So, like, tear down all the apartment buildings and focus on putting every single human in a single family home for free? Like, how does your mental image of this work?
You’re putting words in my mouth. The US government, if it chose, could increase assistance with its programs in HUD. The government could increase the availability of housing vouchers in the meantime while transitioning to guaranteeing some form of housing for its citizens. You jumped to single family homes as if that’s the only option, but there are many alternatives. The government could also nationalize corporations that gouge renters. There are many steps to be taken instead of hand waving away anything that isn’t perfect. Why would you tear down existing buildings instead of providing any alternatives? Do you know how many vacant homes there are in America? Over 15 million.
All of this is a pipe dream with the current administration.
Agreed that the current administration is a dumpster fire and they will likely just burn HUD to the ground.
There are really only two options for housing. Either a single family home or a multiple dwelling unit… apartments/duplexes and the like. I’m not sure what alternatives you’re thinking of. For a MDU, someone has to own the property, and they will be responsible for its upkeep and any financial obligations. Perhaps a co-op might work, but there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that now, and almost no one does it.
Suggesting the government nationalize a property rental corporation is insane. It sounds like a good way to ruin our society when businesses flee for fear of being nationalized as well. If you think that sounds like a good idea, look at countries that have done this and ask yourself if YOU would want to live there. Any other anti-trust action would be much more appropriate. Certainly, it won’t happen in the next four years, but if we have another election, taking down rental conglomerates would probably be insanely popular.
The majority of homes that remain vacant over long periods of time tend to be undesirable and cheaper. A question you could ask is, why don’t people move to where the affordable homes are? Because they don’t want to live there. They want to have affordable housing in the same place everybody else wants to live. People compete to live in more desirable areas, driving the prices up. Now housing is too expensive for people of lower incomes. How would you suggest we lower property costs in places like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco?
There are apartments, townhomes, duplexes, condos, single family homes, bungalows, and maybe more I am forgetting. Pretty easy to look up if you actually tried. For MDUs, condo associations do that all the time, and even though I hate them, HOAs serve the same purpose for single family units. Again, all easily searched if you took the time to. This could be transitory to simply providing housing through HUD.
Not that insane, just disingenuous of you to say that. Plenty of countries here that I would live in. Australia, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, UK, Indonesia - all have nationalized businesses within recent/modern history and businesses haven’t fled those countries en masse. And of course, go ahead and take a look at nationalization in the United States. It sounds to me like you were trying to make a point about certain countries YOU don’t like, and ignoring all the other countries that have nationalized businesses, which includes the one we live in! Maybe you should reconsider your internal biases.
Forbes is not a good source. Lol
That’s not an issue of enough housing for people to live in. Desirability is a separate issue tackled through improving the local economy, job offerings, amenities, etc.
How would I lower the prices? If you listened earlier I mentioned increasing the availability of housing vouchers and also lowering the requirements for eligibility.
It doesn’t feel like people read what I say so I think I will end the conversation here. Take care.
Its not a matter of having to search for housing types. By referencing apartments, condos, duplexes, you’re referencing multi dwelling units with extra steps. I see no point in making the distinction between them. In each case, either one or none of the families in those types of residences own the actual building. Even with a condo, where you do not make a monthly payment on the dwelling itself, you still owe rent, maintenance, HOA fees, whatever you want to call it… to the evil building owner.
On that page, as you say, most of the businesses nationalized in western countries are railways and utilities. You’ll find that at least most of these businesses were nationalized because the business itself was failing. Amtrak is a key example of this. US passenger rail lines were going out of business, and the government offered to BUY all the passenger services in the country so the rail lines could focus on more profitable cargo. The end result was Amtrak. What I don’t see on that list, are any western countries that nationalized a business because it was making too much money.
When I think of my internal biases against countries like Venezuela, China, and Russia… No, I don’t think I will.
Forbes is not a good source? I would ask you to justify that, but I don’t really care. I don’t care about Forbes either. They are allegedly as center-biased as Reuters, AP, and the BBC though. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your internal biases? Feel free to offer up your own article explaining why the nationwide housing market is in the state it’s in.
Your argument was about housing affordability and price gouging, and then referenced that 15 million vacant homes statistic to make your point. My counterpoint is that many of those vacant homes are affordable, people just don’t want to live in them for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you should find a statistic that talks about vacant homes in places where people want to live. Or, perhaps you could find a statistic that actually makes your point such as how many homes are available for purchase vs for rent where people actually want to live.
Housing vouchers… So you want to take government money and give that to the landlords rather than do something about the cost or availability of housing?
If you want to end the conversation, you’re welcome to not respond.
Okay, last reply then. You do not understand how covenants work. You called them co-ops earlier, further proving you don’t know. Property management companies are not the owners of condos, same as HOAs who are also not the owners of properties. You do not understand why these distinctions are important and why they function differently for different residencies.
You do not understand nationalization. You focus on one piece of critical infrastructure, and ignore the rest. Like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, steel mills, broadcasting companies, healthcare, post offices, electrical companies, mortgage associations - many of which weren’t failing and were nationalized for other reasons. Just like you cherry pick three countries and ignore the rest. Those three countries are oppressive, that’s why you don’t want to live there. Not because of nationalization. You really are just disingenuous. You didn’t read anything.
Forbes is corporate propaganda.
I already made my point about desirability. I don’t need to make it again just because you refuse to read anything.
Oh look, you didn’t read again. The voucher system should be transitory to providing and guaranteeing housing to all citizens.
Yes, my extreme position of - I don’t believe people and corporations should own multiple properties while homelessness exists. I’m a true radical.
So, like, tear down all the apartment buildings and focus on putting every single human in a single family home for free? Like, how does your mental image of this work?
