What does this say about the price of houses in Mississippi?Popular areas are popular.
bingoBlame shitty municipal governments that have for decades enforced de facto bans on any type of density. Minimum lot sizes have grown, parking mandates, excessive set backs, only one unit per plot, height limits, etc...
Anyone that managed to buy early is pretty much a guaranteed winner (at the expense of society) because those prices are just going to continue rising as people continue wanting to move to desirable areas with economic opportunities.
shhhhhhhWhat does this say about the price of houses in Mississippi?
Blame shitty municipal governments that have for decades enforced de facto bans on any type of density. Minimum lot sizes have grown, parking mandates, excessive set backs, only one unit per plot, height limits, etc...
Anyone that managed to buy early is pretty much a guaranteed winner (at the expense of society) because those prices are just going to continue rising as people continue wanting to move to desirable areas with economic opportunities.
The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.Popular areas are popular.
Who says anything about India-like housing density? It could be allowing duplexes, or just splitting lots and letting more "starter sized" homes go up. It's about private property rights. I thought this is America.Fuck people who think we have to have India-like housing density.
Why you hate the straw people?Fuck people who think we have to have India-like housing density.
Now you sound like the people who bought TV lots here, knowing the city limits them to 90 days per year. They still have to pay property tax and utilities, (if they're hooked up) and even buying multiple lots doesn't get them more than 90 days per year.Who says anything about India-like housing density? It could be allowing duplexes, or just splitting lots and letting more "starter sized" homes go up. It's about private property rights. I thought this is America.
Arbitrary ordinances that have been in place for years are still arbitrary.Now you sound like the people who bought TV lots here, knowing the city limits them to 90 days per year. They still have to pay property tax and utilities, (if they're hooked up) and even buying multiple lots doesn't get them more than 90 days per year.
Those ordinances have been in place for decades...yet there's a constant cry of "Why can't I do what I want with my property?"
Yep, pretty much this. NIMBYism doesn't help either, especially in California where everyone understands that self-made home ownership is a becoming rarer and rarer, so people would rather vote down efforts to combat rising housing prices for the sake of self-interest. It just feels like FYGM, to be honest.Blame shitty municipal governments that have for decades enforced de facto bans on any type of density. Minimum lot sizes have grown, parking mandates, excessive set backs, only one unit per plot, height limits, etc...
Anyone that managed to buy early is pretty much a guaranteed winner (at the expense of society) because those prices are just going to continue rising as people continue wanting to move to desirable areas with economic opportunities.
Because people are finally understanding the impacts of those ordinances and how it breaks the fucking housing market.Now you sound like the people who bought TV lots here, knowing the city limits them to 90 days per year. They still have to pay property tax and utilities, (if they're hooked up) and even buying multiple lots doesn't get them more than 90 days per year.
Those ordinances have been in place for decades...yet there's a constant cry of "Why can't I do what I want with my property?"
At least California's state government is taking steps to force municipal governments to allow more density. It's pretty crazy when you look at housing in the Bay Area - being the tech hub of the US, you might imagine some futuristic looking city or some density, but 90% of it is just ugly post-WW2 style detached single family homes that sell for millions of dollars each (and it's certainly not because the home quality is so good).Yep, pretty much this. NIMBYism doesn't help either, especially in California where everyone understands that self-made home ownership is a becoming rarer and rarer, so people would rather vote down efforts to combat rising housing prices for the sake of self-interest. It just feels like FYGM, to be honest.
Yeah it is nuts. My kid pays almost 2500 a month for tiny single bedroom apartment. She has a good jobs and could not afford a house in the city she grew up in.Fuck people who think we have to have India-like housing density.
Pretty much no one in this little beach town wants to see it turned into an RV park. Want to actually build a vacation home? Sure...glad to see it.Because people are finally understanding the impacts of those ordinances and how it breaks the fucking housing market.
Seriously, this kind "of we've always done it this way" argument is fucking stupid. Extract your head from your ass.
And there it is......Pretty much no one in this little beach town wants to see it turned into an RV park. Want to actually build a vacation home? Sure...glad to see it.
And there it is......
From your earlier comment its clear the current zoning isn't meeting the needs of people but you just said you don't give a shit.
At the end of the day, people need somewhere to live, and zoning creates a cap on the number of people in a given area. Fixing income inequality doesn't fix that fundamental issue.I blame the hyper concentration of income at the top. People would have more money to spend on housing if the rich weren’t stealing the fruits of their labor. The zoning fetishizers are determined to champion the less well off by attacking the slightly better off. They would do better and find more allies if they would take on income inequality rather than trying to trash neighborhoods.
Yeah, it's a slow but correct walk in the right direction, but I still think that it's not quick enough. The few remaining ways to own property in a HCOL area in California is either through a big windfall from your parents, dual high income household, or have the property straight up gifted down to the next generation via inheritance. Good luck to future generations who didn't have parents who they themselves were able to obtain property via one of the aforementioned methods.At least California's state government is taking steps to force municipal governments to allow more density. It's pretty crazy when you look at housing in the Bay Area - being the tech hub of the US, you might imagine some futuristic looking city or some density, but 90% of it is just ugly post-WW2 style detached single family homes that sell for millions of dollars each (and it's certainly not because the home quality is so good).
Of course changing zoning laws hurts people. That’s why it is wildly unpopular. When people buy property, they look at the surrounding property uses. Adding more density means more congestion and more noise. I know folks here love to waive away externalities but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.At the end of the day, people need somewhere to live, and zoning creates a cap on the number of people in a given area. Fixing income inequality doesn't fix that fundamental issue.
And zoning reform doesn't hurt the people: no one is forcing the conversion of a property to a duplex or triplex or apartment building.