I live in a smaller university town facing an affordable housing crisis. Biggest issue imo is that for the past decade at least half of the town council has been involved in real estate or development in one way or another.
This. I’ve been screaming this from the rooftops for a decade now. The conflict of interest between people invested in real estate and our government representation is brutally obvious and should be outlawed nationwide. Especially since we are experiencing the direct consequences of their kleptocratic corruption now, we should not wait for it to get worse. The local oligarchs are the landlords, and they use their wealth to drown out other political candidates with signs and ads when they want a seat on your town council.
Housing investment is sort of rooted in evil and brings out the greedy side of human nature. Dems need to take a hard look in the mirror. They say they want to help people but they don't want them in their neighborhood .
Is housing a business in which houses are financial instruments that the developer and buyer use to maximize their profits? Or is it a service whose purpose is to provide housing to everyone, including the middle-class and poor? During WWII, the Brooklyn Navy Yard was building ships to fight the war. The workers needed housing, so the City built middle-income projects for them. These were some of the most desirable apartments in NYC. I think they're still around. One of the last open development spaces in Manhattan was on the Upper West Side. They gave it to Donald Trump to develop. It was the most expensive, profitable housing available. Do you want housing? Or do you want to hand over financial instruments to guys like Trump?
There's multiple problems. Low-income housing is inherently limiting. Many areas don't have an issue with housing the poor, but rather, housing the lower middle class and middle class. Middle of the road housing supply is some of the most strained in most markets.
I can see that. Where I live in Houston its hard to find what some might call a bachelor pad. Either its an uspcale apartment your renting 4 ways for almost the cist of just getting a mortgage on a small home or its a rundown home from the 80s you and your best friend are trying to fix up. There feels like theres no inbetween.
"Middle of the road housing supply is some of the most strained in most markets" This is largely b/c the only time developers want to build middling housing is when they build cookie cutter suburbs where all the houses look exactly the same which is why nobody wants to live there and then the developers get a low return and then don't bother in the future. They like building McMansions b/c they prefer a single payout. The incentives of developers are at odds with the needs of society and this is another problem with letting Capitalists make *all of our decisions.* If their system was as "efficient" as they claim, it would deliver reasonable housing instead of only McMansions.
IMO Democratic cities have too many regulations and bureaucratic red tapes. Also, too many government control over rent control. When the government dictate how much rent the landlords can charge and increase, incentive for developers to create new housing diminishes.
Republican cities have just as many regulations and red tape when it comes to housing. Deep red Orange County in California has a smaller population than neighboring deep blue LA County, and yet home prices in OC rival those of LA's pricier markets. It's equally hard for developers to build in either county.
"incentive for developers to create new housing diminishes." Nonsense. They have every incentive to build reasonable homes. Instead they build McMansions. There's like one million apartments in NYC that are almost *never* used b/c the millionaires who own them only stay in them one or two nights per year.
A lot of places are saturated with single family units, but at the same time, we're not excited about knocking down a bunch of houses so we can all be renters to Blackrock after the Great Reset.
If the big cities can't create low cost rentals then destroying single family homes will just let people build a bunch of apartments no one still cant afford to live in, just spreading the issue further outside the cities. They'll probably want you to have perfect credit and make 3 x the rent so poor people still can't qualify.
@@anthonywilliams3606 For me, I think the main issue, is that they're trying to convert us all to being renters rather than owners, where we are no longer building wealth, but rather building wealth for the building owner. Populations are rising. We need more dense housing in urban areas. I think we need to push for the elimination of rental units or for having renters gain equity in the buildings they are funding through their rent.
The short answer is that, when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But you can't fix very many problems when your only hammer is handing out patronage jobs or handing out expensive government contracts to companies that create private sector patronage jobs for you.
My government contract job pays better than 40% of jobs in the private sector 🤷♂️ Public investment in both housing and jobs would be the antidote for these cities. PUBLIC investment. Not patronage investment.
So much this! Allow workers to disperse across our mostly non-densely populated country. Those who are physically required to live in a city would benefit from the reduced competition for housing. Less pollution, less traffic, cheaper housing, and nothing but good things would happen.
Inflation is a good question. Many different competing forces but basically you are seeing large inflation of the last 4 decades compared to the last 10. Healthcare is a non elastic good. We all need it so we can't make rational choices about it especially in emergency setting therefore normal market rules won't apply.
Rent is a very simple supply and demand problem because people all need a place to live and will pay whatever they need to get one, and most people only have 1 residence. Healthcare is similar from the perspective of doctors (they have a finite amount of time to allocate to patients), but a lot more of healthcare is wrapped up in intellectual property and other areas where the marginal cost is near zero. Plus good healthcare causes people to be more productive in society, which means externalities. Inflation also is very supply and demand for hard currency, but since today in many cases people keep their money invested in electronic form in accounts where it does nothing, or they just reinvest the money in the economy or in fresh debt, so supply and demand becomes less influential in the classical sense. It still matters, but in less linear and direct ways.
@@micbear9334 So all non elastic goods/ services should be price controlled? Also, health care services are not complelty elastic. Most times I get sick I wait until the virus passes over and dont go to a doctor. If someone broke their hand, they dont need to go to a doctor , they could wrap it up and wait a few weeks to heal on its own. Some things are elastic but not all. Also, supply of doctors and competition will bring prices down
@@micbear9334 "Healthcare is a non elastic good. We all need it so we can't make rational choices about it especially in emergency setting therefore normal market rules won't apply" It does not have to be inelastic though. One reason people can't make rational choices about healthcare is b/c the hospitals keep their results *under lock and key* where consumers can't see it and so they can't make rational choices. In order to make a rational choice, you have to have *information* and the info is all hidden. You just have to *hope* that St. Elsewhere will hear your prayer.
Alright, now this might sound like a real crazy idea but what if we built new cities? There's land all over the place that can be built into the "cities of the future". Our infrastructure can barely handle what we have now. I'm thinking of sewers and old water/gas pipes here too.
Many countries don't allow foreign investors. If foreign investors want to purchase, they must place the deed under a citizen's name. While we're at it, we should only allow actual people to purchase property, no private equity allowed. This would increase local supply.
@@dbarker7794 they were building, I work in this industry. The problem is that all housing getting built is market rate, and it's being gobbled up by investors. Market rate housing is unaffected by any eviction moratorium.
Buttagieg’s are just fine. They may have wanted a bigger, trendier place. Nobody should cry for them, let alone mention them in a news story like this.