You’re putting words in my mouth. The US government, if it chose, could increase assistance with its programs in HUD. The government could increase the availability of housing vouchers in the meantime while transitioning to guaranteeing some form of housing for its citizens. You jumped to single family homes as if that’s the only option, but there are many alternatives. The government could also nationalize corporations that gouge renters. There are many steps to be taken instead of hand waving away anything that isn’t perfect. Why would you tear down existing buildings instead of providing any alternatives? Do you know how many vacant homes there are in America? Over 15 million.
All of this is a pipe dream with the current administration.
Agreed that the current administration is a dumpster fire and they will likely just burn HUD to the ground.
There are really only two options for housing. Either a single family home or a multiple dwelling unit… apartments/duplexes and the like. I’m not sure what alternatives you’re thinking of. For a MDU, someone has to own the property, and they will be responsible for its upkeep and any financial obligations. Perhaps a co-op might work, but there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that now, and almost no one does it.
Suggesting the government nationalize a property rental corporation is insane. It sounds like a good way to ruin our society when businesses flee for fear of being nationalized as well. If you think that sounds like a good idea, look at countries that have done this and ask yourself if YOU would want to live there. Any other anti-trust action would be much more appropriate. Certainly, it won’t happen in the next four years, but if we have another election, taking down rental conglomerates would probably be insanely popular.
As for the 15 million vacant homes, read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2022/03/07/16-million-homes-lie-empty-and-these-states-are-the-vacancy-hot-spots/
The majority of homes that remain vacant over long periods of time tend to be undesirable and cheaper. A question you could ask is, why don’t people move to where the affordable homes are? Because they don’t want to live there. They want to have affordable housing in the same place everybody else wants to live. People compete to live in more desirable areas, driving the prices up. Now housing is too expensive for people of lower incomes. How would you suggest we lower property costs in places like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco?
There are apartments, townhomes, duplexes, condos, single family homes, bungalows, and maybe more I am forgetting. Pretty easy to look up if you actually tried. For MDUs, condo associations do that all the time, and even though I hate them, HOAs serve the same purpose for single family units. Again, all easily searched if you took the time to. This could be transitory to simply providing housing through HUD.
Here’s a list of countries that have nationalized businesses, usually relating to critical infrastructure. Which housing would fall under. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country
Not that insane, just disingenuous of you to say that. Plenty of countries here that I would live in. Australia, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, UK, Indonesia - all have nationalized businesses within recent/modern history and businesses haven’t fled those countries en masse. And of course, go ahead and take a look at nationalization in the United States. It sounds to me like you were trying to make a point about certain countries YOU don’t like, and ignoring all the other countries that have nationalized businesses, which includes the one we live in! Maybe you should reconsider your internal biases.
Forbes is not a good source. Lol
That’s not an issue of enough housing for people to live in. Desirability is a separate issue tackled through improving the local economy, job offerings, amenities, etc.
How would I lower the prices? If you listened earlier I mentioned increasing the availability of housing vouchers and also lowering the requirements for eligibility.
It doesn’t feel like people read what I say so I think I will end the conversation here. Take care.
Its not a matter of having to search for housing types. By referencing apartments, condos, duplexes, you’re referencing multi dwelling units with extra steps. I see no point in making the distinction between them. In each case, either one or none of the families in those types of residences own the actual building. Even with a condo, where you do not make a monthly payment on the dwelling itself, you still owe rent, maintenance, HOA fees, whatever you want to call it… to the evil building owner.
On that page, as you say, most of the businesses nationalized in western countries are railways and utilities. You’ll find that at least most of these businesses were nationalized because the business itself was failing. Amtrak is a key example of this. US passenger rail lines were going out of business, and the government offered to BUY all the passenger services in the country so the rail lines could focus on more profitable cargo. The end result was Amtrak. What I don’t see on that list, are any western countries that nationalized a business because it was making too much money.
When I think of my internal biases against countries like Venezuela, China, and Russia… No, I don’t think I will.
Forbes is not a good source? I would ask you to justify that, but I don’t really care. I don’t care about Forbes either. They are allegedly as center-biased as Reuters, AP, and the BBC though. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your internal biases? Feel free to offer up your own article explaining why the nationwide housing market is in the state it’s in.
Your argument was about housing affordability and price gouging, and then referenced that 15 million vacant homes statistic to make your point. My counterpoint is that many of those vacant homes are affordable, people just don’t want to live in them for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you should find a statistic that talks about vacant homes in places where people want to live. Or, perhaps you could find a statistic that actually makes your point such as how many homes are available for purchase vs for rent where people actually want to live.
Housing vouchers… So you want to take government money and give that to the landlords rather than do something about the cost or availability of housing?
If you want to end the conversation, you’re welcome to not respond.
Okay, last reply then. You do not understand how covenants work. You called them co-ops earlier, further proving you don’t know. Property management companies are not the owners of condos, same as HOAs who are also not the owners of properties. You do not understand why these distinctions are important and why they function differently for different residencies.
You do not understand nationalization. You focus on one piece of critical infrastructure, and ignore the rest. Like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, steel mills, broadcasting companies, healthcare, post offices, electrical companies, mortgage associations - many of which weren’t failing and were nationalized for other reasons. Just like you cherry pick three countries and ignore the rest. Those three countries are oppressive, that’s why you don’t want to live there. Not because of nationalization. You really are just disingenuous. You didn’t read anything.
Forbes is corporate propaganda.
I already made my point about desirability. I don’t need to make it again just because you refuse to read anything.
Oh look, you didn’t read again. The voucher system should be transitory to providing and guaranteeing housing to all citizens.
I’m done talking to someone so disingenuous. Bye.