Posted on 02/07/2024 8:53:49 PM PST by NoLibZone
Create more supply to meet the demand. Cut the red tape on new development by putting a cap on government fees, and a hard deadline for permits to be approved and denied permits appealed. Speed up the process and cut the costs There is a disconnect between the rate of new development and the rate of population growth.
Eliminate the property tax for one dwelling owners. You could also escalate the property taxes on each additional home owned by a person, family or controlled entity, and while that isn’t exactly a conservative value there could be a pain threshold where it becomes too expensive to own scores of SFRs forcing hoarders to sell. One house is free of tax, second homes is taxed, third home is taxed twice the rate, fourth home is double that etc. Not exactly that, but you get the idea. Again, it’s not a conservative value but making it uneconomical to hold too many SFRs would work to achieve the goal of creating more supply.
Some cities/states have tried to eliminate zoning, so where one parcel that held one SFR could be used to build multiple townhomes or multiple homes. A lot of pushback on homeowners about that idea destroying the character of neighborhoods. But, in conservative principles, if you own a parcel that could reasonably hold 4 small homes, the owner should be able to develop that.
“Tell them”
Ask them:
How much would the plywood itself cost?
How much would the framing lumber itself cost?
Find out the margins of Lennar, DR Horton, etc.
They want to buy mom & dad’s third house as their first. In 1985, our $68k first house was 1244 square feet. We moved up as the family grew. 38 years later we downsized from 4160 square feet to 2230 square feet after all the kids left. New homes now aren’t starter homes from the past. According to Google, the average cost per square foot for a new Virginia home is $155. California is 3 time the VA cost. Round the VA up to $200 and my starter home would cost $250,000 today.
Builders need to build smaller starter homes.
No reason for housing to be cheaper for “young people” than for anyone else.
Kick out the 60 million illegals in this country and housing would be cheaper and more readily available. (Though those who have used their housing as a piggy bank would be disappointed.)
No reason for housing to be cheaper for “young people” than for anyone else.
Kick out the 60 million illegals in this country and housing would be cheaper and more readily available. (Though those who have used their housing as a piggy bank would be disappointed.)
Agree with both your posts.
That, too.
Also, non groups like Blackrock, buying property up for rental purposes. Sell only to actual people looking to buy a home.
“Create more supply to meet the demand.”
If LA was to be ‘affordable’ to everyone, almost everyone in Duluth (and Flint, Utica, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, East St. Louis, etc.) would move there.
If an area or job doesn’t meet your needs, move on.
“8600 sq ft M mansion appraised at $6,000,000”
All people, most especially the high-income types, need to understand that is cheap to add square feet.
Plywood sells for about $1/square foot. The supporting structural lumber might run $2/square foot. I haven’t checked the price of marble lately, but it might be $6/square foot.
Only by understanding of building costs by almost all (some people are incurably stupid) prospective buyers will housing prices be reasonable.
Reasonable doesn’t mean affordable. Wonderfully temperate LA will be ‘unaffordable’ to most American citizens probably as long as there is a thing that could be called American civilization.
Opus?
As long as there are liberal polices, taxes to pay for them, and debt then they are all screwed. Right along with everyone else.
Bring back Levittowns.
Yes of course. The demand has to move where there is more supply or more affordability. The question was what we could do - and one of the solutions is to eliminate regulation and red tape to increase supply in high demand regions.
It is simply a supply and demand issue with a lot of government interference in the market from permitting to zoning to taxing. In CA one of the problems for the young but benefit to those who have been settled a while is that property taxes are locked in at a low valuation and (if any) interest rates locked in at half or below the current borrowing costs. Thus, there in little desire for homeowners to sell They’d have to reset their rate and the property tax, and probably pay a lot in state and federal taxes on the gain. Lots of government interference in the housing market and it is exacerbated by taxes and interest rates at the moment.
Do you live near Chastain?
That area has seen a ton of that sort of thing over the last 25 years.
Build or buy a tiny home. Buy a piece of land and plop it on there. Reality is that these younger folks are still part of the problem. Conservative ones too. They allow themselves to be victimized and controlled by the little lefties so they don’t cry or need their safe space. Me I don’t give a hoot about someone’s feelings, gender, color etc. if I don’t like something or someone I’m not bullied into silence nor am I afraid to speak up. Until people can grow some, I say they live with what they’ve allowed to grow into an invasive cancer
When I was a kid, “employment opportunity” and “commute time” were the only things 99% of the population even considered when looking for a home to buy.
Reduce Zoning and building requirements.
They add 10’s of thousands of dollars to the cost.
Bring back all of those high paying manufacturing and tech jobs that we offshored because we wanted to save a few pennies on communists made paint brushes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.