Go to a planning meeting about some housing that people are pissed off about because reasons ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32569768 ) and you'll find a whole bunch of your neighbors. It's not institutional investors blocking this stuff, by and large.
> they are worried about the value of their own home going down. They are treating their home primarily as an investment because that is what they have been told to do their whole lives
Yes, that's much closer to what I've observed in person fighting these fights.
Yes, the institutional investors aren't going to be in your local council meeting. They will be meeting with your state assembly members. They will be meeting with your Congresspeople. They won't be literal NIMBYs focusing on anyone's "backyard". However they will be working towards the same goals at NIMBYs, just at a larger scale.
It's amazing the power those subjects have to turn "YIMBY" into "regulate me harder daddy".
The cognitive dissonance required to enable this about face is a bad thing and seems to be becoming more and more prevalent and accepted in all sorts of public policy contexts.
Now lobby dollars are another story. But renters can fix that by actually voting.
I don't know of any local councils that grant local votes to anyone -- they vote themselves. This should spark an idea of how rich people's dollars outweigh poor people's input. They only have to convince half of the council to vote one way. This can be done through wining and dining, sending "experts" to make presentations, making promises, and so on.
Local to me, we've had a few causes pop up with surprisingly well-run NIMBY efforts opposing them in recent years. The amount of money raised and the signs and slogans are way too good to be the product of the actual locals who speak out on behalf of these groups - somebody else is clearly funding them and doing some marketing.
It's not some psyop that has duped an entire nation, it's people accurately recognizing that their home is the biggest purchase they will ever make in their life, it's almost completely done with debt, and most don't want to end up underwater.
What is those people's second biggest purchase which is also usually done with debt? Does anyone believe that the government should enact policies to ensure that car prices always increase so they would be a better investment? Houses obviously have a longer lifespan than cars, so I'm not suggesting they should necessarily depreciate the same way, but there is also no reason housing should always be appreciating.
We have this idea that the price you sell your home for should always be higher than the price you bought it for. There is no reason for us to preserve that idea beyond the fact that people have now internalized that idea and plan their financial lives around it. The longer we allow that to continue, the harder it becomes to change, but the idea itself is not some fundamental requirement of society.
The government could put the same energy to keeping housing costs in pace with inflation. They don't. Instead, the government tries to keep housing costs rising faster than inflation because housing is viewed as an investment. They have been successful in that goal as housing is greatly outpacing inflation.
> The government could put the same energy to keeping housing costs in pace with inflation. They don't
That's exactly what they did. Not just housing, but also food, cars, ... It's just that housing costs respond a lot better to credit availability than most other things. And yes, generally it's things that are seen as an investment that respond to credit availability.
The government has no direct control over any kind of pricing except the price of money. Also known as credit availability. They raise house prices 5% per year, so that when food and fuel refuse to adjust to inflation, it averages out to 2% per year. This caused larger price rises on everything that is seen as an investment (houses, education, cars, ...) than on things that are not.
Housing costs greatly outpacing inflation is not a recent phenomena of the last 15 years. In fact, home prices increased faster in the prior 15 years than the last 15 years.
>The government has no direct control over any kind of pricing except the price of money.
I'm not interested in debating the meaning of "direct control", but one rather direct control they have is the federal government could repeal the mortgage interest deduction. That would immediately decrease the financial incentive to buy a home therefore decrease demand and lower prices.
Only because the averages get pulled down in places where people don't want to live. Plus effective inflation going up (you know, the inflation including housing and education, not the made up government inflation number)
> I'm not interested in debating the meaning of "direct control", but one rather direct control they have is the federal government could repeal the mortgage interest deduction. That would immediately decrease the financial incentive to buy a home therefore decrease demand and lower prices.
Repealing it would create a big advantage for investing in homes rather than buying them to live in them. This sounds to me like the opposite of what you want. But maybe I'm an idiot.
Reality: for any resource there is supply X and demand Y, in specific markets.
X > Y: it matters a lot less what the exact policy is.
Y > X: someone will be very, very unhappy.
Rent prices, what we really care about, are not determined by who owns a house. They are determined by the amount of houses.
Except until you have a chip supply crunch, and used cars are selling higher than their original buying price.
Reliability is way, way down the wish-list. People don't really consider it until all the other key features they want are very solidly satisfied. And even then the take rate is maybe 50%. For every jerk in a 4Runner or Pilot there's an equal and opposite jerk in a Landrover or Tiguan.