No, it serves an important functional role. I hate PB but saying hey the housing secretary cant by a house is news worthy - dont you think??? And using a fancy name helps get it across to lunkheads..... The news is tactical its not a story for your feeeeeellllllssssss
I like how the impact of immigration is just completely left out of the conversation. Like growing our population by +1 million per year has no impact on housing demand.
Everyone here is missing why housing is expensive, it’s fractional reserve banking! When everyone borrows money to buy homes, it drives down interest rates, which incentives more borrowing. Banks have to keep lending by design, their balance sheets mathematically don’t allow them to stop lending. When majority of the homes are bought with debt, it distorts prices. It’s not a housing shortage problem, it’s a banking problem. This is not the way to have economic stability. It creates a distortion of value, then combine that with our rent-seeking economy for the people who Airbnb’d the housing market often with debt, bingo there is your reason for why housing is unaffordable. The solution is obvious, stop doing QE. Stop keeping interest rates suppressed. If lower rates lead to more expensive homes, then higher rates lead to less expensive homes. Problem solved.
Im also thinking that y'all not showing the whole picture here because anither reason people don't want low cost housing in their neighborhood is that there is more crime in low income neighborhoods.
Exactly. Large demand + insufficient supply = price increases Yes, we've had forty years of neo-liberal policies where some cash assistance has been given to the poor to pay rent/buy houses. But there hasn't been a commitment to increasing the supply of housing for those folks. In fact, the opposite. Redevelopment funds back in the 1970's, for example, impelled the bulldozing of older neighborhoods where the working poor lived. But the new buildings in those neighborhoods priced the working poor out. That kind of gentrification continues in many cities today, enriching the development companies, regardless of which 'Party' is in charge.
Since they created this mess and the people that kept voting in this mess are in the cties, lets wall them off from sane society. Give everyone who wants out a week, let them have food, water, electricity, internet...but don't let them leave the city.
Except change is inevitable. You can either try to control some of that change, or do nothing and watch as it changes in ways you don't like. Either way, resisting change is futile.
@@luodeligesi7238 actually, there are a lot of lower-income neighborhoods that have simply requested that their own neighborhoods not be gentrified and turned into speculation zones, and their request for stability is met with your argument. They have to resist change. If they were allowed to stay where they are instead of being pushed out by the speculators, there would not be an issue of whether or not the $100,000/yr people would have to accomodate them in their areas. The only people who get to control how their area does or does not change are the super-rich, and they are the ones telling everyone else that change is inevitable.
@@hollywoodartchick9740 every attempt to resist change in its entirety has backfired. Let's say you don't want your city to be gentrified, so you enact a moratorium on all new construction. The developers will just go and gentrify the next city. The low income families that just got displaced from that city need a place to live, so they come to your city. Now you have increased competition for your limited supply of housing. You thought you could stop your city from changing, and in the end it still did. Now let's say that you are willing to accept higher density, low income housing with more transit options in your city. You can still ban market rate, low density housing, which will force some developers to look elsewhere. When the wave of low income families comes to your city, however, you're prepared to handle it. Your city still changed, but this time you decided how it should change. That's my point. Zero change is impossible, but you can either control the change or be caught unprepared. And yes, even the ultra-rich communities are unable to stop change. The difference is that they have the resources to adapt whenever it happens - low income families don't.
When you remove single family only zoning in areas, you will see prices shoot up in those places as corporate financial interests scoop up that property so they can break it up into units and get 4X the rent on the same size property. There is nothing that will help the current prices unless you restrict how many homes private equity, billionaires, and corporations can own. I own my home, and everything that is happening helps me as prices soar. So don't expect home owners to vote to help you, because what is happening is good for them.
Kim is missing the point. It's not just about residents not wanting affordable housing in their region, it's much more about developers not wanting to build affordable housing because they can make a larger profit on upscale housing. Elected officials don't care so much about those residents who may call their office and complain. They are far more responsive to the multi-billion dollar developers that fund their campaigns.
It's not just "We don't want this," it's zoning regulations that make many, if not most, creative solutions impossible, especially bottom-up solutions. My city, for example, is criss-crossed with alleys lined with shabby free-standing garages that would make great tiny homes. A year into the pandemic, many distressed homeowners would sell those garages to people (like me) who can afford the modest cost of conversion but not the cost of a new home in this overheated market. I took my idea to the city council, which treated it like a child's plan to fly to the moon in a cardboard box. Why? Zoning regulations don't allow it, end of conversation.
Well if you can't afford to live in good neighborhoods than go to the ghettos an see how that plays out. Instead of trying to do affordable houses in already good neighborhoods why not do those housing programs in the ghettos oh thats right go take a look at the projects and see if they look something like your affordable housing program
Unfortunately...it's just a truth that is..Owning a home that has a rental next door drives the property value down...Not all people that rent are horrible tenets but more than often..they are not in a place that they are ready for the responsibility for ownership. Due to this fact..home owners have to deal the traffic, noise, lack or property pride and drama. My neighborhood has a fee rental homes and those homes are not maintained...often party after party and a lot of people and cars that don't need to be in the neighborhood or on the property..So..it's not out of fear or hate but genuine concern. I mean we have a low income apartment building a few blocks away in another section of the area and my neighbors and I are often asking these people not to speed, clean up their yard, don't throw trash in the roadway or anyone's front yard and please ask your guest to turn down music and park at the residence they are visiting not other neighbor's driveway...
You also have unconstitutional eviction moratoriums that punish landlords who build new housing in places where people struggle to pay rent. This is like the soviet system where the price of bread was fixed so you always had bread shortages and lines.
The Soviet Union rarely had food shortages and an obesity problem eventually occurred because the population had so much food they were not used to having access to.
High rent and not wanting a certain roommate is not racist..racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism...alrighty that's my daily dose of racism...have a good day.
Anyone who owns a home and it is their primary residence should never rent rooms. It is impossible to kick someone out once they are in. No decent neighborhood would want a neighbor to rent their house to multiple adults who are not related. These two items that can ruin a neighborhood and at a minimum ruin the house. I have seen this before and it's not good.
NO MORE housing needs to be built. There is plenty, but people are too poor to move in. Supply and demand doesn't seem to apply when it comes to housing. Governments could change this in a heartbeat.
The family home rentals in LA are $4k a month and I don't know why there's no care about families... These are middle class people with decent incomes who aren't going to be homeless but are being gouged for all their earnings... These are skilled and educated workers in a city who will never qualify for "affordable" housing... Apartments aren't designed for families either. Doesn't a city need these workers too to function?
