Kinja reply list

Read More
notsomethingstructuralHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 6:08pm
There’s probably bound to be a lot of “build-build-build” sentiment, especially in suburbia, but I’m not totally convinced that’s an actual solution. There’s a lot of second-and-third residences that could use consolidation to eat away at vacancy (in areas). This argument shouldn’t be about putting more housing in “above average” communities that are already out of reach for those that rent. And I suppose that my concern regarding additional building programs is we’ll just see a continuance of that; poorly built, poorly designed half-occupied pseudo “communities” in Charlotte County, Florida and outskirts of areas that are marginally habitable to begin with, and really, ones that are without the natural resources and large-scale community planning to bear a significant population increase. The contrasting side, is more building in areas that are less desirable or hospitable, but it’s a futile exercise to build for people without the means to get there in the first place.

I think the smarter thing to do, as far as a super-macro program, is make more areas more desireable. I don’t mean “let’s gentrify the Bronx!”, I mean I drove through West Philly on business a couple months ago and the housing stock there seemed reliable even if in disrepair. But it’s cheap as shit as a result. So for my $.02, there needs to be more of an emphasis on large-scale community building that’s outside the “DIY SWEAT EQUITY” and “fuck it pay someone else to do it” because the majority of people who actually need to take stock in their housing and community situation have only the financial resources for the former and the time for the latter. I’ve done construction loan paperwork, it’s a fucking calamity, and just the application costs thousands upon thousands of dollars.

I don’t know how the program would work, but maybe something along the lines of grants, like the FHA or something gets the first position mortgage, and any improvements by an approved contractor get processed through a FHA loan administrator to ensure it’s fair and reasonable, and that’s immediately assumed into a second position lien / “IOU” with no recurring payment, for amounts up to some arbitrary number, like, $75k for the total of the two positions. If there ends up being a short position, it’s a lot easier for the government to write off $12k than a private lender, especially since the point of this is investing in the community and not the individual. I would think a program like this has an added benefit of creating jobs in areas of disrepair, since it makes access to funds significantly easier for buyers and therefore the community at large.
Reply
- Read More
  AM123notsomethingstructural
  9/21/15 6:36pm
  I know this won’t be a popular opinion, but sometimes “undesirable areas” are undesirable because the communities themselves aren’t taking pride in where they live.
  
  Look at public housing in NYC. By any stretch of the imagination, ANY public housing ANYWHERE in NYC is stupidly affordable. And yet, many of these housing projects were turned into absolute hellholes. Yes, this is partly because NYCHA is terrible about making repairs in a timely manner, or investing in capital inprovements, but while tenants might not be able to do anything about a broken elevator, they can certainly help with keeping garbage or urine out of hallways and stairwells. Ditto for communities as a whole.
  
  My point being, throwing money, even creative money, isn’t always the way to improve neighborhoods. Think about one of the most important indicators of how a community is doing: school quality. Schools are often funded through local taxes, which are generally overwhelmingly derived from real estate taxation. If you commit to keeping neighborhoods “affordable,” you are implicitly strangling the major source of school revenue.
  
  This is why mixed income communities are so important. Having stakeholders across the economic spectrum is vital, as hopefully it promotes the gradual economic development of an area. This is why HUD was just sued and found guilty by SCOTUS.
  
  Sticking poor people in a wealthy neighborhood isn’t a great solution because they often can’t afford the services being provided in the community. Allowing for gradual gentrification while imposing restraints on how developers can churn a market is a much better solution for everyone involved.
  Reply
- Read More
  notsomethingstructuralAM123
  9/21/15 7:17pm
  You don’t bring up any stupid arguments, at least in my opinion, and I more than have a reputation as a guy who shows up to butt heads with an unpopular opinion.
  
  There’s two fallacies, as I see it, in your arguments though... the first, is NYCHA and the living conditions. The people who live in NYCHA have Zero vested interest in their apartment other than as habitation. They have no money at stake, either way. There’s minimal incentive to improve the apartments and the tenants have essentially zero grounds to deal with others because they are not the owners. The experience I’m suggesting is more emblematic of the old Mitchell-Lama income restricted co-ops, at least in my opinion, where they took people who had steady but low-paying jobs and “subsidized” the housing by giving it back to them basically at-cost 30 years ago and severely restricted the ability to flip or make a profit on top of restricting income. So they’re still cheap, but “somehow” are in good repair, but really, “somehow” is because people are invested in it and have pride in it.
  
