Seriously though, zoning laws are a big reason why we have the current housing crisis. If given the opportunity, someone or some business will build high density housing. But you can’t with he current implementation of zoning laws. Without that barrier, you would see a lot more high density building projects
Still we do need zoning laws. I don’t think anyone wants a factory or a garbage dump in their back yard. Used correctly zoning also helps limit sprawl.
I think there’s a blind spot on the left for this one. Opening up zoning for higher density is effectively a giveaway to local developers, who are invariably shitbags. It’d be preferable if solutions like banning corporations from owning housing could be enacted.
That’s based on the theory that there are enough houses and flippers and hedge funds are just sitting on them in order to rake it in later as property values are driven up. If that were true, we’d expect to see large vacancy rates in cities. Problem is, we don’t. My city has <4% vacancy for rentals and <1% for home ownership. This seems to be similar to the numbers in many other major cities in North America. If we got rid of every corporation that was sitting on a house unused, the available housing would go up by 4% or so, at most.
We need more housing stock. As it stands, the only way to do that is a giveaway to shitbag developers. They’re the ones that hold the capitol for building more housing.
This could be mitigated by city councils also encouraging/mandating those developers to have unionized staff.
I know this is quite a bit later, but this comment confused me. I do not see how loosening zoning laws that limit density and banning corporations from owning houses are mutually exclusive.These policies can and should work together as part of a bigger urbanist policy. I also don’t see how supporting local developers is that bad of a thing. I’d rather have the money stay in the community and go to a community member than some multinational corporation who owns thousands of homes across the country. Still it isn’t the best. Cooperative housing or need based housing who is better, but realistically those can’t fill up the excess of stock that we need. We will need input from private developers, as well as a big government housing initiative.
If you can’t answer that question, then you can’t decide on the correct course of action.
Vacancy rates in cities suggest the answer is that the empty homes are someplace else. The correct course of action, therefore, is building more in cities.
If that were true, we also wouldn’t see a low vacancy rate. It does happen, but not at a high enough level to substantially effect prices. I’d still totally support a law limiting how corporations can buy and flip homes. There’s just not much evidence that it’s widespread.
“deregulation” detected. ready the down votes. /s
Seriously though, zoning laws are a big reason why we have the current housing crisis. If given the opportunity, someone or some business will build high density housing. But you can’t with he current implementation of zoning laws. Without that barrier, you would see a lot more high density building projects
Still we do need zoning laws. I don’t think anyone wants a factory or a garbage dump in their back yard. Used correctly zoning also helps limit sprawl.
I think there’s a blind spot on the left for this one. Opening up zoning for higher density is effectively a giveaway to local developers, who are invariably shitbags. It’d be preferable if solutions like banning corporations from owning housing could be enacted.
That’s based on the theory that there are enough houses and flippers and hedge funds are just sitting on them in order to rake it in later as property values are driven up. If that were true, we’d expect to see large vacancy rates in cities. Problem is, we don’t. My city has <4% vacancy for rentals and <1% for home ownership. This seems to be similar to the numbers in many other major cities in North America. If we got rid of every corporation that was sitting on a house unused, the available housing would go up by 4% or so, at most.
We need more housing stock. As it stands, the only way to do that is a giveaway to shitbag developers. They’re the ones that hold the capitol for building more housing.
This could be mitigated by city councils also encouraging/mandating those developers to have unionized staff.
I know this is quite a bit later, but this comment confused me. I do not see how loosening zoning laws that limit density and banning corporations from owning houses are mutually exclusive.These policies can and should work together as part of a bigger urbanist policy. I also don’t see how supporting local developers is that bad of a thing. I’d rather have the money stay in the community and go to a community member than some multinational corporation who owns thousands of homes across the country. Still it isn’t the best. Cooperative housing or need based housing who is better, but realistically those can’t fill up the excess of stock that we need. We will need input from private developers, as well as a big government housing initiative.
They aren’t mutually exclusive. Many of the proposals out there treat it as if it is.
We have like 16 million unoccupied homes as of 2023.
https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-homes-vs-homelessness-by-city/#:~:text=Sixteen million homes currently sit,thousands of Americans face homelessness.
How many are in cities people want to live?
Not gonna speculate on that.
If you can’t answer that question, then you can’t decide on the correct course of action.
Vacancy rates in cities suggest the answer is that the empty homes are someplace else. The correct course of action, therefore, is building more in cities.
But if you do build them in cities, the investors simply come and snap them up. Then you’re back to square one.
If that were true, we also wouldn’t see a low vacancy rate. It does happen, but not at a high enough level to substantially effect prices. I’d still totally support a law limiting how corporations can buy and flip homes. There’s just not much evidence that it’s widespread.