If u can't afford the city, move. Cheaper rents elsewhere. People want to love in the heart of the city but pay dirt cheap prices. Doesn't work like that. The irony that blue states have the highest income inequality is great
Comfortable people always have the solution! Maybe someone can't afford to move out of the city where they work and have to buy a car, pay for gas, insurance, etc. just to get to work. And no, not every burb has mass transit.
Ryan asked for examples of relaxed zoning... she gave none. Examples are from the past just look at neighborhoods with duplexes and apt bldgs built up to the 70s before meddlesome zoning boards and planning committees came into being.
Get room-mate? GFYS. Lower Taxes? Let the property owners finance directly and voluntarily money required to build the roads, provide police, fire services etc. Tried that. Doesn't work. Lower regulations? What regulations would you like lowered? You don't advocate personal liberty. You advocate property and wealth liberty. Tried that. Been trying that for thousands of years. It's the perpetual human conflict between the power of property and wealth against personal liberty for all. Those now calling themselves Libertarian, are in practice, Anti-libertarian.
@@andywomack3414 It doesnt work yet these policies are in place today at federal and state levels and you still choose to live in America when you can fly to Europe, Asia, Middle East, India, etc.... Your not even hating on capitalism, your hating on individualism and promoting collectivism. Thats fine but lets analyze: you have the choice to save your own son from falling off a cliff or a strangers son. Who do you choose and why? You see a woman you are attracted to and would like to talk to her but see another man that is also interested. Do you take a shot at talking to her or walk away and why? Human beings were created to be individuals. We are not honeybees or an ant colony. Yes we are tribal and communal but that is only after our individual desires and needs have been fulfilled. Your way of thinking is not based on human psychology.
@@nicktanner8231 I think that qualifies as a word salad. You may want to edit that a bit, cut out the junk that does not address the points I made then we can have a discussion.
The only reason I can live in San Francisco is rent control. It was voted down in CA by a clueless population. Rent control is fair to landlords and allows the population to survive in the volatile real estate world. It’s a no brained and thankfully earlier generations enacted this humane legislation!
4/5 of USA "single family standalone homes" have only 1 or 2 residents. No kids. We don't have a housing shortage. Baltimore destroys houses by the block. We are not explaining our real problems. Why not?
No one talks about what happens when the people who moved to the suburbs or different States are forced to go back to the office or lose their job. To me they lose their new home either way they decide. If they go back to the office they have to sell the home. If they get fired and can't find a job of equal pay they will lose their new home to foreclosure
The Moratorium just made it 3x tougher for marginal tenants to find housing. Landlords are adjusting by raising their standards and not giving chances anymore to tenants who don’t quite have high enough credit scores, adequate verifiable rental history and income. Higher rents and higher standards will be the new norm. The moratorium ironically will hurt the people it proposed to help. But I think they knew this. They don’t care. They just want power.
The solution to the "affordable housing crisis" is NOT to allow people to build extra houses in backyards and let multiple families live on one property at a time - unless you think packing "the poors" together like sardines to get them out of the way of the "not-poors" is the solution.
I believe there no examples of "affordable housing" laws actually bringing home prices down. We have plenty of examples of building houses to meet demand keeping housing prices from ballooning. Between 1945 and 1975 California's population rose from 7 million to 22 million, more than tripled. During that time housing prices were flat.
Blue cities dictate how much contractors get paid, how they build house and what materials they can use (sometimes even where the material must be sourced), how much land can be used and for what purpose, how much environmental compliance costs and how easy it is to sue developers and now they're telling Mom and Pop landlords (the vast majority of landlords in the nation) that tenants can live for free and they're still responsible for utilities and upkeep. That's worse than theft because at least when a thief steals from you they leave, you don't have pay to take care of the thief. So, yeah is it a surprise there is a housing problem in blue cities? They won't let you build and if you do you will get sued and if you rent, your renters may not pay rent!
Onerous building codes and hiring mandates. Layers and layers of demands. My husband is a builder who looked into this, did the numbers, and realized that there was slim to no profit when told what the cap for selling would be. And that's if building supplies didn't go up in price and there were no problems or delays at all.
But wait... meanwhile there are still towns and cities all over the US that are dying. What would be the effect of offering incentives for JOBS to move to places that need renewal -- and DISINCENTIVES for companies to remain in overpriced housing areas? Thus, instead of only building more and denser housing in elite areas while letting others crumble into dust, you renew or repurpose dying areas which is much more sustainable. If you just look at San Francisco, it's vibrancy came from its working class neighborhoods, now wiped out with gentrification. Repurposed towns & cities would again have the vibrancy and attractiveness of working class areas lost elsewhere. So why isn't that being discussed?
Kim is right. Current residence don't want for changes in their own neighborhood. As much as a good person i think I am, I still want to maintain the status quo in my own area and I would be reluctant to open it up. I am probably a hypocrite in this way.
NIMBY - low cost housing usually equals increased crime. Good luck getting people in middle to upper income communities to allow low cost housing to be built in their areas.
We talk about decommidifying housing on the left, but commodification actually makes things more affordable. The problem is that housing is an investment that has been too profitable. While we are in the market for housing, we need it to be affordable to live as close to school or work as we want, but once people are invested in real estate, they don't want rent to be affordable anymore, because rent is profit, and rising real estate prices grow wealth. Conservative neoliberal economics are policies that cause a housing boom followed by an inevitable bust. And conservatives/neoliberals are excited for the busts, because that's when things are more affordable. To eliminate that cycle, the housing market could be stabilized by making it less profitable, but no one who is invested wants that. That's why there's practically no difference between the economic policies of both sides of politics in America. Neoliberalism has been the bipartisan status quo since the 1960s.
You sound like a mature observer. This is why the Democratic Party is bleeding. There are no serious concerns other than your own. Anything voiced by a Republican comes from a place of hate. It doesn’t take a genius to see the projection. Reread your comment…sound like love? Just spewing bitterness
@@tookie36 you don’t have to, as long as you’re not criticizing someone for spreading hate if in doing so you are spreading hate as well. But maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I must have, because I wouldn’t have expected you to have a reasonable response according to my original impression. Fair enough what you say. Sorry about that
@@srhodes6963 "Anything voiced by a Republican comes from a place of hate" Well aren't you self-righteous after *your* leader, Newt Gingrich, poisoned our politics into tribal bickering.
Not that I advocate pleasing the wealthy in anyway, but if the local statues aren't likely to change allowing denser housing then why not create incentives for the good paying businesses to spread out more allowing affordable housing to be closer to those jobs
There's no solution to this in a truly free country. People can choose where to live and who lives by them. The social classes will never be able to live together.