  The other point we aren’t exactly aligned on is when you say that this would be sticking poor people in a wealthy neighborhood, or somehow commiting to keeping areas affordable. This isn’t really about subsidizing the poor to get into better areas, it’s about subsidizing them to get into any area and have a mechanism to make some improvements and call it a home, which like I describe above, has been empiracally observed as keeping property in better repair. $75k, all in for purchasing and improvements, does not buy you much on the east coast, and certainly not in wealthy areas. The other is that this is somehow a commitment to keep an area affordable. Again, this isn’t a commitment to that. It’s a mechanism to spur development in under-utilized and generally undesireable locations. If everyone makes improvements the goal is that it’s more desireable. That’s the intended effect, not a consequence. If it becomes so desirable that properties start above the $75k, then at least the longtime residents are on the ground floor to redeem their succcess. Again, this is what it’s all about, compared to gentrification of rental areas, where the tenants come away with a bill for moving and relocation fees. That’s my issue with your suggestion on restricting development, all it does is delay the inevitable demise of the renter, and even worse, it starves the local schools of the funding they need, because “restrictions on development” presumably means that the free market would have been able to justify a higher rate and therefore more funding for schools.
  Reply
Read More
╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:30pm
Kill the wealthy and live inside tents made from their skins and bones.
Reply
- Read More
  caekislove-caekingitup╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
  9/21/15 6:15pm
  Finally. Someone on here talking sense.
  Reply
- Read More
  PS9╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
  9/21/15 6:16pm
  Uhh...you can have the skinbone tent. I’ll just take the now vacant McMansion.
  Reply
Read More
UncleCCClaudiusHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:46pm
I’m glad you asked. The answer is Tiny Houses which are very hot right now. Join me fellow Olds and Hipsters as we enter our bright new future of Artisanal Trailer Park living.
Reply
- Read More
  ZephyrMarieUncleCCClaudius
  9/21/15 6:30pm
  I really, genuinely love the idea of a tiny home. Unfortunately, nature decided that I was going to be 6’2 and my lovely boyfriend is 6’4. We just can’t do tiny :( Maybe ‘smaller-than-usual-but-still-not-tiny’? Doesn’t quite have the same ring.
  Reply
- Read More
  Stanley MotssUncleCCClaudius
  9/21/15 6:47pm
  Also, we can buy our caskets now and use them ourselves or as a guest bedroom.
  Reply
Read More
#NotAllYzermanHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:31pm
any bright ideas: We live in lovely parts of the country not named New York or San Francisco where the cost of living is much more attainable to the majority of citizens.

*ducks to avoid being hit by flying shoes. ILY NYC Gawker readers and writers. and yes I know rents are going up everywhere*
Reply
- Read More
  flamingolingo#NotAllYzerman
  9/21/15 6:13pm
  Urban areas where rents are rapidly rising tend to be where the jobs are.
  
  The report also points out:
  
  While high rents are often portrayed as a big city problem – notably in places like New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco – significant numbers of renters are cost burdened in all states across the country. According to the JCHS, the share of renters at least moderately burdened (paying more than 30 percent of income on rent) is 40 percent or higher in all but three states as of 2013. More than half of all renters in nine states are at least moderately burdened by rental costs.
  A similar analysis conducted by Enterprise Community Partners found that the share of severely cost-burdened renters exceeded 20 percent of renter households in all but three states, with one in four renters severely cost burdened across the U.S. as a whole. Analysis by the National Low Income Housing Coalition has also found that there is no state in the U.S. where a minimum-wage worker working full time can afford a one-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent.
  
