cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/41774241
There is enough housing. It sits unoccupied and sometimes disrepair.
The consequences of not building enough housing
Submitted 1 day ago by Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e587e67f-5faf-4563-8c05-b04b4ff912b8.jpeg
Comments
Maeve@kbin.earth 1 day ago
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Occupy Homes
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 day ago
that did happen on various degree, only 1 incident in the west last years ago.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Yes, though also some are in such economically depressed areas that you can barely get a job.
Maeve@kbin.earth 1 day ago
We also need to organize for clean public transit; in the meantime, there's often plenty in bustling areas, as well.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Which is a concern, but can largely be mitigated by encouraging work-from-home jobs. If people are able to reliably WFH, (and COVID proved that many jobs can be done entirely from home), then the local job market doesn’t tend to matter as much.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
But a lot of them are in densely populated suburbs or cities, driven out by the artificially inflated rental costs. The owners would rather have a few units empty than lower the rent.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
That is not the consequence of enough housing. It’s from wealth hoarding.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 1 day ago
A lack of housing is not the problem most places. The problem is that housing shifted from being a place for people to live to a way for people to acquire “passive income”. Hell, the very design of housing changed in a noticeable way: houses shifted from being homes to being feature laden investment vehicles.
fort_burp@feddit.nl 14 hours ago
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
- Crack down on price fixing
- Don’t let corporations run AirBNBs or similar
- Don’t let corporations own any rental building over approximately 10 units.
- Don’t let rental buildings have more than a low percentage of empty units for turn around. They have to lower the rent then. If it goes to $200/month, then so be it.
There are so many things to try, but Trickle Down Housing never works.
billwashere@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Don’t let corporations own single family homes. Drastically increase the tax rate for more than 3 houses by any single person. A landlords income is not producing anything useful, it’s stealing income from people actually providing society with something useful.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Drastically increase the tax rate for more than 3 houses by any single person.
I would say that it should start building the tax after one house and go drastic like you said on the 3rd.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Ratcheting taxes for unoccupied houses and apartment units. Allow a grace period of one year, to allow for flips. But after that, every home you own after the first is considered unoccupied if it is vacant for more than three months of the year. And taxes on vacant homes become increasingly expensive as you own more and more of them. Then take the proceeds of these taxes, and put them towards first time homebuyer assistance programs. This would solve the three largest issues with the housing market right now.
First, it solves the “sitting on vacant houses to drive up the price of rent” problem. Actively force landlords to keep their apartments and houses full, driving down the price of rent.
Second, it solves the “buying a dozen houses and only selling one of them” problem. Corporations do this to be able to game the market and drive up prices on the few they do sell. But by making it prohibitively expensive to sit on vacant houses, you preemptively wreck any kinds of profits they would make by sitting on them.
Third, it would allow for more low interest loans for first time home buyers, and could even be used to offset the potential downpayment costs.
But of course, this will basically never be implemented, because the lawmakers are all bribed by the corporations that own thousands of vacant homes.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s true that it’s doubtful that this stuff will get implemented if we continue the way we are going. Most people don’t know about these issues and talking about it gets this info out there. The propaganda coming from the corporate landlords is heavy and strong. I’m surprised this isn’t getting trolled heavily tbh. Not sure why it isn’t.
Things to continue talking about and what I don’t think people realize, know, or understand how bad it is:
- Price fixing is a huge problem in rentals. They have website services that help the landlords do this.
- Corporate landlords hold empty homes and apartments vacant until they can get the prices they want rather than lower the price. This is why that trickle down housing shit doesn’t work.
- Corporations buy up all cheap housing so downturns in markets are only good for them too. See the first 2 bullet points.
- The push for more housing means that there are more luxury apartments, not homes for who need them. They’ll say that homes will be available when they get shitty over the years. See above bullet points and even if that were true, would take 30 years anyway.
Go after the corporate landlords and corporate airbnb shit first, then go after the nimbys. The nimbys are the distraction and pits the neighbors against the 15 minute city types instead of the corporations that are making fucking bank.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
hell yeah, rentals should be made prohibitively expensive to keep empty, if the city don’t have the demand to rent it? Then you should sell it at a price people will buy in a short enough time.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Don’t let corporations own any rental building over approximately 10 units
Wouldn’t corpos be the ones to buy larger buildings (e.g. over 10 units)? It’s tough for typical individual investors to be able to buy a 100-unit building.
