America’s housing crisis continues to worsen, renters are struggling more than homeowners, report says

3volver , 7 days ago

Ban corporations/private companies from holding empty residential housing. Problem solved. Not complicated. Our system fucking sucks and is designed to protect land owners which is why we’re in this situation. This is fucking up our entire society, slowly bringing us down, we’re losing to China. This change needs to happen soon otherwise we’re going to see the working class get milked hard enough that our real economy will collapse.

arefx , 7 days ago

I really don’t see any change happening without… drastic inturruption.

Natanael , 7 days ago

Build more housing. That’s what you need to prioritize.

UnderpantsWeevil , 7 days ago

We have significantly more vacant units (around 15M) than homeless people (around 600k-1.5M by various estimates).

New dense energy efficient units connected to social services and green energy infrastructure would be great for everyone. But the idea that we just don’t have residential space to house people is totally wrong.

Natanael , 6 days ago

And where are they located, and why are they empty?

There’s your next big problem, a significant fraction of them aren’t where people want (or need) to be, or are vacation homes and don’t belong in these stats (unless you want to eminent domain them). Suburbs and ghost towns and remote regions pushes the average up.

todayshomeowner.com/…/highest-home-vacancy-rates/

UnderpantsWeevil , 6 days ago

And where are they located, and why are they empty?

smartasset.com/data-studies/vacant-houses-2023

More than 300,000 housing units in New York City sat vacant. However, the Big Apple’s total vacancy rate of 8.3% in 2022 fell slightly from five years earlier (9.7%). Meanwhile, San Francisco had over 52,000 vacant units in 2022 for a 12.7% vacancy rate.

Turns out nobody wants to live in checks notes New York City or San Fransisco.

a significant fraction of them aren’t where people want (or need)

There are definitely large numbers of vacant units in areas that were de-industrialized or hit with natural disasters. However, speculators moving in and gobbling up the properties at their bargain basement rates, then squatting on them to drive up the overall value of real estate in the area, result in artificially high real estate rates across these neighborhoods. Even in places with ostensibly low demand for housing, the prices remain higher than in historical periods of high demand.

Suburbs and ghost towns and remote regions pushes the average up.

Over-development in less accessible places can make neighborhoods unattractive due to the commute. But the solution to this problem is often to improve mass transit in these neighborhoods and develop local public services (schools, post offices, grocery stores, etc) at their centers. Then do the one thing that Americans hate and fear more than anything - BRING IN THE MIGRANTS. Populate the neighborhoods with large socially cohesive cohorts of new people and energize the neighborhoods with public works spending.

This creates a virtuous cycle of economic growth and development that brings in still more people and creates new demand for more goods and services. This is exactly what big midwestern towns did to revitalize in the wake of deindustrialization. Chattanooga, Tennessee installed public Gigabit internet and became the center of a Tennessee tech boom. Detroit accumulated a network of art collectives in its low rent housing and reinvented itself as a cultural center. Atlanta, Georgia is enjoying an enormous economic expansion thanks to new federally subsidized battery plants in the city.

When public policy identifies a housing surplus, policymakers can create a virtuous cycle of development by building new business capacity in the immediate vicinity. Then you solve joblessness, homelessness, and a stagnant economy in one go.

Natanael , 6 days ago

…nyc.gov/…/spotlight-new-york-citys-housing-suppl… 🤷

I don’t disagree with the rest, walkable cities are important, speculators shouldn’t be involved in housing, etc. But some places genuinely have a lack of available housing and the solution is to build away.

UnderpantsWeevil , 6 days ago

Some places have a lack of affordable housing. But anywhere you go, you can find living space at a high enough price point.

The only real exception is in the midst of a natural disaster or similar event, at which point the housing is typically exhausted because it is gobbled up by state bureaucracies for housing troops going in or refugees flooding out. And these sudden shortages are resolved by moving people to long term housing in surrounding areas, not by throwing up enormous tower blocks overnight.

That’s not even to say we don’t need new builds. A lot of the existing housing stock is old, poorly maintained, or inefficient. But the idea that we simply don’t have enough units to go around is real estate developer ad copy. It isn’t based in reality. And pursuing the policies advocated by the “not enough housing” folks inevitably leads to large new Luxury branded establishments that get sold off to speculators rather than lived in by the unhoused.

Natanael , 5 days ago

Sounds like eminent domain talk if you think there’s enough suitable available homes already

UnderpantsWeevil , 5 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e3656091-1d87-41f0-8825-3b83407e0a51.jpeg

UnderpantsWeevil , 7 days ago

Ban corporations/private companies from holding empty residential housing. Problem solved. Not complicated

Who passes this law? Who signs it? My municipal and state governments are infested with real estate agents landlords, attorneys, and bankers, all of whom profit from artificially scarce housing.

3volver , 6 days ago

Who passes this law? Who signs it?

Exactly. Exactly.

Our system fucking sucks and is designed to protect land owners which is why we’re in this situation.

shiroininja , 7 days ago

my rental office rose my rend $200 and I couldn’t afford deposit on a new place. am fucked.

GoofSchmoofer , 7 days ago

What frustrates me is there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a position to promote change to this problem that is really talking about it. They may pay it lip service but nothing beyond that.

