It was germane to his responseDifferent subject, not germane to the topic at hand.
I don't know that I'd describe it as "more greedy" but more that they had a reason to raise prices without taking the blame (the pandemic) and figured they could just keep them up there, since they've got an army of rubes who are more than happy to pin the blame on politicians and/or "nobody wants to work".Also the idea that companies are more greedy now than in the prior years seems like a dubious claim.
Except this "housing bubble" is entirely driven by demand and lack of supply in the places people want to live, so it is extremely different than the 2000s housing bubble.
I actually heard a conspiracy that businesses are keeping the costs of their goods high on purpose to generate record profits and to knowingly blame Biden for the high costs of those goods. The conspiracy is that people will vote Republican in 2024 and then they'll get a huge tax cut once again and they'll lower the prices. It almost seems plausible lol.
The environment that we are in these days just makes it easier for companies to get away with it; with little backlash from the people (aside from the cost of food, housing and transport) or the government (oversight? - oversight is for sissy EU countries).Also the idea that companies are more greedy now than in the prior years seems like a dubious claim.
There are lots of cities and suburbs built with very little planning, they are all car based shit holes.If people utilizing roadside parking where it is currently authorized makes the roads less safe that's an argument for banning roadside parking in those areas. It is not an argument against housing development.
But yes, parking minimums should be abolished nationwide. Frankly, the entire idea that people are entitled to store their private property on public land for free is insane. If people want more parking then the market will address it and they can pay the market price for their car storage, as it should be. It doesn't mean to PROHIBIT the construction of parking spots in new developments, if they think their residents want it they are free to make it!
If someone wants to detail what this 'better planning' looks like I'm open to hearing it, but every case of 'better planning' I've seen basically maintains the catastrophic status quo with a few tweaks, which is clearly woefully insufficient.
As for what 'makes sense' why not let people decide for themselves what makes sense? If this new 500 unit complex is going to be so terrible to live in then people won't live there and the developer will go bankrupt. I don't get the idea that the thing holding developers back from financially ruinous projects is restrictive zoning.
We tried the 'planned community' thing and it was a disaster. Time to let the market work.
A lot of cities and towns are car based shitholes specifically because of their zoning and planning.There are lots of cities and suburbs built with very little planning, they are all car based shit holes.
Developers will race to the bottom and create as many externalities as possible, that's a big reason we ended up with zoning and minimum parking laws to start with.
Shot gunning development might increase housing supply, but it also completely solidifies the future dominance of cars. Street parking in neighborhoods is dangerous, especially for children and should be banned.
I do see a great business model of developing condos in car dominated areas, with a monthly pay garage that is cheap. Once all the units are sold jack up the monthly spot rental to the moon, and people will basically be forced to pay. What developers tend to do with HOA and condo fees, although on those they don't benefit from the increases.
The solution to poor regulations isn't no regulation. What is wrong with planning a dense area with good PT access and local amenities and then incentivizing it's development? What wrong with planning density around infrastructure?
The real problem is there is far too much single family zoning, in way too many places it doesn't make sense. Also the fact that nearly every zone has single family as a right.
Further, proper planning can get and keep public support, while race to the bottom, full externalities development will new laws put in place very quickly.
Still, why has housing doubled in places with very few barriers to building housing? Yes, there are places like NYC and SoCal that new density is the only way to add housing. That isn't true in most of the country, yet housing prices have still shot up. In my city, no neighborhood has been rejected for development in the decade I've lived here.
Actually, people are generally moving less and less for new jobs, but when they do move, housing is obviously a huge issue.Its not just place people want to live, its where the jobs are. People are having to move to find jobs more and more. One of the few remaining significant employers in the small town I grew up in was closing that facility and gave people the option of being able to continue on if they'd move to Salt Lake City area, where cost of living is like 2-3x and absolutely not at all made up for by the small bump in pay (which I think was maybe a 10-20% bump in pay over what they were making there).
The reason zoning was made was primarily racism, not to contain development externalities.There are lots of cities and suburbs built with very little planning, they are all car based shit holes.
Developers will race to the bottom and create as many externalities as possible, that's a big reason we ended up with zoning and minimum parking laws to start with.