If rent is 50% of income then you work 6 months a year for rent. But since you pay taxes first, say 20%, you will work 7.5 months a year just to pay rent. And that 20% tax means you're working 11 weeks full-time to hand over to the IRS. That leaves you less than 2 months to earn money to invest in improving your situation. Nope. No food in the budget yet...
Some will panic when middle class blacks move into a white neighborhood. But they can show they have earned the right to move in. However, forcing public housing into the suburbs drops that confidence severely. People feel in their hearts what Charles Murray has demonstrated in theory-many of the poor are poor because of genetics, not simply racism. And violence also is partly genetic. Tough to hear, but if say you believe in science, the data is there.
Also, you should know that if those regs were not in place, Haliburton would build you a shower which would electrocute you, just like how they murdered US soldiers in Iraq. I cite this as an example because *there were no regs*
watch CITIZEN KOCH and any Michael Moore film and see how they've accomplished it. These movies are old so hindsight is 20/20. Both parties, our government sold us out and gave the keys to the Kochs
This seems to be the "Western problem" blueprint, same situation is going on Holland since the 2008 mortgage crisis, house prices are through the roof, pardon the pun. I rent my place, 10 years ago i was offered to buy it for €90.000, this weekend i got new neighbors, they bought the apartment above me, for €190,000!
Cut a lot of the red tape, the tape regarding what type of housing can be built. And build a lot more midrise and low rise public housing and never stop.
Seems like they’ve been just trying out new hosts to see who gets them the best ratings and response from viewers. Some of the newer hosts have been terrible but I think Kim is doing a great job so far. She’s had her own show for years so she definitely seems more confident and comfortable than previous guest hosts.
I'm a bit disappointed as well. As much as I like Kim, she does have her own show already. Really, I was enjoying seeing Emily and would hope to see her again in the future..
The commercial owner will partner with private developer and zoning official to build luxury condos to solve our housing needs. You have to compete against this model. Good luck.
I can see the tax revenue going negative, especially when the need for additional policing, social work, and public benefits is included in the calculus. If low income housing were profitable, there would obviously be more of it - but there's not. Cities and neighborhoods don't want it for very rational reasons.
From what I hear there are lots of houses just laying around empty, it's just that they are owned by overseas investors or big investment firms that have no interest in selling them much less selling them for a low enough price that most Americans could buy one.
Great video post, definitely became better after the guess stopped doing a "dance about." This topic is and always will be about new aged discrimination. Because you vote, espouse, and believe in the cleaver grifting of being a Democrat. That doesn't necessarily make you less bigoted, less of an opportunist or less of what makes some Republicans despised. Classcism and racism goes hand and hand. While wealth and status are a conduit to such. So too is perpetuity.
2:36: "And no one that doesn't earn a ton of money can't live in your neighborhood" THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF HOUSING PRICES! That is capitalism at it's finest. The opposite of that is the belief that anyone who makes any amount of money should be able to live in any neighborhood. A $50k per year janitor should not be able to live in the same neighborhood as Tom Cruise, Magic Johnson, or Lady Gaga or Joe Biden. That's the point. I firmly reject this lady's well-meaning but wrong statement.
I live in a smaller university town facing an affordable housing crisis. Biggest issue imo is that for the past decade at least half of the town council has been involved in real estate or development in one way or another.
That's a countrywide problem that no one will address. The appearance at local council meetings is underestimated
@@driedbrainfreeze2149 Agreed.
Yes!
Crony developer contracts too...
This. I’ve been screaming this from the rooftops for a decade now. The conflict of interest between people invested in real estate and our government representation is brutally obvious and should be outlawed nationwide. Especially since we are experiencing the direct consequences of their kleptocratic corruption now, we should not wait for it to get worse. The local oligarchs are the landlords, and they use their wealth to drown out other political candidates with signs and ads when they want a seat on your town council.
You can build more houses and apartments but when they’re snatched up by private equity you’re not solving anything. You’re just feeding the monster.
Housing as an investment and financial instrument is bizarre.
Housing investment is sort of rooted in evil and brings out the greedy side of human nature. Dems need to take a hard look in the mirror. They say they want to help people but they don't want them in their neighborhood .
Profound
Is housing a business in which houses are financial instruments that the developer and buyer use to maximize their profits?
Or is it a service whose purpose is to provide housing to everyone, including the middle-class and poor?
During WWII, the Brooklyn Navy Yard was building ships to fight the war. The workers needed housing, so the City built middle-income projects for them. These were some of the most desirable apartments in NYC. I think they're still around.
One of the last open development spaces in Manhattan was on the Upper West Side. They gave it to Donald Trump to develop. It was the most expensive, profitable housing available.
Do you want housing? Or do you want to hand over financial instruments to guys like Trump?
Remember when Obama bailed out those speculators, allowed them more cash to speculate?
World Economic Forum 2030 forecast:
You will own nothing and be happy
As opposed to owning nothing and being unhappy? That’s what a lot of us have now… nothing.
Well then give me that sandwich you're about to eat and your bike punk
@@YourMom-cu8yt Or you can own something and be happy, or at least have the option open to you.
I already don't own nothing. What are they waiting for making me happy.
When people own nothing they have nothing to lose. I suppose the "elite" dont want to be lynched publicly, and will be shall they make that mistake.
There's multiple problems.
Low-income housing is inherently limiting. Many areas don't have an issue with housing the poor, but rather, housing the lower middle class and middle class.
Middle of the road housing supply is some of the most strained in most markets.
I can see that. Where I live in Houston its hard to find what some might call a bachelor pad. Either its an uspcale apartment your renting 4 ways for almost the cist of just getting a mortgage on a small home or its a rundown home from the 80s you and your best friend are trying to fix up. There feels like theres no inbetween.
"Middle of the road housing supply is some of the most strained in most markets"
This is largely b/c the only time developers want to build middling housing is when they build cookie cutter suburbs where all the houses look exactly the same which is why nobody wants to live there and then the developers get a low return and then don't bother in the future. They like building McMansions b/c they prefer a single payout. The incentives of developers are at odds with the needs of society and this is another problem with letting Capitalists make *all of our decisions.* If their system was as "efficient" as they claim, it would deliver reasonable housing instead of only McMansions.
IMO Democratic cities have too many regulations and bureaucratic red tapes. Also, too many government control over rent control. When the government dictate how much rent the landlords can charge and increase, incentive for developers to create new housing diminishes.
Republican cities have just as many regulations and red tape when it comes to housing. Deep red Orange County in California has a smaller population than neighboring deep blue LA County, and yet home prices in OC rival those of LA's pricier markets. It's equally hard for developers to build in either county.
"incentive for developers to create new housing diminishes."