TubularTittyFrog , 6 days ago

It’s a national problem, but policies that affect housing are mostly local. So you need to override local control with state/federal policy, or convince a 50,000 municipalities to change their laws.

And the few states that have passed reforms for zoning, etc. are getting sued to shit in court by the city/towns.

This problem was 50 years in the making, it would take more than 50 years to fix.

GoofSchmoofer , 6 days ago

I totally agree this isn’t a easy fix and it will take decades to change but I feel that should be a challenge for the US to start making the change not a reason to keep the status quo.

FlyingSquid , 7 days ago

If I could, I would pass a law saying that no corporation could own more than two dwelling structures. That still allows them to own things up to apartment high-rises. But only two.

nonfuinoncuro , 7 days ago

they’d just make nesting doll structured holding companies with all profits going to the top but any losses being contained within each branch

actually this sounds like a great idea BRB gotta register some LLCs in Delaware

FlyingSquid , 7 days ago

I would think that would be covered under antitrust legislation, but if it wouldn’t be, I guess I would pass that as part of the law.

anindefinitearticle , 7 days ago

The problem with antitrust legislation is that it rarely gets enforced.

FlyingSquid , 7 days ago

Sadly, I am aware. It really sucks.

UnderpantsWeevil , 7 days ago

The most common target of antitrust litigation has been unions.

Desistance , 7 days ago

No. You make it so that they cannot hold single family dwellings period unless for the purpose of listing and selling them to non-corporate individuals.

Tinks , 6 days ago

There are reasons why a business might actually need or benefit from having a single family dwelling in a way that aligns with their business. For instance a local theatre company owns two large homes here so that when traveling cast come for shows they have somewhere to house them without spending exorbitantly on hotel rooms for weeks at a time, and the cast get a more comfortable stay. The homes are typically occupied at least a portion of each month, and everyone involved benefits.

It’s reasons like these I wouldn’t want to put a total and complete ban on businesses owning single family homes, but in my opinion there should be a reasonable business justification for it and it needs to be very limited.

BigBenis , 7 days ago

How would people here feel about a tax that increases in rate per-property owned? People and organizations can still own as many properties as they want, but at some point they’re going to be taxed so much it’ll be impossible to profit off of them.

bcgm3 , 7 days ago

I’m not sure. Realizing I had no idea how much wealth the truly wealthy possess has been a reoccurring theme from the past few years. I think I’d rather see some hard limitations on who can own what.

UnderpantsWeevil , 7 days ago

How would people here feel about a tax that increases in rate per-property owned?

That’s functionally how the homestead exemption works already

they’re going to be taxed so much it’ll be impossible to profit off of them.

I would simply start a PAC with all my extra money and bribe/coerce politicians into reducing the tax rates.

EatATaco , 6 days ago

That’s functionally how the homestead exemption works already

Unless I’m mistaken, that’s just a small tax break you get on the taxes on your primary residence. After that, it makes no difference the number of properties you own, their taxes stay the same.

capital_sniff , 6 days ago

Until we actually remove republicans and republican lites from the legislature I highly doubt we’ll see any progressive tax reforms, like actually taxing the rich. You could probably find more support for expanding house buying programs. Stuff like lowering the down payment requirements, and or give a large grant for a portion of the house value if it is high and it could be clawed back at sale.

Bytemeister , 6 days ago

Personally, I’d prefer a monthly fine for unfilled housing, that is based on the rate you are charging for it. Landlord wants to jack your rent up 20%? If you leave, they pay a fine, based on that amount until they fill the unit. The fines go to subsidizing housing costs, so there is a self-balancing system. Right now, with property values increasing at insane rates, owners don’t really need to rent to break even, which leaves them free to price gouge their tenants. There is little pressure pushing rates back down, and there is all the freedom in the world to jack them up as high as you want.

EatATaco , 6 days ago

The problem right now is one of supply and demand, not because corporations are buying up too many properties. It’s the other way around where corporations are buying up properties, because due to not increasing supply, and demand continue rising, it’s a good investment.

We need more high density housing all over the place. I live in a nice little town right outside a large US city. We have a train right into the city, and a nice little downtown area that could certainly use more business. They have been trying to put up apartment buildings, but the NIMBY-ism is through the roof. It’s like every little attempt to add more housing, people start whining to high heavens how it is killing our “small town” feel. I mean, I get it, I moved here for a reason, but something has got to give.

I can only imagine what’s happening in more rural areas where everyone wants their big lots and single homes.

So I don’t really oppose increasing taxes per home, but I don’t think it’s really going to solve the issue of increasing home prices as that’s not the root of the issue.

TwentySeven , 6 days ago

It’s already like that where I live. It’s called the homestead exemption – property taxes are cut in half if it’s your primary residence

Pacattack57 , 6 days ago

The homestead exemption is not a tax. It is a discount on tax. Therefore there is no penalty for owning extra homes. Landlords not only benefit from the homestead exemption but also get you to pay the property taxes on the house you’re renting.

TwentySeven , 6 days ago

Extra tax on non resident properties vs discounted tax on your residence. As far as I can tell, it’s the exact same thing

laceybell , 6 days ago

The sky is blue

InternetCitizen2 , 6 days ago

deleted_by_moderator