Your state government seems to think the advantages of gentrification outweigh the disadvantages, by at least $12,000 per person.
Those advocating for the free market often have no problem with cities and towns putting in artificial restrictions on growth to “maintain the character of the neighborhood.” Bozeman MT, has been used on many occasions in this thread, so I took at look at their R-1 Residential zoning area. Zoning in that district requires a minimum of 1 acre of land, with 25 feet setbacks on the sides and back and 35 feet set backs in the front. In and of itself, this doesn’t seem outrageous. The problem is that developers can only make a profit by building large and expensive houses on lots of this size. A free market approach would permit the building of smaller houses on smaller lots or higher density, more affordable housing. Other, higher density zones do exist in the city, but huge swaths are limited this way. No one would imagine prohibiting a homeowner from selling his property to the highest purchaser, even if that person is a transplant that will use the property as an investment or second home. But most people would have no problem prohibiting their neighbor from selling their single family home to a developer that wants to convert it into a 2 family or multifamily apartment. The end result is no restriction on demand, but a substantial restriction on supply, which of course causes prices to raise to a level that many find unaffordable.
In most of the town in which I grew up in Connecticut (and my parents still live), there is no city water or city sewage service, so the houses have septic tanks and well water. Those need to be a certain distance from each other, which sort of forces one-acre (or larger) zoning. That may explain the one-acre zoning in Bozeman, Montana. (Of course, you could build a multifamily development with a shared well and a shared septic tank but it’s not as simple to build densely as it is in more urban areas.)
That’s outrageous by UK standards. Here developers squeeze new homes into 1/10 or even 1/12 of an acre. Not cheap homes, either. But it sounds like these homes were fine and affordable for locals before the millionaires moved in. So what changed?
The city should charge a high tax on empty and second homes to deter this sort of thing. Plenty of countries prohibit non-residents from buying property, but probably that would be unconstitutional or something in the US.
I’m not sure how that would be regulated. Unless the cities paid someone to go to every house every night or something. A trivial way around most of the ways I can think to regulate this would be to hire a live in maid.
Demand outpacing supply. In my area, for example, a buildable lot costs $400,000. Only single family homes are allowed, and there is a 1 acre or 5 acre minimum depending on the part of the town. The consequence is that the only homes built are 3,500 square foot or larger.
The typical American system of paying for schools (at least in the 4 states I am familiar with) incentivizes the opposite. Schools are paid by property taxes, so a 2nd home provides revenue without putting students in the schools.
Don’t you have to declare your primary residence for tax purposes?
Yep, in most cases it’s determined by where you live 6 months per year so it would be trivial to have your vacation home as your “primary residence”, or your maid could list it as their primary residence. Also how do you allow people to buy property to rent out to others? Or would you be proposing banning renting in this town?
This is a chicken and an egg problem. Creating large lots discourages creating more efficient water and sewer services, which justifies the larger lots. Having each house have nearly an acre of lawn puts pressure on the water supplies of the town. The pressure on the water supply justifies placing restrictions on further development and round and round we go.
Yep, totally trivial to live in your vacation home over 6 months per year or hire a live-in maid…!
If the house was rented out, it wouldn’t be empty, so you wouldn’t have to pay the extra charge.
The bolding, of course, is mine.
I most definitely challenge that statement. California as a whole is pretty mixed, with some of the poorest areas in the nation. However, the tech boom certainly brought in a massive influx of wealth and population, especially to the San Fransisco region. However, California also has some of the most obnoxious restrictions on development in the nation. Some of these are specific, written legal regulations, but others are simply codes and processes that give absurd amounts of veto power to local communities or councils. - and those are heavily influenced by anti-development groups. Those groups, in turns, are funded and supported not necessarily by the uber-wealthy but those who stand to gain from booming prices.
This is not exactly a deep, dark secret and quite a few California politicians make more or less the same point. The problem also extends well beyond the SF area but that’s the most obvious example. Sure, a few billionaires will buy big mansions or whatever, but they’re not the ones who are really bidding up the prices everywhere. Rather, it’s the employees down the ladder from the expanding tech giants.
Seems like a great idea for cities to write regulations that only allow the very rich to own second homes in town. Keep out the pesky middle class that’s the ticket to minimizing wealth disparity.
ETA: Who do you think are buying second homes in Bozeman or Aspen? Or anywhere that rural gentrification might be a concern?
That’s one thing I thought the article wasn’t terribly clear on. And I’m not sure how to find out the answer.
So if you live in your Bozeman house six months out of the year, you’re paying state and local income taxes as a full-time resident. Or you declare it’s a vacation/second home and you pay higher levels of property taxes. Either way, you’re paying.
I’m not saying they should do this. I know that there are neighborhoods in New York and London (and probably other cities) in which many apartment buildings are entirely or mostly populated by absentee owners (Russian oligarchs, Chinese billionaires, Arab sheiks, etc). I don’t think it’s good, in that the people who own these apartments aren’t eating in restaurants, taking taxicabs, going to shows and otherwise participating in the economy. Apparently there are plenty of people who have no problem buying and furnishing a house or apartment that costs $20-100 million that they only use a week or two a year. It doesn’t make sense to me; wouldn’t you rather just rent or stay in a hotel when you’re in town and not have that much money tied up? I know that for some of these people, New York or London real estate is a safe investment outside their home country.
Since we can see that the average single family home in Bozeman is ~$750k then we can assume it is someone who can afford the 20% down and $2,700 monthly payment on top of what their main home costs. Assuming people are following the 28% rule for a home for their vacation home they would need to make at least $115k per year and I would guess most of them are at least double that.
I’m skeptical that vacant second homes are really an appreciable problem. It’s a very common claim in high-price property markets, often blamed on shadowy foreigners, but vacancy rates are actually at the lowest in the most expensive places to live.
The wealthy in London are now adding basements to their homes. Massive and quite luxurious basements. That is the only way to add to the size of their places. Apparently this is causing all sorts of trouble and fighting amongst the millionaires.
Not to mention all the buried construction equipment.
Wow. That’s nuts (in a rational nuts sorta way).
Indeed, an injection of half a million Californians would improve West Virginia tremendously. UV’s imagined horror is laughable.
People aren’t fleeing California because it’s a political shitshow. It’s because the more primitive areas like Idaho and Texas are the new frontiers of opportunity. Partly because they’ve lagged behind the more advanced parts of the country.