I am aware of that - but how do you buy my lot and two (or four or ten ) adjacent ones if the other owners aren’t willing to sell ? And actually, when I see larger buildings being built , it’s usually not on multiple smaller lots that were previously occupied by separately owned smaller houses . It’s on a larger lot that was previously a hospital or a strip of stores or a gas station or …
Can’t the developer just bribe the city to eminent domain your houses?
~Max
Well they are building plenty of houses around here. Some of them are McMansions but there are plenty of common raised ranches being built too. The trouble is that new houses are not affordable housing. Any house is worth too much to sell or rent for the low income market. Building affordable apartments is another matter. Investors are definitely not interested, they’d rather put up condos that have a better return. Apartment buildings won’t be owned by individuals very often, if they are built it will be more investor owned residential real estate. Certainly the government can help encourage more low cost investor owned residential housing but it will have to do so with more tax breaks to make the investment worthwhile. But the main thing the government can do to help is work on keeping unemployment low and low end wages high.
Sure, but if you’re bribing politicians you may as well do it to build mall instead of low cost housing.
My town is handing out zoning variances like candy now. Minimum lot size and road frontage requirements don’t work anymore there isn’t enough undeveloped land for that. Unfortunately the entirety of the town laws don’t really help maintain those regulations, the politicians don’t even need to be bribed, just the business card of a good lawyer will make them fold. Also, they don’t need bribes from their friends and relatives, giving them favors is just the Rhode Island way because we truly are one big dysfunctional family here.
Offer more money. Somewhere there will exist a group of contiguous lot owners who are willing to share in the economic surplus that will be created when 50 housing units are built where there were once 10.
Well, or this. There is a narrow Supreme Court precedent that says they can, but public reaction to doing so is pretty negative, so it’s not the best way to go.
Some states may do so, but that does nothing about the states where they do not or cannot. Affordable housing simply isn’t a priority for certain parties, and in fact, can be detrimental, as those who occupy affordable housing often don’t vote for that party.
You also have the fact that, just forcing local govts to accept certain zoning accomodations doesn’t mean that what is built doesn’t get immediately sold to investment groups, leaving us right back where we started.
The feds have the ability to create tax incentives and penalties as well, which may be a more direct method of addressing the problem.
I’m not sure what exactly you are advocating. The current and increasing trend is for houses and other dwellings to be increasingly controlled by a smaller number of players. The OP was opened to ask if govts should do something to prevent this consolidation of real estate into the hands of the wealthy.
You have indicated that, even though every level of government does have an interest in the issue, none of them should take steps to directly address it. IMO, if this problem is not addressed, then within a generation or so, owning the place in which you live will be a very rare thing indeed. So, I’m not saying that you are advocating for this, however, I am saying that you are not advocating for anything that would prevent it.
Really? Ok, I’ll try again. I’m advocating removing most zoning or other regulatory restrictions that prevent the building of housing, and not making any changes along the lines of the suggestion in the OP (any legal entity is allowed to own housing).
Again, really? The post of mine you’re responding to literally specifies a few ways that various levels of government could (and should!) respond to increase the building of houses. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m opposed to that.
To clarify my position: Every level of government should remove most regulations and restrictions that prevent the building of housing. State governments should preempt local governments that fail to do so (as CA and Oregon have recently done).
I disagree. Given ample supply of housing and removal of policies that limit the construction of more, corporate ownership of some housing would not cause any problems and does not require any additional policy solution.
Maybe - but it doesn’t seem to be happening, not even on blocks where apartment buildings already exist ( so zoning is not an issue). I’m guessing that for one reason or another either the builders 1) can’t find that group of contiguous owners or 2) have decided it’s not worth it.
There is a SC decision that allows property to be taken by eminent domain to go into private hands - but that decision still requires that the property be taken for public purposes. That decision just allowed governments to consider economic growth as a public purpose. It didn’t mean that states couldn’t prohibit local governments from justifying eminent domain based on economic growth.
I expect that you are incorrect about zoning not being an issue. Just because there exist apartment buildings on a block doesn’t mean that there aren’t regulatory barriers to building more of them. And not just zoning, but environmental review, and community feedback, and so on. No one of those regulations is a bad idea in a vacuum, but all together they make the cost of building more housing higher, which makes the cost of current housing higher, and so on.
That is very true around here, and that includes the building of apartments and shared wall units. The entire stretch along I-90 between Spokane and Coeur d’Alene is nothing but construction it seems. I recently rode the Centennial trail and going that slow, you notice how much it has filled in, along with all the ongoing construction. Same is true north of I-90. Non-stop. Maybe it has always been this bad, but it seems to have exploded in the last several years.
You haven’t been to Colorado lately then.
Colorado could ban ‘slow-growth’ policies as GOP and liberals team up at the statehouse | Colorado Public Radio.
Housing is being built right now (not necessarily everywhere it should be), but it’s going to have to continue at that pace for a long time to make up for the lost decade.
I took a look and found ZoLa | NYC’s Zoning & Land Use Map
The zoning for Woodhaven almost exclusively allows only 1 or 2 housing units per lot. So zoning really is the problem.
Government does not want to reduce the value of houses, for those who own homes. Having a house is an important priority for many who rent, though prices are high - and sometimes make little sense to me. Government has sometimes dealt with this contradiction by talking too much, and doing too little. I read about as many own a home as always have, but this differs from place to place. Younger people may disagree with this point and may have considered it in more detail than I have. Incentives for first time buyers should not just act to further raise prices.
I do not think they should regulate a percentage, which would not work well. Shell companies should have no role in real estate and financial tracking rules should apply to all and all intermediaries. Government should strongly incentivize building more homes and increasing density where appropriate and demand exists. Rules on occupancy should make sense and be current. If tax advantages of investors are too large, this should be addressed. If investors are foreign, they could be taxed. Corporate ownership including specific real owners should be transparent and publicly available. Being more realistic about where one should live might help, but many cities have learned it is unhelpful to price out those who provide services. A city should have a palette of options available to all its residents. Shelter should not take up all of your income for decades.
Inflation is a real concern for would-be homeowners and government should minimize giveaways and further quantitative easing.
“Canada has the lowest houses per capita in the G7, according to a [2021 Scotiabank report,] and would need to build 1.8 million new homes just to reach the G7 average. Given that fewer than 200,000 units a year are built in Canada, we will need to quickly increase that number if we hope to provide adequate housing for our current population and have any hope of keeping up with growth.“
Others would blame “deference to community input”. However, it is hard for me to believe they should not have some say.
To date 45 states reacted to Kelo vs New London by enacting state laws restricting eminent domain to benefit private development projects.