Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without government control of housing location, size and quality the completely private sector results are the slums of the third world cities. Those places are "affordable" enough for millions to be trapped in the diseased ridden squalor. One of Cesar Chavez's greatest sins was extending public water and sewers to the slums of Caracas and other cities. Western bankers thought that money should have been squandered on an electrical generation plant connected to an aluminum smelter so the bankers could benefit.
Even with zoning the slums of our once prosperous cities are damn near uninhabitable. As some of these inner city dumps are gentrified the poor are driven into the inner suburbs. Do you want to live in Levittown? If the society wants to end unaffordable housing it will have to figure a way for the masses of people that cannot afford housing can make enough money to afford the high priced housing.
Without government control of housing location, size and quality the completely private sector results are the slums of the third world cities. Those places are "affordable" enough for millions to be trapped in the diseased ridden squalor. One of Cesar Chavez's greatest sins was extending public water and sewers to the slums of Caracas and other cities. Western bankers thought that money should have been squandered on an electrical generation plant connected to an aluminum smelter so the bankers could benefit.
Even with zoning the slums of our once prosperous cities are damn near uninhabitable. As some of these inner city dumps are gentrified the poor are driven into the inner suburbs. Do you want to live in Levittown? If the society wants to end unaffordable housing it will have to figure a way for the masses of people that cannot afford housing can make enough money to afford the high priced housing.
The problem is that we are all competing for a finite supply of housing. To that extent, affordable housing is zero-sum. If incomes rise 10 percent, housing does not become more affordable because people use theiir higher incomes to bid up the price.
That is precisely what happened in the 1980s and why the rising economic tide did not lift my boat.
If your housing is so affordable then stop complaining about it all the time.
Can you freaking read? My housing WAS affordable until rents necessarily skyrocketed when newcomers jacked up the rents.
For some reason, the entitlement-minded homeowners of California believe they should be exempt from the rising assessments that were jacked up by newcomers.
Prop 13 has to do with taxes, not cost of the home or rental.
And yes, this Californian did move when it became unaffordable. Prop 13 didn't mean taxes never go up. And because property taxes couldn't be increased, the state got creative about tacking on all sorts of "fees" that were really taxes.
Prop 13 has to do with assessments first and then about taxes. Homeowners said that the demand-price relationship that applies to rents should not apply to assessments.
Because the public sector restricts, limits and makes it impossible for the private sector to 'provide' an adequate supply of affordable housing, when you factor in building codes, zoning laws, land use, etc, etc, etc.
Keep in mind - the private sector could provide an adequate supply of 'affordable housing' but it would not be as safe, spacious or comfortable as what is mandated and considered housing today.
You sound like someone that likes his cake but wants to eat it too.
Allowing the private sector to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, in the absence of any local, state or federal regulations would drive the cost of the housing down, make it more 'affordable' but it would in no way be the type of housing that exists today.
Sometimes the government is a necessary component of what would be a true free market in order to prevent the private sector from providing things that might be too affordable.
So you're ok with me buying the house next door to you and running a fish processing business out of my garage?
With my profits from that business I'll buy the house on your other side and open a wrecking yard. How do you feel about zoning laws now?
No need to subsidize anything; the private sector is fully capable of building to poverty standards.
They could do it, if land was not so expensive that they are unable to build that cheap. The government does not allow outhouses back behind the house any more. They have to be built to safe building standards, with plumbing, safe wiring, etc., that costs a lot of money to hook up to. Putting in utility connections, streets, and other improvements costs so much you cannot build homes for low income. The cost of materials is so high, you cannot build to low income levels. The permits alone in high priced home areas are so expensive, that they cannot build to poverty standards. They have to be built to a minimum strength, and have to be insulated, with a minimum of double pane windows. All of this costs money. It is impossible to build homes cheap enough for low income workers to buy.
I know from experience, as I developed and had low cost homes built 40 years ago, and it was very difficult to do then. Today it is impossible except in very low income parts of the country.
So you're ok with me buying the house next door to you and running a fish processing business out of my garage?
With my profits from that business I'll buy the house on your other side and open a wrecking yard. How do you feel about zoning laws now?
Nobody is suggesting it is wrong to segregate residential land uses from other uses, and especially from nuisances like, say, fish, meat, and Sriracha processing.
And nobody is saying you should be able to use your profits to run ramshod over the neighborhood. There are Pigovian taxes for people like you.
Nobody is suggesting it is wrong to segregate residential land uses from other uses, and especially from nuisances like, say, fish, meat, and Sriracha processing.
And nobody is saying you should be able to use your profits to run ramshod over the neighborhood. There are Pigovian taxes for people like you.
Yet you're advocating that someone should be able to squeeze as many people as is possible into a tiny lot, just because you believe that would make owning a home affordable to you.
Nobody should be able to use lack of life planning to run ramshod over the neighborhood.
Can you freaking read? My housing WAS affordable until rents necessarily skyrocketed when newcomers jacked up the rents.
For some reason, the entitlement-minded homeowners of California believe they should be exempt from the rising assessments that were jacked up by newcomers.
So you want to control how much a person can charge you for using THEIR property?
Are you a socialist?
and again... Cannot afford to live where you live then perhaps it's time to relocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Prop 13 has to do with assessments first and then about taxes. Homeowners said that the demand-price relationship that applies to rents should not apply to assessments.
Because it shouldn't.
Property tax is nothing but runaway subsidies for a failing school system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