Nonsense. They have every incentive to build reasonable homes. Instead they build McMansions. There's like one million apartments in NYC that are almost *never* used b/c the millionaires who own them only stay in them one or two nights per year.
A lot of places are saturated with single family units, but at the same time, we're not excited about knocking down a bunch of houses so we can all be renters to Blackrock after the Great Reset.
If the big cities can't create low cost rentals then destroying single family homes will just let people build a bunch of apartments no one still cant afford to live in, just spreading the issue further outside the cities. They'll probably want you to have perfect credit and make 3 x the rent so poor people still can't qualify.
@@anthonywilliams3606 For me, I think the main issue, is that they're trying to convert us all to being renters rather than owners, where we are no longer building wealth, but rather building wealth for the building owner. Populations are rising. We need more dense housing in urban areas. I think we need to push for the elimination of rental units or for having renters gain equity in the buildings they are funding through their rent.
They got through the whole segment without blaming Republicans?!?!
I am impressed.
The short answer is that, when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But you can't fix very many problems when your only hammer is handing out patronage jobs or handing out expensive government contracts to companies that create private sector patronage jobs for you.
That's the core of the Third Way ideology driving Dem party politics and policy.
My government contract job pays better than 40% of jobs in the private sector 🤷♂️ Public investment in both housing and jobs would be the antidote for these cities. PUBLIC investment. Not patronage investment.
This is why we need REMOTE WORK
So much this! Allow workers to disperse across our mostly non-densely populated country. Those who are physically required to live in a city would benefit from the reduced competition for housing. Less pollution, less traffic, cheaper housing, and nothing but good things would happen.
So your garbage collection will be done remotely?
why does supply and demand work for rent prices but for things like healthcare or inflation they are just made up theorys all of a sudden???
Inflation is a good question. Many different competing forces but basically you are seeing large inflation of the last 4 decades compared to the last 10. Healthcare is a non elastic good. We all need it so we can't make rational choices about it especially in emergency setting therefore normal market rules won't apply.
Why does everyone accept inflation as inevitable?
Rent is a very simple supply and demand problem because people all need a place to live and will pay whatever they need to get one, and most people only have 1 residence.
Healthcare is similar from the perspective of doctors (they have a finite amount of time to allocate to patients), but a lot more of healthcare is wrapped up in intellectual property and other areas where the marginal cost is near zero. Plus good healthcare causes people to be more productive in society, which means externalities.
Inflation also is very supply and demand for hard currency, but since today in many cases people keep their money invested in electronic form in accounts where it does nothing, or they just reinvest the money in the economy or in fresh debt, so supply and demand becomes less influential in the classical sense. It still matters, but in less linear and direct ways.
@@micbear9334 So all non elastic goods/ services should be price controlled? Also, health care services are not complelty elastic. Most times I get sick I wait until the virus passes over and dont go to a doctor. If someone broke their hand, they dont need to go to a doctor , they could wrap it up and wait a few weeks to heal on its own. Some things are elastic but not all. Also, supply of doctors and competition will bring prices down
@@micbear9334 "Healthcare is a non elastic good. We all need it so we can't make rational choices about it especially in emergency setting therefore normal market rules won't apply"
It does not have to be inelastic though. One reason people can't make rational choices about healthcare is b/c the hospitals keep their results *under lock and key* where consumers can't see it and so they can't make rational choices. In order to make a rational choice, you have to have *information* and the info is all hidden. You just have to *hope* that St. Elsewhere will hear your prayer.
Nashville here. The housing and apartment prices have been exploding!
Alright, now this might sound like a real crazy idea but what if we built new cities? There's land all over the place that can be built into the "cities of the future". Our infrastructure can barely handle what we have now. I'm thinking of sewers and old water/gas pipes here too.
Historically, cities have been built around transportation hubs. Your idea has merit. China, the USSR do/did this.
Brilliant idea. But too innovative for Americans. We think we're so cool with our phones and all but we still have a 19th century mindset.
There is a housing crisis in all areas of the U.S.
I live in a deep red district, and mother in law homes are banned here too. This is not an issue exclusive to either party.
It's Barack Obama's most significant and impactful legacy.
Many countries don't allow foreign investors. If foreign investors want to purchase, they must place the deed under a citizen's name. While we're at it, we should only allow actual people to purchase property, no private equity allowed. This would increase local supply.
Bingo. Crisis solved.
Great piece.
Kim is a great fit for Rising on The Hill.
no one is building housing to rent when there has been a long eviction moratorium...
Actually, they are, the eviction moratorium affects low income rental units. Construction of market rate rental units hasn't changed at all.
They weren't building before the eviction moratorium. Don't kid yourself.
@@dbarker7794 they were building, I work in this industry. The problem is that all housing getting built is market rate, and it's being gobbled up by investors. Market rate housing is unaffected by any eviction moratorium.
Buttagieg’s are just fine. They may have wanted a bigger, trendier place. Nobody should cry for them, let alone mention them in a news story like this.
No, it serves an important functional role. I hate PB but saying hey the housing secretary cant by a house is news worthy - dont you think??? And using a fancy name helps get it across to lunkheads..... The news is tactical its not a story for your feeeeeellllllssssss
Jerusalem was a very informing guest. She really knew her stuff.
I like how the impact of immigration is just completely left out of the conversation. Like growing our population by +1 million per year has no impact on housing demand.
Airbnb is huge inventory grabber. Build hotels already!
It's not though. If supply was adequate it wouldn't be a problem at all.
SIPHONING THE MONEY INTO THEOR OWN POCKETS
Not there Own Pockets but the Owners pockets
Impressive guest. Hope to hear more from her in the future.
Everyone here is missing why housing is expensive, it’s fractional reserve banking! When everyone borrows money to buy homes, it drives down interest rates, which incentives more borrowing. Banks have to keep lending by design, their balance sheets mathematically don’t allow them to stop lending. When majority of the homes are bought with debt, it distorts prices. It’s not a housing shortage problem, it’s a banking problem. This is not the way to have economic stability. It creates a distortion of value, then combine that with our rent-seeking economy for the people who Airbnb’d the housing market often with debt, bingo there is your reason for why housing is unaffordable. The solution is obvious, stop doing QE. Stop keeping interest rates suppressed. If lower rates lead to more expensive homes, then higher rates lead to less expensive homes. Problem solved.
Im also thinking that y'all not showing the whole picture here because anither reason people don't want low cost housing in their neighborhood is that there is more crime in low income neighborhoods.
Exactly.
Large demand + insufficient supply = price increases
Yes, we've had forty years of neo-liberal policies where some cash assistance has been given to the poor to pay rent/buy houses. But there hasn't been a commitment to increasing the supply of housing for those folks. In fact, the opposite. Redevelopment funds back in the 1970's, for example, impelled the bulldozing of older neighborhoods where the working poor lived. But the new buildings in those neighborhoods priced the working poor out. That kind of gentrification continues in many cities today, enriching the development companies, regardless of which 'Party' is in charge.
There are many apartments going up in my neighborhood in Irvine, California, however they all cost more than $3000. per mo.
Same here. In Boise they're building a bunch of real swanky apartment complexes which will probably cost at least as much as a house to rent.
Since they created this mess and the people that kept voting in this mess are in the cties, lets wall them off from sane society. Give everyone who wants out a week, let them have food, water, electricity, internet...but don't let them leave the city.
What's wrong with liking your neighborhood and not wanting it to change?
Except change is inevitable. You can either try to control some of that change, or do nothing and watch as it changes in ways you don't like. Either way, resisting change is futile.
@@luodeligesi7238 actually, there are a lot of lower-income neighborhoods that have simply requested that their own neighborhoods not be gentrified and turned into speculation zones, and their request for stability is met with your argument. They have to resist change. If they were allowed to stay where they are instead of being pushed out by the speculators, there would not be an issue of whether or not the $100,000/yr people would have to accomodate them in their areas. The only people who get to control how their area does or does not change are the super-rich, and they are the ones telling everyone else that change is inevitable.
@@hollywoodartchick9740 every attempt to resist change in its entirety has backfired. Let's say you don't want your city to be gentrified, so you enact a moratorium on all new construction. The developers will just go and gentrify the next city. The low income families that just got displaced from that city need a place to live, so they come to your city. Now you have increased competition for your limited supply of housing. You thought you could stop your city from changing, and in the end it still did.
Now let's say that you are willing to accept higher density, low income housing with more transit options in your city. You can still ban market rate, low density housing, which will force some developers to look elsewhere. When the wave of low income families comes to your city, however, you're prepared to handle it. Your city still changed, but this time you decided how it should change.
That's my point. Zero change is impossible, but you can either control the change or be caught unprepared.
And yes, even the ultra-rich communities are unable to stop change. The difference is that they have the resources to adapt whenever it happens - low income families don't.
When you remove single family only zoning in areas, you will see prices shoot up in those places as corporate financial interests scoop up that property so they can break it up into units and get 4X the rent on the same size property. There is nothing that will help the current prices unless you restrict how many homes private equity, billionaires, and corporations can own. I own my home, and everything that is happening helps me as prices soar. So don't expect home owners to vote to help you, because what is happening is good for them.
Homeowners gain by this increase! There is a reason why people are forced to rent,...it's called life decisions. They chose wrong!
That's not what single family zoning does/means. Plus investors are swallowing up condos and single homes.
Kim is missing the point. It's not just about residents not wanting affordable housing in their region, it's much more about developers not wanting to build affordable housing because they can make a larger profit on upscale housing. Elected officials don't care so much about those residents who may call their office and complain. They are far more responsive to the multi-billion dollar developers that fund their campaigns.
This is a huge problem for young people like my son, he cannot afford to live in our neighborhood of Irvine, Ca.
Jerusalem Demas knows the subject...now if we could get our president and vice president to talk like her.
I like Jerusalem Demasas, clearly knows a lot about the subject and is not a tool, bring her back on please.
It's not just "We don't want this," it's zoning regulations that make many, if not most, creative solutions impossible, especially bottom-up solutions. My city, for example, is criss-crossed with alleys lined with shabby free-standing garages that would make great tiny homes. A year into the pandemic, many distressed homeowners would sell those garages to people (like me) who can afford the modest cost of conversion but not the cost of a new home in this overheated market. I took my idea to the city council, which treated it like a child's plan to fly to the moon in a cardboard box. Why? Zoning regulations don't allow it, end of conversation.
Well if you can't afford to live in good neighborhoods than go to the ghettos an see how that plays out. Instead of trying to do affordable houses in already good neighborhoods why not do those housing programs in the ghettos oh thats right go take a look at the projects and see if they look something like your affordable housing program
Juan Z the Ghetto Blaster!!!
Unfortunately...it's just a truth that is..Owning a home that has a rental next door drives the property value down...Not all people that rent are horrible tenets but more than often..they are not in a place that they are ready for the responsibility for ownership. Due to this fact..home owners have to deal the traffic, noise, lack or property pride and drama. My neighborhood has a fee rental homes and those homes are not maintained...often party after party and a lot of people and cars that don't need to be in the neighborhood or on the property..So..it's not out of fear or hate but genuine concern. I mean we have a low income apartment building a few blocks away in another section of the area and my neighbors and I are often asking these people not to speed, clean up their yard, don't throw trash in the roadway or anyone's front yard and please ask your guest to turn down music and park at the residence they are visiting not other neighbor's driveway...
This girl is amazing 💖🔥💖
You also have unconstitutional eviction moratoriums that punish landlords who build new housing in places where people struggle to pay rent. This is like the soviet system where the price of bread was fixed so you always had bread shortages and lines.
The Soviet Union rarely had food shortages and an obesity problem eventually occurred because the population had so much food they were not used to having access to.
Permits, codes, inspections, taxes, zoning, bureaucracy have all become too burdensome.
High rent and not wanting a certain roommate is not racist..racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism racism...alrighty that's my daily dose of racism...have a good day.
dude . . . feel better now? :)
Don’t you love SJW’s! No. Nope. Notta. Never.
Why would anyone invest in affordable housing when the tenants aren’t required to pay rent.
I live in New Jersey and pay $1870 a month for a two bedroom apartment. Life is so expensive.. 🥴🥴😒 I pray that things get better for all of us…
The short answer is AirBNB. When the housing goes to vacationers, there isn't enough for residents.
So very disturbing that this goes on in America
Anyone who owns a home and it is their primary residence should never rent rooms. It is impossible to kick someone out once they are in.
No decent neighborhood would want a neighbor to rent their house to multiple adults who are not related.
These two items that can ruin a neighborhood and at a minimum ruin the house. I have seen this before and it's not good.
NO MORE housing needs to be built. There is plenty, but people are too poor to move in. Supply and demand doesn't seem to apply when it comes to housing. Governments could change this in a heartbeat.
AirBnb actually is a huge problem in the south. There are whole beach towns that are nothing but rental properties.
The family home rentals in LA are $4k a month and I don't know why there's no care about families... These are middle class people with decent incomes who aren't going to be homeless but are being gouged for all their earnings... These are skilled and educated workers in a city who will never qualify for "affordable" housing... Apartments aren't designed for families either. Doesn't a city need these workers too to function?
