0
0

We need a national home guarantee


 invite response                
2019 Sep 16, 11:21am   3,181 views  10 comments

by tovarichpeter   ➕follow (6)   💰tip   ignore  

Comments 1 - 10 of 10        Search these comments

1   RWSGFY   2019 Sep 16, 11:23am  

tovarichpeter says
I lost everything during the financial crisis.


We need more details. What exactly was "lost" and how exactly?
2   RWSGFY   2019 Sep 16, 11:28am  

tovarichpeter says
Our vision would also address the need for reparations....


Say no more, say no more.
3   WookieMan   2019 Sep 16, 2:59pm  

This graph is pure fabrication.

But now we struggle with our new landlord, the Chicago Housing Authority. In our city, seniors in public housing use ovens to stay warm in winter and ride on out-of-code elevators.


My experience is anecdotal, but is based on facts having been through over a thousand plus leased units in Chicago. This is a cultural thing. I don't get it, but I've worked with owners of hundreds of units in Chicago, mostly in poorer areas where section 8 is prevalent (aka Chicago Housing Authority through individual landlords). They don't like the cold and the furnaces/boilers cannot keep their units warm enough for what they want (75-80 degrees) in poorly insulated buildings. 65-68 is just fine in Chicago.

Simply put, they want it hotter than what is realistic for the climate they live in and for 100 year old buildings. Legally if I recall correctly 56 degrees is the minimum temperature required for a landlord to provide in Chicago. This person is a pure complainer and everything else they write about is by default a lie based on this statement. CHA itself does not own the land or structures on a vast majority of the housing they provide and almost none of them have elevators anymore. This is likely a lifelong lazy person that is harkening back to the days of Cabrini Green where CHA did in fact own the structure they place tenants in.

Pure propaganda to keep getting fed other peoples money.
4   Shaman   2019 Sep 16, 3:27pm  

Something given has no value.
Ponder the truth of this statement a while and how it portains to houses, their uses, and their upkeep. Then ask yourself why the term “the projects” is synonymous with the most ghetto hood part of town where you don’t want to be caught after dark.
5   ignoreme   2019 Sep 16, 7:14pm  

Here’s the brilliance of the Democrat party. They buy votes from their moronic constituents by giving them free shit, guaranteeing themselves unchecked power so long as their voters never question the long term ramifications of their policies, which they never will, because they are again morons.

Then when the policies they enact to please their dumb voters inevitably fail, they shift blame and double down.

Illinois has unaffordable housing because they promised too much free shit to their pensioners and now they are screwed and property tax rates are through the roof.

California is screwed because for years they pandered to the NIMBY natives and landlords and limited construction too much. Now all the talent has left the state and all you have left is a bunch of H1Bs that can’t get better offers elsewhere. Good luck in the next recession y’all. Hmm what developer am I going to keep in the next round of layoffs? The one I’m paying 200K in the Bay Area or the one I’m paying 100K in Austin (who also owns his own house and has a stay at home wife btw).

But yes! Let’s enact this housing guarantee policy. Just in California and Illinois only though. It’s not required in any red states. Let’s just put the nail in the coffin of these failed states, hurry it up and get it over with.
6   Patrick   2019 Sep 16, 8:13pm  

A grassroots-led effort aims to ensure every person in the United States has safe, accessible, sustainable, and permanently affordable housing.


Everyone could move to rural areas where housing is cheap. That's not a problem. Plenty of room, plenty of housing.

The problem is that housing is expensive where the jobs are.

And the reason for that is NIMBYs who block housing from being built near job centers.
7   marcus   2019 Sep 16, 8:16pm  

:
A guarantee doesn't make sense, but somehow more supply and lower prices are necessary, because the RE markets are broken, in part becasue of policies of the past.

Th idea of tax deductions of mortgage interest was a great idea to stimulate home ownership and thus neighborhood pride.etc. Truly, great idea.

Prop 13 in California, also a great idea for home owners to prevent undue real estate taxes pricing people out of their homes, just becasue so many people want to live in California.

But what you then get is housing as an investment, and "flippers" basically getting in front of the people that need housing, bidding the prices up becasue they can. And then eventually what you have is young families without decent housing options, at least in the most densely populated markets(as Patrick said - where the jobs are). Of course once people have bought in at ridiculous prices, they certainly don't want prices to go down.

It's broken. And we should in a very gradual way have policies that move to fix it. Because it's not going to be fixed by the minimum wage going up to $35/hr, at least not until the dollar is worth about a third of what it is now, and by then you won't be able to touch a decent home in major cities for under $2 million anyway.

The heart of the problem is that incentives to own and speculation have caused the land component of RE to be priced too high. Some then point to Georgism as a solution, and I agree, but that's not going to happen.
8   NDrLoR   2019 Sep 16, 8:56pm  

WookieMan says
section 8
Pretty much says it all. They are the most troublesome tenants of all. Get most of their rent paid by the housing authority, yet often can't come up with the 1% contribution. I watched a Judge Judy yesterday where an able bodied man probably in his late 40's and his live-in female partner, were gaming the system every which way from Tuesday. His share was, and you're not going to believe this, $1, and he went months without even paying that and was indignant about some petty thing and was suing for the world. Of course he lost and Judge Judy put him in his place but good.
9   NDrLoR   2019 Sep 16, 9:02pm  

marcus says
But what you then get is housing as an investment
Which they had never traditionally been. If your $25,000 house increased in value 1% between 1955 and 1965 it would have been a miracle, but then that wasn't the purpose. It was the hyperinflation of the 1970's that started all this kind of thing when a house that had been $25,000 from 1955 to 1970 was by 1980 $200,000. The house whose garage apartment I lived in from 1967 to 1974 and paid $75 a month, sold for $34,000 in 1973, I stayed one more year. The most expensive house in the neighborhood was $45,000. That house at 8122 Santa Clara Dr. in Dallas today is $782,000, but at the height of the price bubble is was $900,000 as well as all the houses around it.
10   Shaman   2019 Sep 17, 4:47am  

You’ve got to build up to increase housing supply enough so the working class has housing close to jobs. It’s what New York did, and how that city got so big. The Chinese are certainly unafraid of building high rises for housing, and prefer this to urban sprawl which takes up valuable farmland.
It only makes sense. Having a SFR in the heart of the big city is a luxury, not a right and shouldn’t be normal.
Urban developers should be buying out tracts of SFRs for replacement with high rises and condo complexes. And they’ll be able to pay the prices, since one tract of 10 homes could easily hold 2000 residences in tall buildings. So buying out the SFRs for even a million each ($10million) would reap great dividends later when they sell the condos for $500,000 each ($1,000,000,000). That’s a cool billion folks.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions