• COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    57 minutes ago

    If they really wanted to change regulations they’d push changing zoning regulations in cities to allow building anything other than detached single family housing. That would be totally reasonable and help alongside tax incentives. But I have a feeling that’s not what’s meant by changing regulations…

    • somethingp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      50 minutes ago

      I thinks that’s one of those state’s rights things where federal government can’t just tell a town how to zone it’s own land unless they’re taking it away from the town like for a national Park or something.

      • terry_jerry@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        It’s actually an instance of super small government. Those regulations are dictated by city’s and counties not by states

  • Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    Donald John Trump comes from a family of real estate speculators.

    Akira Toriyama once said he based the character of Freeza on Japanese real estate speculators, who he called “the worst kind of people.” (Source)

    Am I saying Trump is Freeza? No, Freeza is several orders of magnitude more competent on his worst day than Trump was when he peaked in 1951. But I think it’s important to underline, for the people in the back, what level of cartoonish evil we’re dealing with, because for some reason people will read stuff like this and it won’t sink in. Maybe DBZ will help.

    I don’t know. I’m tired, y’all.

  • flashgnash@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 minutes ago

    I feel like at the point you phrase what you’re going to do as “mass” anything you’re doing something wrong.

    Can’t think of a single sentence that starts with mass that ends well

  • Liz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The only thing proposed that’s reasonable is “changing regulation.” It’s too easy to block new housing, and often times it’s just flat out illegal to increase density or build mixed use.

    • StructuredPair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      But those regulations are largely controlled by local governments, not the federal government. Federal regulations can prevent building new housing in certain areas and conditions (like destroying habitat of an endangered species), but that is much rarer than a city council not approving projects or zoning changes because they want to keep property values high.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I hate any financial assistance that doesn’t address the root cause, because all it is at that point is more tax and wealth transfer to the rich.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 minutes ago

      That’s the feature of these issues, there is no incentive for people “fixing” them to end the grift.

      • FundMECFSResearch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 minutes ago

        Yes but the real difference is the scale. Approx half of housing in Vienna is publicy owned. This means rent becomes affordable for most as prices depreciate. And it costs the government suprisingly little, saving a lot on crime, homelessness etc etc. Another big part of the market is tightly rent controlled. So you only have maybe 20% of housing that is in similar market conditions to 97% of US housing.

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    thinking that homeless illegal immigrants are the root cause of home shortage where a single corporation or a billionaire buys thousands of flats to rent them to people for exorbitant prices.

    in one way it works because if you kick out many homeless people out of the country, you can say that in one year you cut homelessness by half.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Thats currently already done with jail. The main problem is homeless people don’t pay their jail bills. In my state 15 years ago it was 30$ per day you had to pay to be incarcerated in jail, not prison.

      • FundMECFSResearch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Okay america is sounding more and more like a joke. You have to pay to be in a processing facility? When you have no choice. And you’ll be incarcerated there during trial so before you are proven guilty of anything.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Fun fact! The Constitutional amendment that outlawed slavery also legalized slavery!

          Yeah! And until right now, this very minute, as you’re reading this, some Americans didn’t know that.

  • nroth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Trump’s sucks, but just giving people money will make all of the housing $25000 more expensive on average over time. There are so many better things to do with that money, like better public transportation and schools. She just wants to throw it down a hole and make housing more expensive, in exchange for some short-term support.

    • FundMECFSResearch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s assistance not giving. I think it’s just a fund you can borrow from to get enough to start a mortgage.

      It would also only apply to people who can’t afford the mortgage.

      So it’s not going to impact house prices in the sense you say it would. Except slightly increasing demand to buy and thereby decreasing demand to rent.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        In the UK a similar scheme just led to the entry-level segment of the real-estate market inflating faster than the rest.

        It also led to a rise in more ‘luxury’ entry-level properties being built.

        Again, it’s not exactly the same concept, but in the case of the UK, most economists agree that most buyers actually would have been better off if the policy had never been introduced, since the price rises ended up outpacing the value of the assistance.

        • FundMECFSResearch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The increase in demand will a little. But not near the amount the aid is helping. We are talking a different order of magnitude.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Neither choice is great. One is evil.

    That 25k quickly becomes “oh, everyone had 25k more so we can charge 25k more”.

    Don’t give rich house builders tax breaks, they’re the ones causing the problem by deliberately not building enough. You’re the fucking government. Build houses yourselves. Rent them through social housing programs.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The builders have made the 16 million empty homes in this country because they were just selling them to corporations. It’s not that they are not hiding enough, it’s that the rich have engulfed the entire pipe with their gluttonous mouths and there is nothing left for the rest of us.

      When will we finally slay the beasts that are killing us?

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 hours ago

      25k is for first time home buyers, not everyone. You can’t have separate prices for first time buyers and the rest of the public, and a seller won’t know how you are financed until after the house is listed anyways.

      This absolutely will help, because if you’d just ask anyone trying to get a home, the down payment is the hardest part to satisfy.

      The only way a house cartel can form like this is for those that own the homes. The builders don’t own the homes, corporations do. Those corporations collude and price fix to create a cartel. Focus on that.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The UK had a similar scheme for first time buyers and it’s often cited by economists as one of the biggest things fueling their housing crisis.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s not that they aren’t building enough. It’s that they are building big luxury homes because there is a bigger profit margin than making affordable homes.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah, that too.

        The precious “free markets” have had their crack at it, and have shown that they’re not to be trusted to either own or build them. Prices have soared and that’s 100% intentional on their part.

        • Shard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It was never a free market because of antiquated zoning laws. At very least free market would have driven more dense residential construction because they would have made more return on their buck. We need to allow and even promote medium rise residential zoning in more home scarcity is an issue.

          Land owners be damned, the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few.

    • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’ve started to come around on the 25k down payment assistance. It definitely has it’s problems, and there will absolutely be those who gouge because of it. But because it’s specifically down-payment assistance it will still help first time buyers get mortgages on houses they can afford the regular payments on, but don’t have the extra to set aside for a 10% down payment because rent is taking everything they could be setting aside for a down payment. And it’s limited to first time home buyers, with 2 years of on-time rent payments, and says “up to” 25k. Wouldn’t surprise me if it ends up being limited to 10% of the purchase price (which gets you more favorable loan terms).

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Most builders are already fully booked for work. The one’s that could work faster generally aren’t the ones you want building your house.

  • Marthirial@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 hours ago

    So the mass deportation would be of lawful alien residents, because undocumented residents cannot buy houses unless it is straight up cash, and even then would have a hard time getting insurance or utilities, you know, without a SSN, credit history or IDs. Unless they use a stolen SSN, which is very difficult and rare.

  • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    I’m curious how many houses/apartments are unused in the US, acting as a speculative asset and if building more is even necessary.

    • Lyrl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If enough more houses are built that prices stop increasing faster than inflation, housing will no longer be valuable as a speculative asset. Building more houses BOTH makes housing immediately available, and changes the market forces in a way that pushes out investors squatting on un-lived-in units.

    • Transient Punk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Building more is necessary if the available housing is not located where appropriate employment is located. Thus, the gross number of available homes isn’t a good metric to use for determining the actual need for new construction.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Of course there’s the best option which is an non-occupancy tax that goes up exponentially for each additional property you’re sitting on for speculation.

    That right there would be a hard counter to wallstreet hoovering in the housing market.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It’s like you’re not even considering the feelings of the millionaires and billionaires with 72 houses each and I for one just won’t stand for it.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I can’t wait for the “rational” peoples argument against taxing the rich. Will it be something like a slippery slope fallacy? Maybe it will be “it’s unfair to thoses that only just recently got rich.” I’m thinking though they will go with, “it’s not going to make a meaningful difference” then try and sell us trickle down in some new way.