks.  

I once read a description of what would happen in downtown SF if there was a truly major earthquake.  All the high rises would have their windows broken out.  The streets would be full of broken glass, to a depth of 30 feet in some areas downtown, and impassible.  Meanwhile there would be no water supply to the stranded people inside and no reasonable way to evacuate them.

[Corraleno]

The crazy high cost of both renting and owning right now really goes back to the 2008 financial crisis, when new building plummeted and private equity firms and hedge funds took advantage of the crisis by snapping up a lot of cheap houses (more than 3 million foreclosures in 2008 alone), turning them into rentals, and now we have a new explosion in converting single family homes to STR. It will be many years before builders are able to catch up to the demand for home ownership, and of course they're going to start by building the houses that make them the most money.

[Corraleno]

Research from Purdue University on the impact of STRs on local housing costs — and note that the data in this research was from 2014-2017, so the situation is much worse now:

"What Does Airbnb Do to the Local Housing Market? Make It Less Affordable

Home-sharing platforms, particularly Airbnb, have enjoyed tremendous growth over the last decade, as property owners have capitalized on the opportunity to offer rooms, apartments and entire homes to travelers seeking short-term rentals. The proliferation of Airbnb properties has sparked criticism that Airbnb hosts are snatching up homes that would otherwise be listed in the residential rental or housing market, thus reducing supply and driving up prices.

But is this really happening? Does home sharing make it less affordable to rent or buy homes in a particular market? Indeed, it does, according to research by Zaiyan Wei, assistant professor in Krannert School of Management, and his co-authors, Wei Chen of University of Arizona and Karen Xie of University of Denver. They found that in three U.S cities where Airbnb had implemented a policy to restrict hosts to a single address, rents and home values dropped by about 3 percent. "Airbnb is indeed making the real estate market more expensive," Wei says.

By enriching its hosts while making housing less affordable for others, Airbnb and other home-sharing platforms may be compromising public affordability for private wealth, the research suggests. "It's going to increase the gap between the rich and the poor," Wei says. "It's going to make inequality a little worse."

The researchers used a unique quasi-experiment on Airbnb—a platform policy that capped the number of properties a host could manage in certain cities—to explore how home sharing affects local residential markets.

Airbnb announced its so-called "one host, one home" policy for New York City and San Francisco in April 2016 and implemented it seven months later. In February 2017, it implemented the same policy in Portland, without a prior announcement. The policy induced hosts with listings at more than one address to place the extra properties in local residential markets, while deterring them from taking other properties off the market. These conditions gave the researchers an opportunity to study the impact of Airbnb on the long-term rental and for-sale housing market.

To conduct their study, they created a comparison group of zip codes from cities that were similar to the three policy-affected cities but had not been affected by the policy. Their main sample included more than 400 zip codes from ten cities across the U.S., including New York City, San Francisco and Portland.

They studied data from Airbnb, residential platform Zillow and a third-party real estate information company over a period of almost three years (October 2014 to July 2017).

They found that the "one host, one home" policy led to a drop in both rents and home values in the affected zip codes. Rents declined by 1.2 percent and home values by 1.7 percent when the policy was announced, and rents dropped by 2.3 percent and home values by 1.3 percent when the policy was implemented.

"People either choose to buy a house or to find a place to rent, so these two markets are connected," Wei says. "In equilibrium, these two markets should stay relatively stable. The policy shouldn't affect one market more than the other one."They also found that the policy increased the supply in both the rental and housing market, and also increased equilibrium quantities (the number of homes rented or sold) in a similar magnitude.

Exploring how the policy affected the supply of properties listed on Airbnb, they found that the number of properties of "multi-listing" hosts —those who manage properties at different addresses—shrank significantly, as would be expected. In contrast, properties managed by single-listing hosts—those who have a property at only one address on Airbnb—seemed to increase. These new listings, however, are primarily shared or private rooms, which are less likely to have been taken off residential markets.

The study shows that home sharing has become a major alternative for real estate investment and has a significant impact on housing affordability. Noting that platforms have the ability to self-govern—as Airbnb has done in New York City, San Francisco and Portland—the researchers suggest that platforms should be "mindful of unexpected societal impact" and should "proactively self-govern for goodwill."

https://business.purdue.edu/news/features/?research=7145