Shot gunning development might increase housing supply, but it also completely solidifies the future dominance of cars. Street parking in neighborhoods is dangerous, especially for children and should be banned.
I do see a great business model of developing condos in car dominated areas, with a monthly pay garage that is cheap. Once all the units are sold jack up the monthly spot rental to the moon, and people will basically be forced to pay. What developers tend to do with HOA and condo fees, although on those they don't benefit from the increases.
The solution to poor regulations isn't no regulation. What is wrong with planning a dense area with good PT access and local amenities and then incentivizing it's development? What wrong with planning density around infrastructure?
The real problem is there is far too much single family zoning, in way too many places it doesn't make sense. Also the fact that nearly every zone has single family as a right.
Further, proper planning can get and keep public support, while race to the bottom, full externalities development will new laws put in place very quickly.
Still, why has housing doubled in places with very few barriers to building housing? Yes, there are places like NYC and SoCal that new density is the only way to add housing. That isn't true in most of the country, yet housing prices have still shot up. In my city, no neighborhood has been rejected for development in the decade I've lived here.
Since you so interested in bursting the good economy bubble I’ll test what you know.
What would happen to the economy if everyone suddenly paid off all their credit?
I said shot gunning density continues the dependency on cars because it keeps you from developing a critical mass needed for public transit and walkable areas.The reason zoning was made was primarily racism, not to contain development externalities.
Also, I would be interested to hear the economic theory of action as to why increasing density would increase the dominance of cars. That is the opposite of what’s likely to happen. Density makes car traffic worse and mass transit more desirable.
Cars didn't exist when dense city were built. Sprawling car bound shit holes have developed since then, all with varying levels of zoning.As far as development goes most people don’t realize that for almost all American cities anything other than single family detached housing is banned on about 75% of the land or more. You can’t even make a duplex, and that’s in cities, where density is supposed to be a thing! Also, most cities you’re thinking of actually have tons of other non-zoning housing restrictions like parking minimums, incentivizing cars.
Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot (Published 2019)
Rising concerns about housing affordability, racial inequality and climate change are causing cities nationwide to re-examine their attachment to the detached house.www.nytimes.com
As for what’s wrong with planning density - it misunderstands the scale of the problem. It’s why central economic planning broadly doesn’t work. As the article mentions what I’m asking for is for us to return to the regulatory scheme of the past, when most of these cities were built.
According to this OKC is about 75% single family homes, in line with other cities.I said shot gunning density continues the dependency on cars because it keeps you from developing a critical mass needed for public transit and walkable areas.
If there is no planning, shotgunning is what will happen because developers will seek the cheapest land to build multifamily developments.
Maybe instead of buying land and giving it to companies like Amazon and Boeing, cities should be buying and giving that land to developers to create dense/walkable areas.
Cars didn't exist when dense city were built. Sprawling car bound shit holes have developed since then, all with varying levels of zoning.
Again if zoning is the issue with supply and supply is what's driving prices, why are prices skyrocketing in places like OKC that approve every development, including duplexes, zero lot line, and apartments? Further, how are you actually going to get developers to raise supply to the point that it impacts their pricing power?
If the free market shows that people only want single family houses then giving me everything I want will have no effect and you can just make me happy. After all, I’m only asking to stop banning different types of housing. If there is no demand, no one will build them so there no reason to ban it. Agree?I personally think the solution is better planning and then directly incentivizing the development.
As far as the free market, I think the market has shown the free market buys single family homes with 2 car garages. We will definitely not "free market solution" our way out of car dependency.
Where are you getting the idea that parking on the street is free? The construction, maintenance and use of roads, be it to drive or park on are paid thru various taxes.If people utilizing roadside parking where it is currently authorized makes the roads less safe that's an argument for banning roadside parking in those areas. It is not an argument against housing development.
But yes, parking minimums should be abolished nationwide. Frankly, the entire idea that people are entitled to store their private property on public land for free is insane. If people want more parking then the market will address it and they can pay the market price for their car storage, as it should be. It doesn't mean to PROHIBIT the construction of parking spots in new developments, if they think their residents want it they are free to make it!
If someone wants to detail what this 'better planning' looks like I'm open to hearing it, but every case of 'better planning' I've seen basically maintains the catastrophic status quo with a few tweaks, which is clearly woefully insufficient.
