• ObamaBinLaden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    10 months ago

    Building houses to solve the housing crisis implies that the crisis was caused by a lack of homes. Every single one of the 2 million houses would be picked up by a property firm or a Chinese millionaire just the way it has been happening for the last ten years. What you really need is legislation, but what you are getting is more food for the hounds.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Supply and demand. Corporate interests will only buy homes when theres a profit incentive. A housing shortage makes great profit opportunities.

      If there are too many airbnbs so they don’t get rented, there’s no longer a profit. If there are enough houses that you can’t buy to flip at guaranteed markup, there goes the profit. If there’s enough houses that you’re not guaranteed a quick sale on your investment, there goes the profit. The point is there are limits on those ownership patterns so you can build your way out of it

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think the US needs more single family homes, I think we need more, or at least more affordable, multifamily housing. Suburbs are expensive, inefficient, and bad for the environment. What we need to be doing is bringing down the cost of housing in cities, as well as making cities as pedestrian friendly as possible, with walking and biking infrastructure, and public transportation.

    • callouscomic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      For us, the suburbs are cheaper than the cities. We basically have no choice. I have to work in the city but can’t afford to live there with a family. Mainly the rent/mortgage prices, and groceries. It’s all cheaper when I’m willing to drive 30-60 minutes outside of the city.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s rapidly changing all over the place. The question is now whether you want the suburb life and a commute or to live in the city with amenities. The prices are very similar now.

  • 555@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yeah but also charge less than $200k for a 3b 2b with a 2 car garage.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      A coworker just bought a 1.5 bath, 2 car garage, 3 bed for $500,000+ in Portland, basically no yard/outdoor area.

      • 555@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m in that city too. I’m sure it requires a lot of upgrading for that price.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    There are enough homes to house everyone, supply isn’t the problem, greed is.

  • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nope. Just need to force all landlords to sell. Make tax on rent ruinous. Tax additional homes. Make it illegal for corporations to own residential property.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The volume held by investment firms and the like is large in a sheer numbers sense, but virtually nothing in terms of its percentage of the whole sum of residential real estate.

      The fact is that we have been lagging in the supply side for decades and the Great Recession and then the COVID Pandemic cut new builds even more drastically. There simply isn’t supply available to address the demand at a reasonable and accessible price.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Even a small percentage is good. The situation is desperate.

        The fewer first time home owners that get out bid by corps the better. Doesn’t matter if it is a drop in the bucket.

        And that’s even before considering how it would help stop housing from being an investment vehicle.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    Property hoarding could be solved by quadrupling propert taxes on any home that isn’t a primary residence of the property owner.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I actually think the best solution would be the government to build a bunch of extra housing and crash the rental market with a two pronged supply approach:

    1. sell housing to first time home buyers at 50% off under the condition they don’t resale for 5 years and the government gets any value gains over the sale price for 10 years.

    2. triple the existing public housing stock while slashing requirements to get into public housing

  • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    “The US needs to reclaim 2 million houses from firms to revive the American dream of homeownership”

    Fixed. The housing exists, it’s just bought up so you can’t have it because they want more profit.

    Also fck HOAs and the horse they road in on.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      Home ownership is 65%.

      That’s 65% of homes are occupied by the owners, not 65% of the population owns their home.

      Those are wildly different things and people keep using the former in a likely attempt to portray the latter as much higher than it really is.

      In fact, that second statistic is impossible to find as every article or study from a mainstream or even semi mainstream source uses only the misleading one.

      Tl; dr:

      “How many homes are occupied by their owners” ≠ “How many people own their home”

      Addendum: That almost 35% of all homes are owned by someone who doesn’t live there shouldn’t be a point of pride…

        • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          That is the percentage of homes owned by the people living in them, not the percentage of Americans who own homes.

          Over a third (35%) of single family homes are owned by landlords, not by the people living in them. When a third of your single family homes are not owned by single families, then there is an issue.

          The 26% number another person used might be percentage of US adults who own a home, but I can’t find that number anywhere. The difference is most single family homes have 2 adults (or more) but is only “owned” by one of them. Or that is a statistic that uses multi-family housing where most of the families are renters.

          • ramble81@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Doesn’t technically the bank own it until you pay off your mortgage? I’d be curious how many have the titles to their house.

            • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              I had actually put that info in my post but deleted it. It’s around 34% that own their house outright without a loan.