Not a single person who has lived in my duplex since I bought it can afford to buy me out for what I’ve got in it, let alone what I could get on the open market.
That’s because of land lords. You are the problem. People could afford to buy a house on a working class income in my parent’s generation. But now you’re using your own price speculation as evidence that we must maintain a class of renters instead of dealing with out of control prices?
Fuck no. The government should eminent domain it all for the original price plus normal inflation and put it on the market at that price. If it’s older than 50 years or has had significant changes made to the original plan then we discount it. Houses are the only product we pay more for as they fall apart and it’s entirely because real estate speculation is a thing.
People rented in your parent’s generation too. My dad was born and raised in London 1931. They rented every house he lived in (good thing too because four of them were destroyed in The Blitz). My Mom was born in 1942 and raised in New York. Do you think most New Yorkers owned their homes even in 1942? And there was a point back then when they couldn’t afford rent and had to live on an actual homeowner’s screened-in porch for a summer.
There will always be a need to rent rather than buy. The price of rents is the issue, not the fact that they are available. And attacking someone who is not part of some corporate rent-raising scheme is unhelpful.
Yeah and tenements were an exploitation too. The problem of housing for sale and housing for rent are inextricably linked. Yeah getting rid of all rental housing is too far.
The federal and state governments get into building housing again. Except this time they don’t fuck them over with no jobs and services. Drop multi-unit housing buildings into the highest cost areas first. Rent is the cost to build, maintain, and remodel spread out over the next 50 years. The rent only goes up with actual inflation, but can be frozen for seniors or others on a fixed income. HUD can then take that asset and finance more projects. The more seed money they get, the faster it snowballs.
Basically drop some anchors in the market.
Then ban short term rentals. If that’s not enough then tax vacancy.
Yeah maybe that’s a bit extreme. I don’t think the debt bubble would cause a bank collapse, we’ve had people get caught underwater before and a reduced price eminent domain would be similar to TARP in 2008. But we really do need to reign it in. And that’s going to involve some people taking a bath on their loans. It’s the one inescapable problem of solving housing inflation. There’s always going to be X number of people who bought recently and will end up underwater. And the two answers are the government subsidizing their loan and the government forcing a sale where they would recover most of the loan. Legislation that isn’t just another subsidy would likely subsidize the loan on a primary residence and force a sale to the government on other properties that are underwater and unable to be refinanced.
That’s because of land lords. You are the problem. People could afford to buy a house on a working class income in my parent’s generation. But now you’re using your own price speculation as evidence that we must maintain a class of renters instead of dealing with out of control prices?
Fuck no. The government should eminent domain it all for the original price plus normal inflation and put it on the market at that price. If it’s older than 50 years or has had significant changes made to the original plan then we discount it. Houses are the only product we pay more for as they fall apart and it’s entirely because real estate speculation is a thing.
People rented in your parent’s generation too. My dad was born and raised in London 1931. They rented every house he lived in (good thing too because four of them were destroyed in The Blitz). My Mom was born in 1942 and raised in New York. Do you think most New Yorkers owned their homes even in 1942? And there was a point back then when they couldn’t afford rent and had to live on an actual homeowner’s screened-in porch for a summer.
There will always be a need to rent rather than buy. The price of rents is the issue, not the fact that they are available. And attacking someone who is not part of some corporate rent-raising scheme is unhelpful.
Yeah and tenements were an exploitation too. The problem of housing for sale and housing for rent are inextricably linked. Yeah getting rid of all rental housing is too far.
What is your proposed solution then?
The federal and state governments get into building housing again. Except this time they don’t fuck them over with no jobs and services. Drop multi-unit housing buildings into the highest cost areas first. Rent is the cost to build, maintain, and remodel spread out over the next 50 years. The rent only goes up with actual inflation, but can be frozen for seniors or others on a fixed income. HUD can then take that asset and finance more projects. The more seed money they get, the faster it snowballs.
Basically drop some anchors in the market.
Then ban short term rentals. If that’s not enough then tax vacancy.
deleted by creator
Yeah maybe that’s a bit extreme. I don’t think the debt bubble would cause a bank collapse, we’ve had people get caught underwater before and a reduced price eminent domain would be similar to TARP in 2008. But we really do need to reign it in. And that’s going to involve some people taking a bath on their loans. It’s the one inescapable problem of solving housing inflation. There’s always going to be X number of people who bought recently and will end up underwater. And the two answers are the government subsidizing their loan and the government forcing a sale where they would recover most of the loan. Legislation that isn’t just another subsidy would likely subsidize the loan on a primary residence and force a sale to the government on other properties that are underwater and unable to be refinanced.