- People who like to frequently change cars, not so frequent as to lease but still prefers to let it go between 50-100KMi. (Contrast folks who sell past 100k or drive cars into the ground, they care more about long term repair cost.)
- People who are using resale value as a proxy for reliability.
I suppose 'lease-e' may fall into this category, also by proxy (as high resale value means lower depreciation, lower lease cost.)
However I’m likely not to be representative.
There's an over reliance on 'ideas' in this message thread, and an under reliance on simply trusting people to reason their own self-interest.
absolutely. If anything investors provide for liquidity of the market.
The real issue is that investors, ie. the rich, are getting more and more ability to buy real estate while the middle and the low class are getting less and less capable of doing so. The reason is the huge sloshing amounts of money being given to the top, and thus those money causing a strong push for the price rise of the assets (back at the beginning of pandemic i said that it will result in the biggest redistribution of wealth https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23924777 toward the rich and large ones)
No, no, no. "providing liquidity" is not a good thing unless liquidity is actually a problem almost everywhere people talk about this.
The "liquidity" provided by high-frequency traders in the stock market does not benefit anyone but themselves. For everyone else the difference between trading in minutes and hours (or even days) is near-meaningless. And they don't provide liquidity for seldom traded stocks.
And on the housing market they are not providing liquidity for the market in general. They are buying and then renting those properties out. Since they are all-cash offers they often trump "regular" buyers out of the market, even when offering the same price. Again, the only ones who benefit by this are those investors themselves.
These investors are one of the major forces pushing up the prices, the are part of the problem, not the solution.
That liquidity is also what's driving the price of executing a retail trade to or below zero. You used to have to pay fees whenever you bought or sold stock.
To be honest, I just figured they were able to eliminate fees by front running and/or selling my trading information.
You could make an argument of the form "HFTs have made trading so cheap that people are hurting themselves more than they used to, and we need to bring the price of trading back up so that people won't be tempted". But that is a pretty different argument than "HFTs don't provide any value". They clearly do. When you place an order to buy or sell stock, you pay lower fees and you get better prices than you otherwise would, because you look just like a million idiots.
Yes there’s a few rich in there and it’s not like they’re egalitarian, but it isn’t Jeff Bezos either.
At least in my area, it's all about people wanting the area to remain semi-rural. They generally aren't opposing low density SFH in independent builds. The people in my area are against many development and medium density homes.
But, yeah, it's all because they have brown skin. Oh, wait, the tenants in question are whiter than I am.
If you want to know why we don't bother, it's because the owners of the surrounding houses use our place as dumping grounds and the owners have been there for decades and know all the housing inspectors and police. It seems pointless to even bother when the landlord wants the house to fall into disrepair and the neighbors will use their connections to authorities to dump on our grounds again as soon as we clean it up. On one occasion I was sent a notice that I would be imprisoned because of trash my neighbor put somewhere not even on our property and before I even moved in. I dutifully cleaned it up because it was clear I was going to be framed, but as that took the entire weekend I had little energy leftover afterwards to do yard work around my own place after being exhausted dealing with the neighbor owners.
Meanwhile the neighbors' house indeed did look spotless because they dumped all their trash on the renters' yards.
We know how people treat rental cars. I don't know why it's a big shock that people will treat rental properties in the same manner, and why other folks would rather not live next to that. Blame race and class if you like, but to not allow at least a little more nuance to the discussion is silly.
If people are going to do restrictions about who lives where, HOA's are probably better than zoning. They're more localized, and the costs of administering them are born by those who perceive them to be beneficial.
I'd never live in one, but to each their own. I'd rather have someone choose one of those in a free market than get involved to zone the entire city one way.
Make it so neighbors are competing to host whatever they are NIMBYing about currently because it comes with a package of goodies that will offset the problems. It doesn't have to include much new spending, rebalancing or reprioritization of existing resources to ensure fairness can be part of it.
Is this the norm? I feel like I haven't heard it often during debates over unpopular new developments.
Plus even at low levels NIMBYism is often about investment. Sure, many object to new housing for reasons like "it will change the character of the neighborhood". But many others object because they are worried about the value of their own home going down. They are treating their home primarily as an investment because that is what they have been told to do their whole life. If I could snap my fingers and magically realign our political goals to maintaining stable home values instead of having them ever-increasing, many NIMBY objections would fade away.