It’s SFH that they shouldn’t be buying.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I meant under 10 units, you’re right. I fixed it. I’m down with a cold and I knew it wasn’t quite right, but my brain couldn’t fix it, lol.
henfredemars@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Best I can do is fed interest rate cuts.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I’m not really buying the no housing thing now. The thing is, it turned into a commodity. If you just build more, then those with all the money (because that gap is pretty damn vast nowadays) will just buy and hold and rent them
Wait till air comes next, or some stupid ass shit.
dp@thebrainbin.org 1 day ago
Damn that backpack looking spacious af
olafurp@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Residential housing shouldn’t be owned by corporations. It should be built by them and then sold to individuals.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 1 day ago
A co-op could handle it without much problem.
olafurp@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Yeah, anything that prevents the financialisation of residential housing floats my boat. In Iceland we have big corpos selling each other houses at over market price to increase the average m^2 price in an area. It’s pretty bonkers.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
2030 is more like ⚰️
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
2030: a tent
2050: a cardboard box
ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 1 day ago
IMO: do what Vienna is doing: state provided apartments and flats, competing with everyone else. Try price fixing now, corpos. If Vienna did not have this, it would be at the same level as other europeanetropolises.
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 1 day ago
We have plenty of housing. The problem is its all tied up with money horders. There are several times the number of empty houes than there are homeless. If we got rid hedge fund scumbags ability to horde everything including single family dwelings it would go a long way toward fixing this inequity.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
Not a shitpost
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
Which makes it the ultimate shitpost.
Oh and the sidebar
Anything and everything goes.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
Nah
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Building it isn’t the problem. My Republican shithole burb just bulldozed the last of our open space, to build 600 single family units starting in the “low one millions.” Can’t afford that? No problem. They’re also building 2000 condos, starting in “the mid 500s.”
Starting to see the real problem?
D_C@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
After the embarrassment of the last ten years, and the ongoing embarrassment until the fat orange child rapist dies, then I’d say getting a backpack and leaving the Nazied States of America is probably the best move.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Haha
I was just watching a YT travelogue of a US guy in his 50s (Gen X) who was travelling the world with a backpack because he cant afford rent in the US.
bajabound@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Obviously fake and misrepresented. The paint isn’t peeling off that van.
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 1 day ago
Another cyberpunk come true scenario that involves absolutely no cool cybernetics
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 13 hours ago
Can we get some information on what’s the ratio of total houses/people in the country, from 1960 to today?
ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
…you cross-posted from “Neoliberal” and tried to pass it off as a shitpost? For fucks sake. They’re not even trying anymore. At least we don’t have to look at a pedophile in this particular political post. Are the mods ever going to do something about this shit?
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The consequences of letting companies buy up residential homes.
Smart_Penicillin@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In Europe we have already achieved the backpack level. We are winning. 💪
wander1236@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
There’s plenty of housing, it’s just not profitable to let people live there, so obviously it’s better to just leave it all empty.
henfredemars@infosec.pub 1 day ago
The backwards thing is, it probably actually is profitable, but we can’t see beyond the next quarter. We don’t understand that you can invest in your people.
altphoto@lemmy.today 23 hours ago
It’s all about the used backpack market here man!
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Appropriate that something in a neoliberal community is in the shitposting community too.
baatliwala@lemmy.world 1 day ago
China is facing opposite problem
evol@lemmy.today 1 day ago
House ownership rates have been like the same for decades ? I really never understood these arguments
RBWells@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ha!
I went from #3 in the 80s to #4, then to #1 in the mid 1990s.
I don’t think it matters where you start, what bothers me so much more is the lack of opportunity to move up this chart now. I knew, in my heart, that if I sold out and worked someplace evil I could have the big money, and what’s more, even without doing evil I could have the small money by following the steps - go to school, get a job.
I don’t feel like younger people have that. It always took some degree of luck, but more like bad luck would set you back. Now it’s more like you need good luck just to get started!
modestmeme@lemmy.world 1 day ago
200 million Americans in 1970, 340 million now. The dream of a nice house with a big yard is limited by space; space that also requires farmland, forests, parks, etc… We need dense apartment buildings, not houses.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
We made a shit tin of those. Many are empty to drive prices up.
evol@lemmy.today 1 day ago
lol all the people in states ini housing crisis will just complain about rich companies by housing, or even the Chinese buying houses. No one just wants to build housing
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
No, it’s the consequences of capitalism.
There are over 15 million empty houses in America, over 5 million of those are in the 50 largest metropolitan areas of the US.
770,000 people were counted as houseless in 2024.
Sure not every house is in great condition, and not every house is in a major city - but there is surely enough that people could use to if not house everyone, at the very least make a huge dent in that figure. The issue is people cannot afford to buy them because housing is seen as an industry not a basic life need.
henfredemars@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Precisely. This is extreme inequity. There are plenty of resources to go around.
The future was stolen.
arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
You know I see this figure a lot, but I wonder how many of these are actually liveable.
My grandfather’s old home is unoccupied, that’s because the roof entirely collapsed. The county refuses to remove it from the property taxes. Based on all available records it’s an unoccupied home, but it’s a total loss in reality.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
Who knows, but you only need 5.13% to be in good condition to house everyone.