• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Eviction Moratorium - What is the ratio of valid protection vs exploitation?

Easy to be altruistic when it's someone else's wallet taking the hit.

Yeah screw the evil landlords!!!

ScarySpikes said:
lot of people who now claim to care about the poor having difficulties finding housing are going to become way colder and less caring when their property loses half a million dollars or more in value.
Click to expand...
 
bojangle said:
^^^ It may be a lot more expensive to build, but it also results in a lot more sales, or rents, per acre of land, or whatnot, compared to low density housing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The ROI is what is important, not the initial cost. Development of tract property, which is single family homes, is terribly expensive, since you need to build streets, sewers, etc. for the homes. In California that cost is astronomical due to regulations and land values.

My house (built 30 years ago) cost about 3 TIMES what it cost to build the same house in Texas. The builder who built it moved to Texas and made a small fortune building outside Austin.
 
bojangle said:
^^^ It may be a lot more expensive to build, but it also results in a lot more sales, or rents, per acre of land, or whatnot, compared to low density housing.
Click to expand...

It's the 'whatnot' that brings 'em in.
 
ScarySpikes said:
High density housing is way more expensive to build than low density housing is, especially as developers build upwards and add more floors. A high rise building can cost twice as much per square foot compared to small, single family, or 2-4 unit properties. Developers are then incentivized to pump the sale price of the properties even more, by building and selling them as 'Luxury' condos or apartments.

It's a really difficult problem, which is also exacerbated by the fact that any real effort to lower rents will also lower property values. Home ownership the way a fuck ton of people build wealth. Fixing the Bay Area's housing situation basically by definition would lower property values. A lot of people who now claim to care about the poor having difficulties finding housing are going to become way colder and less caring when their property loses half a million dollars or more in value.
Click to expand...

You're missing land use/ cost in the equation. Height does increase cost, but there is a cost benefit to high density, limited height buildings. The best bang for the buck in the suburbs is attached multi-story townhomes/ R3/R4.

Edit: MOST efficient (and cheapest) is R3/R4 density Modular/ manufactured projects.

One more thing: Federal and State governments can do one large thing to alleviate high housing costs on employed people: allow companies to contribute housing as non-taxable compensation.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
^^^ It may be a lot more expensive to build, but it also results in a lot more sales, or rents, per acre of land, or whatnot, compared to low density housing.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely true. Where space is at a premium, it would be pretty insane to even allow for new low density development. It would definitely not make sense financially. The point is, for developers, if they have to pay $500 or even $1000 per square foot to build, on top of the land cost, they are going to charge a lot in order to make a profit on that building.

The easy answer would be for the state to subsidize the development in return for strict pricing controls. Basically change the incentive structure for developers so it makes a lot more sense for them to build more efficient, lower cost, generally smaller apartments instead of luxury condos. Actually build those, though, and the housing market probably cools a lot, a lot of wealthy investment buyers are gonna get pissed.

Personally, my mindset is to not care about those investment buyers. Them losing money on a real estate investment is not going to lead to any real change in their quality of life. However, politicians don't want to piss off donors.
 
ScarySpikes said:
Oh, absolutely true. Where space is at a premium, it would be pretty insane to even allow for new low density development. It would definitely not make sense financially. The point is, for developers, if they have to pay $500 or even $1000 per square foot to build, on top of the land cost, they are going to charge a lot in order to make a profit on that building.

The easy answer would be for the state to subsidize the development in return for strict pricing controls. Basically change the incentive structure for developers so it makes a lot more sense for them to build more efficient, lower cost, generally smaller apartments instead of luxury condos. Actually build those, though, and the housing market probably cools a lot, a lot of wealthy investment buyers are gonna get pissed.

Personally, my mindset is to not care about those investment buyers. Them losing money on a real estate investment is not going to lead to any real change in their quality of life. However, politicians don't want to piss off donors.
Click to expand...

Don't we already do this? It's called low income housing.
 
We need a nice, big earthquake to chase off the interlopers :laughing
 
Easy to be altruistic when it's someone else's wallet taking the hit.

Yeah screw the evil landlords!!!
Click to expand...
Yeah, back to fucking the renters and overbuying to keep people out of the owning market so most have to rent, the way it should be, amirite?

Are you familiar with the term "imperialist running dog?" Just curious...

.
 
Don't we already do this? It's called low income housing.
Click to expand...
Where is this "low income housing?" Asking honestly, I haven't seen any in decades. The place next door to mine takes Section 8; the rent is $3,050/mo for a 3 bedroom 1,050 sq/ft townhouse in a sketchy area.

FT minimum wage brings in $27,040. 30% of that (what is recommended for housing) is $8,112.

$3,050/mo is $36,600. It would take 4.5 earners to make that rent if everyone's net was their gross. Who could afford children?

The U.S. has been fucked (again) by greed. Two people owning 33 single family homes as income properties and being defended and pitied is only one symptom.

.
 
MysterYvil said:
The U.S. has been fucked (again) by greed. Two people owning 33 single family homes as income properties and being defended and pitied is only one symptom.

.
Click to expand...

I’m assuming you read right past the post where he said the 33 rentals were not even in CA…..

There are single family homes for rent in Iowa for under $1,000/mo FFS.
 
I’m assuming you read right past the post where he said the 33 rentals were not even in CA…..

There are single family homes for rent in Iowa for under $1,000/mo FFS.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Iowans, fuck those losers, right? They'll work for $7.25/hr, what do they know? Everything is WAY cheaper out there, discounts on cars, food, and everything.

I've heard that some running dogs will stoop to any level to curry illusory favor.

.
 
Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out then. Best of luck in your quest for minimum wage earners to also be home owners.

:thumbup
 
Shaggy said:
Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out then. Best of luck in your quest for minimum wage earners to also be home owners.

:thumbup
Click to expand...
You mean like it was from the late 40s to the mid 60s?

In any case, not my worry. Those who do have a dog in the fight can download guillotine blueprints from the web these days. Or print off some ARs.

.
 
MysterYvil said:
Yeah, Iowans, fuck those losers, right? They'll work for $7.25/hr, what do they know? Everything is WAY cheaper out there, discounts on cars, food, and everything.

I've heard that some running dogs will stoop to any level to curry illusory favor.

.
Click to expand...

You live in a capitalistic society, quoting Chairman Mao derogatory insults probably will not help your presumed intentions.
 
bojangle said:
Don't we already do this? It's called low income housing.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't work so well, especially when in wealthier areas. Employee housing is a much better option, but the restrictions limit the gain one can make many times. Lots to say on the subject...pretty much, conditional approvals are the first step in cost reduction.
 
Holeshot said:
It really doesn't work so well, especially when in wealthier areas. Employee housing is a much better option, but the restrictions limit the gain one can make many times. Lots to say on the subject...pretty much, conditional approvals are the first step in cost reduction.
Click to expand...

Should we pay them in scrip that they can spend at the company store?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top