  This is a national problem, not a big city problem.
  Reply
- Read More
  Billy Jackflamingolingo
  9/21/15 8:55pm
  Even in the Dakotas with their oil boom. Big paying blue collar wages disappeared to boom housing. Fuck capitalism. Tell me again why Socialism is bad?
  Reply
Read More
Hobo EmbraceHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:40pm
Not sure what the answer to that is but if the FED actually succeeds in shutting down fannie and freddie you can pretty much kiss the 30 year mortgage goodbye. Not to mention the impact that would have on everyday middle class people who would find it considerably harder to get a loan without a huge down payment.
Reply
- Read More
  Michael ZaiteHobo Embrace
  9/21/15 8:36pm
  Honestly I think this needs to happen. It’s time the market was driven by actual asset buying power not credit power.
  Reply
- Read More
  Hobo EmbraceMichael Zaite
  9/22/15 12:56pm
  Fair enough, however that would be a reversal of the path the US has been taking for a long while now with regards to home ownership. Also, the number of people who would be able to get a home loan would drastically drop without a functioning secondary mortgage market. Banks (lenders) would have to hold onto the loans they give out, thus affecting them being able to give out more loans.
  Reply
Read More
김치전!Hamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:33pm
Obviously incarcerate the poor in private prisons, then subcontract their labor for pennies on the dollar to build new private prisons. It’s like Habitat for Humanity, but with slavery.
Reply
- Read More
  Billy Jack김치전!
  9/21/15 8:50pm
  Yes, but can the poor code? I see a real need to upgrade Slavery to modern times.
  Reply
Read More
Max Rivlin-NadlerHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:34pm
We have to get people to leave the city. It’s the only way.
Reply
- Read More
  flamingolingoMax Rivlin-Nadler
  9/21/15 6:17pm
  That’s already happening. Poorer people are being forced out to the edges of some major cities. This doesn’t necessarily fix the problem since the city centers are where the jobs are.
  Reply
- Read More
  ZephyrMarieflamingolingo
  9/21/15 6:26pm
  Seriously. I grew up in a rural area (1600 people in my town!) where I was still paying $900 a month for a studio garage conversion and it was a 20 minute drive to the nearest gas station and convenience store.
  
  I’d love to move back to a rural area, but the conservative values often found in rural areas aren’t for me, and I moved to a big city for jobs. There simply aren’t very many jobs in smaller, rural towns. You have to take what you can get and there’s rarely room for promotion or career progression. I got sick of stagnation and was just as ‘poor’ living in the country as I am in the city, except in the city there are actually things to do.
  Reply
Read More
flamingolingoHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 6:20pm
A couple of years after the housing bubble burst, I remember reading reports that banks were moving into the rental market. This included the creation of rental-backed securities.

It’s a beautiful scam, isn’t it? Break various laws and give mortgages to people who can’t afford them, create securities based on those shoddy mortgages, make bank, then get bailed out by taxpayers when the housing bubble bursts. Then start doing exactly the same thing to rental housing because all the people who got foreclosed on have to live in apartments now.
Reply
- Read More
  Michael Zaiteflamingolingo
  9/21/15 8:33pm
  Or more concisely, take all those foreclosed houses and re-rent them to the people you set up to fail with your shitty mortgages.
  Reply
- Read More
  Tam Datsonflamingolingo
  9/21/15 9:10pm
  REIT’s are a major cause of the current bull real estate market. Broad speculative real estate investments continue to inflate the housing market. My opinion is that in major cities and large municipalities there needs to be better incentive for building affordable housing units (rent controlled, tax abatement’s for home-buyers, vouchers, etc.). Secondly, most REIT’s pursue large tracts of foreclosed and government owned properties. These local and state governments are dropping the ball by not requiring development agreements when they sell the properties.......for pennies on the dollar nonetheless. These funds have no push from the cities or states to sell or develop the land. So, often the properties sit derelict, empty, and decomposing until the market improves. If the underlying asset appreciates then they sell/rent/develop years later, if not they just sit on it and take the deductions along with the depreciation. You would be amazed at the number of commercial rental properties that have sat empty for years, simply because they wanted too much per sq./ft. and the local markets wouldn’t support their pipe dream of a rental rate.
  
  So, I guess the only answer is to tax these trusts/funds/banks/etc. excessively to de facto regulate them?
  
  j/k lol
  Reply
Read More
MetaKnight2kHamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:41pm
Start by housing the homeless, and then every year expanding the program (on a cost-expense basis) to the neediest. In other words, redirect the funds from for profit prisons and build for profit housing:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/art…
Reply
Read More
TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Hamilton Nolan
9/21/15 5:42pm
Wage growth?

No, seriously. Stop laughing at me!
Reply
- Read More
  stupidusernamesarestupid TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
  9/21/15 6:30pm
  I think they were looking for reasonable solutions. Good try though.
  
  Some dude in this thread above mentioned just killing the inhabitants of houses you like and take over as if it is yours. More chance of that happening.
  Reply