If u can't afford the city, move. Cheaper rents elsewhere. People want to love in the heart of the city but pay dirt cheap prices. Doesn't work like that. The irony that blue states have the highest income inequality is great
Comfortable people always have the solution! Maybe someone can't afford to move out of the city where they work and have to buy a car, pay for gas, insurance, etc. just to get to work. And no, not every burb has mass transit.
@@dbarker7794 wasn't always comfortable..but alot of people have cavier taste but burger King budget. Find the spots that you can afford and go there.
Can’t stand Ryan. I’m here for Kim. ❤️
Oh well. I can't stand Jimmy Dore. To each their own. I'd like Jimmy more if instead of bragging about how ignorant he is he would open a gd book.
Ryan asked for examples of relaxed zoning... she gave none. Examples are from the past just look at neighborhoods with duplexes and apt bldgs built up to the 70s before meddlesome zoning boards and planning committees came into being.
get a roomate and save. lower taxes / lower regulations and make it easier for developers to increase suppl of housing.
Get room-mate? GFYS.
Lower Taxes? Let the property owners finance directly and voluntarily money required to build the roads, provide police, fire services etc. Tried that. Doesn't work.
Lower regulations? What regulations would you like lowered?
You don't advocate personal liberty. You advocate property and wealth liberty. Tried that. Been trying that for thousands of years. It's the perpetual human conflict between the power of property and wealth against personal liberty for all.
Those now calling themselves Libertarian, are in practice, Anti-libertarian.
@@andywomack3414 It doesnt work yet these policies are in place today at federal and state levels and you still choose to live in America when you can fly to Europe, Asia, Middle East, India, etc....
Your not even hating on capitalism, your hating on individualism and promoting collectivism. Thats fine but lets analyze: you have the choice to save your own son from falling off a cliff or a strangers son. Who do you choose and why? You see a woman you are attracted to and would like to talk to her but see another man that is also interested. Do you take a shot at talking to her or walk away and why?
Human beings were created to be individuals. We are not honeybees or an ant colony. Yes we are tribal and communal but that is only after our individual desires and needs have been fulfilled. Your way of thinking is not based on human psychology.
@@nicktanner8231 I think that qualifies as a word salad. You may want to edit that a bit, cut out the junk that does not address the points I made then we can have a discussion.
@@nicktanner8231 The Reagan Era called; it wants "Greed is Good" back.
@@andywomack3414 You literally made just as many sentences as I did. Maybe try to improve your cognition and ability to focus
There's a housing crisis in conservative towns, too, but we only hear about Dem cities. Why is that?
The only reason I can live in San Francisco is rent control. It was voted down in CA by a clueless population. Rent control is fair to landlords and allows the population to survive in the volatile real estate world. It’s a no brained and thankfully earlier generations enacted this humane legislation!
Multigenerational housing IS THE FUTURE. No wonder people are fleeing cities. Housing isn’t just unaffordable it’s unavailable.
Exactly. It was inevitable wasn't it? Cities have a capacity and new ones don't build up very fast compared to how fast we increase the population.
It was the past as well.
Low income tax credit can make housing more affordable
The selfishness of the NIMBY mindset is appalling.
4/5 of USA "single family standalone homes" have only 1 or 2 residents. No kids. We don't have a housing shortage. Baltimore destroys houses by the block. We are not explaining our real problems. Why not?
No one talks about what happens when the people who moved to the suburbs or different States are forced to go back to the office or lose their job.
To me they lose their new home either way they decide.
If they go back to the office they have to sell the home. If they get fired and can't find a job of equal pay they will lose their new home to foreclosure
The Moratorium just made it 3x tougher for marginal tenants to find housing. Landlords are adjusting by raising their standards and not giving chances anymore to tenants who don’t quite have high enough credit scores, adequate verifiable rental history and income. Higher rents and higher standards will be the new norm. The moratorium ironically will hurt the people it proposed to help. But I think they knew this. They don’t care. They just want power.
The solution to the "affordable housing crisis" is NOT to allow people to build extra houses in backyards and let multiple families live on one property at a time - unless you think packing "the poors" together like sardines to get them out of the way of the "not-poors" is the solution.
The bus runs every day as Morgan Freeman stated if cost are to high or job opportunities are low it is time to move.
I believe there no examples of "affordable housing" laws actually bringing home prices down. We have plenty of examples of building houses to meet demand keeping housing prices from ballooning. Between 1945 and 1975 California's population rose from 7 million to 22 million, more than tripled. During that time housing prices were flat.
Blue cities dictate how much contractors get paid, how they build house and what materials they can use (sometimes even where the material must be sourced), how much land can be used and for what purpose, how much environmental compliance costs and how easy it is to sue developers and now they're telling Mom and Pop landlords (the vast majority of landlords in the nation) that tenants can live for free and they're still responsible for utilities and upkeep. That's worse than theft because at least when a thief steals from you they leave, you don't have pay to take care of the thief. So, yeah is it a surprise there is a housing problem in blue cities? They won't let you build and if you do you will get sued and if you rent, your renters may not pay rent!
Onerous building codes and hiring mandates. Layers and layers of demands. My husband is a builder who looked into this, did the numbers, and realized that there was slim to no profit when told what the cap for selling would be. And that's if building supplies didn't go up in price and there were no problems or delays at all.
But wait... meanwhile there are still towns and cities all over the US that are dying. What would be the effect of offering incentives for JOBS to move to places that need renewal -- and DISINCENTIVES for companies to remain in overpriced housing areas? Thus, instead of only building more and denser housing in elite areas while letting others crumble into dust, you renew or repurpose dying areas which is much more sustainable. If you just look at San Francisco, it's vibrancy came from its working class neighborhoods, now wiped out with gentrification. Repurposed towns & cities would again have the vibrancy and attractiveness of working class areas lost elsewhere. So why isn't that being discussed?
Bring Jerusalem back!
Kim is right. Current residence don't want for changes in their own neighborhood. As much as a good person i think I am, I still want to maintain the status quo in my own area and I would be reluctant to open it up. I am probably a hypocrite in this way.
Agh yes. The only solution to a government created problem is more government.
Ryan, that was a B- effort to blame the private market.
Isn't their proposal to cut local zoning regulations on housing construction? +reduce taxes if people build more affordable housing?
NIMBY - low cost housing usually equals increased crime. Good luck getting people in middle to upper income communities to allow low cost housing to be built in their areas.