As for what 'makes sense' why not let people decide for themselves what makes sense? If this new 500 unit complex is going to be so terrible to live in then people won't live there and the developer will go bankrupt. I don't get the idea that the thing holding developers back from financially ruinous projects is restrictive zoning.
We tried the 'planned community' thing and it was a disaster. Time to let the market work.
People are stupid on average:
Credit card balances spiked by $154 billion year over year, notching the largest increase since 1999, the New York Fed found.
- Collectively, Americans now owe $1.08 trillion on their credit cards, according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Steadily, persistently higher prices have caused consumers to spend down their savings and increasingly turn to credit cards to make ends meet.
- At the same time, credit cards are one of the most expensive ways to borrow money.
“Credit card balances experienced a large jump in the third quarter, consistent with strong consumer spending and real GDP growth,” said Donghoon Lee, the New York Fed’s economic research advisor.
View attachment 89376
To put it simply to get a dedicated parking spot in Brooklyn or Manhattan is between say $300 and $700 a month. Taxes are not even remotely paying for that.Where are you getting the idea that parking on the street is free? The construction, maintenance and use of roads, be it to drive or park on are paid thru various taxes.
That is just a money grab. I mean what exactly is that parking rent paying for other than the right to park there? A parking space is not a consumable. Many cities also have additional taxes attached to car licenses, building permits, and licenses that go towards roads and streets. Just because they are charging and turning a profit on residential parking doesn't make it right. (We are not talking about commercial/ customer parking).To put it simply to get a dedicated parking spot in Brooklyn or Manhattan is between say $300 and $700 a month. Taxes are not even remotely paying for that.
That being said, if taxes are sufficient to pay for street parking then there’s no reason to require new development to pay for additional spots. After all that would be unfair and the logical answer would be for the tax base to pay for all parking spots equally.
Yes, every residence pays a fee for bathrooms and a kitchen. It’s baked into the rent.That is just a money grab, not spent on roads etc. it is however spent, or should be spent on reducing crime. Many cities also have additional taxes attached to car licenses, building permits, and licenses that go towards roads and streets. Just because they are charging and turning a profit on residential parking doesn't make it right. (We are not talking about commercial/ customer parking).
It is not realistic to believe residential housing should be required to pay for parking, as it should be included with the resident. Charging for it is pure greed. That's like expecting residential housing to pay a monthly fee to have bathroom privileges, or kitchen/cooking privileges beyond their mortgage or rent payment .
Most states/cities have ordinances that have parking requirements for multifamily housing. If they don't, that is a failure of the government/ordinances of that city.
What? Seriously? That's bullshit, it's not baked into the rent or mortgage.Yes, every residence pays a fee for bathrooms and a kitchen. It’s baked into the rent.
This really shows why America faces a housing crisis. I bet you don’t consider yourself a NIMBY but you are doing most of their work for them.
Not In My Back Yard. So, simple example - city proposing building a new sports complex/swimming pool for kids. Everyone says it's a great idea and a worthy use of our tax dollars. The some ppl find out it's being built directly behind the development they live in and start a petition to stop the project. We don't want hundreds of kids traipsing by our houses to get there every day. What will that do to our home valuations?? Silly, but you get the point I think.Also, what the fuck is a NIMBY
It has nothing to do with NIMBY, unless he is implying I live in multiple states and cities across the country.Not In My Back Yard. So, simple example - city proposing building a new sports complex/swimming pool for kids. Everyone says it's a great idea and a worthy use of our tax dollars. The some ppl find out it's being built directly behind the development they live in and start a petition to stop the project. We don't want hundreds of kids traipsing by our houses to get there every day. What will that do to our home valuations?? Silly, but you get the point I think.
You ask what a NIMBY was, I answered you. That's all. I wasn't commenting on the thread, just your question. Take the rest up with @fskimospy please.It has nothing to do with NIMBY, unless he is implying I live in multiple states and cities across the country.
Your example has nothing to do with residential parking, and the belief there should be a charge for it.
Thanks, I kinda figured that is what it meant, but his use of "a NIMBY" didn't make sense, as nothing was said that remotely implied any such thing.You ask what a NIMBY was, I answered you. That's all. I wasn't commenting on the thread, just your question. Take the rest up with @fskimospy please.