Regulations on real estate as investment... limits on returns for investors, partial ownership for renters, so many easy reforms
And all those things lower incentive for companies to build housing in any area with those rules.
The resources are rerouted to someone's account. That's why yearly audits are required.
Yeah... no
Plenty of extra housing being built around here.
It seems like converting hotels is as ridiculously expensive way to do that, but yeah zoning restrictions pretty much have caused this crisis.
We talk about decommidifying housing on the left, but commodification actually makes things more affordable. The problem is that housing is an investment that has been too profitable. While we are in the market for housing, we need it to be affordable to live as close to school or work as we want, but once people are invested in real estate, they don't want rent to be affordable anymore, because rent is profit, and rising real estate prices grow wealth. Conservative neoliberal economics are policies that cause a housing boom followed by an inevitable bust. And conservatives/neoliberals are excited for the busts, because that's when things are more affordable. To eliminate that cycle, the housing market could be stabilized by making it less profitable, but no one who is invested wants that. That's why there's practically no difference between the economic policies of both sides of politics in America. Neoliberalism has been the bipartisan status quo since the 1960s.
That's also quality of housing she talking about.
Denser supply tends to reduce quality. I don't mean nicely painted walls. I mean breathing room.
Kim: I don’t like my neighbors therefore I’m a republican
You sound like a mature observer. This is why the Democratic Party is bleeding. There are no serious concerns other than your own. Anything voiced by a Republican comes from a place of hate. It doesn’t take a genius to see the projection. Reread your comment…sound like love? Just spewing bitterness
@@srhodes6963 1) i dont like kim. 2)kim is a "progressive" 3) kims concerns are her own 4)Why must i spread love every moment?
@@tookie36 you don’t have to, as long as you’re not criticizing someone for spreading hate if in doing so you are spreading hate as well. But maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I must have, because I wouldn’t have expected you to have a reasonable response according to my original impression. Fair enough what you say. Sorry about that
@@srhodes6963 “If only you knew the power of the Dark Side...”
@@srhodes6963 "Anything voiced by a Republican comes from a place of hate"
Well aren't you self-righteous after *your* leader, Newt Gingrich, poisoned our politics into tribal bickering.
Not that I advocate pleasing the wealthy in anyway, but if the local statues aren't likely to change allowing denser housing then why not create incentives for the good paying businesses to spread out more allowing affordable housing to be closer to those jobs
The city of Vienna is the model for affordable housing.
My rent went from $1200 to $1650 in an year.
When your biggest employer is Walmart rent will be cheaper.
There's no solution to this in a truly free country. People can choose where to live and who lives by them. The social classes will never be able to live together.
If rent is 50% of income then you work 6 months a year for rent. But since you pay taxes first, say 20%, you will work 7.5 months a year just to pay rent. And that 20% tax means you're working 11 weeks full-time to hand over to the IRS. That leaves you less than 2 months to earn money to invest in improving your situation. Nope. No food in the budget yet...
It's hard for me to imagine what kind of situation a person would be in where rent is 50% of pre-tax income.
So taxes should be more progressive?
Did she just recommend deregulation?
Some will panic when middle class blacks move into a white neighborhood. But they can show they have earned the right to move in. However, forcing public housing into the suburbs drops that confidence severely. People feel in their hearts what Charles Murray has demonstrated in theory-many of the poor are poor because of genetics, not simply racism. And violence also is partly genetic. Tough to hear, but if say you believe in science, the data is there.
The high cost of unreasonable regulations makes building entry level housing a money loser
Also, you should know that if those regs were not in place, Haliburton would build you a shower which would electrocute you, just like how they murdered US soldiers in Iraq. I cite this as an example because *there were no regs*
watch CITIZEN KOCH and any Michael Moore film and see how they've accomplished it. These movies are old so hindsight is 20/20.
Both parties, our government sold us out and gave the keys to the Kochs
This seems to be the "Western problem" blueprint, same situation is going on Holland since the 2008 mortgage crisis, house prices are through the roof, pardon the pun.
I rent my place, 10 years ago i was offered to buy it for €90.000, this weekend i got new neighbors, they bought the apartment above me, for €190,000!
Cut a lot of the red tape, the tape regarding what type of housing can be built. And build a lot more midrise and low rise public housing and never stop.
I'm so confused by this show. Every time I tune in, there are new hosts. What happened to Emily? She's great.
I heard that she didn’t want to commit to doing the job full time but that could be the Hill covering for firing her
Seems like they’ve been just trying out new hosts to see who gets them the best ratings and response from viewers. Some of the newer hosts have been terrible but I think Kim is doing a great job so far. She’s had her own show for years so she definitely seems more confident and comfortable than previous guest hosts.
I'm a bit disappointed as well. As much as I like Kim, she does have her own show already. Really, I was enjoying seeing Emily and would hope to see her again in the future..
Look up the channel Not Just Bikes. It focuses on urban development
How much tax revenue do you lose when you convert commercial property into low
income residential?
The commercial owner will partner with private developer and zoning official to build luxury condos to solve our housing needs. You have to compete against this model. Good luck.
I can see the tax revenue going negative, especially when the need for additional policing, social work, and public benefits is included in the calculus. If low income housing were profitable, there would obviously be more of it - but there's not. Cities and neighborhoods don't want it for very rational reasons.
From what I hear there are lots of houses just laying around empty, it's just that they are owned by overseas investors or big investment firms that have no interest in selling them much less selling them for a low enough price that most Americans could buy one.
Chinese investors and Wall Street corporations are buying American real estate in huge amounts, driving up prices for everyone.
Great video post, definitely became better after the guess stopped doing a "dance about." This topic is and always will be about new aged discrimination. Because you vote, espouse, and believe in the cleaver grifting of being a Democrat. That doesn't necessarily make you less bigoted, less of an opportunist or less of what makes some Republicans despised. Classcism and racism goes hand and hand. While wealth and status are a conduit to such. So too is perpetuity.
Commercial codes are the same for a business
What about transit accessibility connecting urban and suburban areas? Wouldn't that allow for construction outside of metropolis city?
2:36: "And no one that doesn't earn a ton of money can't live in your neighborhood" THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF HOUSING PRICES! That is capitalism at it's finest. The opposite of that is the belief that anyone who makes any amount of money should be able to live in any neighborhood. A $50k per year janitor should not be able to live in the same neighborhood as Tom Cruise, Magic Johnson, or Lady Gaga or Joe Biden. That's the point. I firmly reject this lady's well-meaning but wrong statement.
Haha eggs on democrats face
Vote democrat, they love their minions!
I'm sorry yet I have been building houses since the eighties and this young lady does not understand real estate