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.
America is a prisoner of her very racist past, and that is now eroding everything. When the government was building housing and giving loans, it was only accessable to whites. The government, cooperations, and white community leaders continued racist practices until this day. In the 50s with a continuous effort to keep blacks down, many American cities began unban renewal projects actively destroying housing stock to create interstates, civic centers, and new downtowns. Leaving large areas of cities uninhabitable, just to displace blacks. In the 1960s after civil rights past, once again white lawmakers continued said effort to stave off blacks. It is during the 60s and 70s that American cities implemented laws calling for larger lots and larger houses, while outlawing affordable housing, attached housing, and residential apartments. Why did law makers do this you ask??? Because larger lots and larger houses cost more and would cost blacks out of desired areas. These practices never stopped, America housing crisis is based in racist practices. So in short Americans eroded her own institutions to pander to racism, and it's now a huge problem.
Now that whites don't have the money or government to buy like they once did, they now experience what has always been a part of black America, lack of affordable housing. This isn't a new issue just affecting a new racial demographic, eventually all American will need to understand that one bad apple can spoil a bunch. Racism is that bad apple that still spoils and corrupts our nation.
The median voter is 52 years old. Somewhere close to 70% (it’s 65% among adults) of voters would own homes. The median voter probably bought their home in 2012.
So they effectively bought themselves rent control. If you bought a house in 2013 for $245,000 and today it’s $523,000 you’re still paying $1670/mo because your mortgage is your mortgage. But you’re also making 30% more if you just got a 3% raise every year. Housing real costs have gone down over the last decade more most Americans.
That’s why only in states where it’s extremely acute (like Massachusetts) where it’s nearly impossible to get a house at all (rather than just spending more than you wish) is there any legislative momentum for fix the issue.
The median voter is 52 years old. Somewhere close to 70% (it’s 65% among adults) of voters would own homes. The median voter probably bought their home in 2012.
So they effectively bought themselves rent control. If you bought a house in 2013 for $245,000 and today it’s $523,000 you’re still paying $1670/mo because your mortgage is your mortgage. But you’re also making 30% more if you just got a 3% raise every year. Housing real costs have gone down over the last decade more most Americans.
That’s why only in states where it’s extremely acute (like Massachusetts) where it’s nearly impossible to get a house at all (rather than just spending more than you wish) is there any legislative momentum for fix the issue.
What you say is accurate, but political apathy is based on a complete misunderstanding of the dire significance of this issue.
1. There is a massive renter population that is much more vulnerable to rising housing costs, because they are at the whim of big property management companies as to what they pay for housing every month that can change with very little notice.
2. Current for-sale and for-rent housing prices may effectively shut out any newcomers of who are of standard middle-class means, which is still critical to all cities--even the top-earning ones--for economic stability and growth and a still-critical service economy.
As a result, these trends will, in turn, further depress household formation, birth rates and immigration. Essentially, unless this shock in housing prices is meaningfully addressed, America can say goodbye to its virtuous cycle of growth forever. And in all likelihood, get ready for steady decline.
What you say is accurate, but political apathy is based on a complete misunderstanding of the dire significance of this issue.
1. There is a massive renter population that is much more vulnerable to rising housing costs, because they are at the whim of big property management companies as to what they pay for housing every month that can change with very little notice.
2. Current for-sale and for-rent housing prices may effectively shut out any newcomers of who are of standard middle-class means, which is still critical to all cities--even the top-earning ones--for economic stability and growth and a still-critical service economy.
As a result, these trends will, in turn, further depress household formation, birth rates and immigration. Essentially, unless this shock in housing prices is meaningfully addressed, America can say goodbye to its virtuous cycle of growth forever. And in all likelihood, get ready for steady decline.
Yes, but the renter class (thrown into”those who can’t get a home” with “stuck with my parents” class, combined are a minority. While more prominent in New York, Massachusetts, Washington State, California etc. is why those states have big political battles about housing.
70% in a national number. In like Kansas or Indiana it’s probably talking ~73-74% of voters, while in Massachusetts or California it’s more like ~60%
For renters prices have gone up a lot in the last decade. For homeowners, they’ve gone down. Most Americans are homeowners
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,243,006 times
Reputation: 57825
In our area and other such as the San Francisco Bay Area, the problem comes from the number of high paying tech jobs, with those companies hiring more and more people that want to live near work. In our city of Sammamish, our house cost $190k when we bought it in 1993, now it's valued at $1.5 million. The median family income here is $174,003. When a house becomes available, there are many people that can afford it, so multiple offers over asking, and they go up even higher. New homes are starting at over $2 million, and they sell fast too. No developer is going to build 1,200 3/2 starter homes when they can build a 5/3 4,500 sf house on the same 5,000 sf lot.
We have had several old rich folks going into assisted living actually donate their property for parks, which of course we all appreciate. About the only way there will be more lower cost housing is if people donate properties for the purpose of low-cost housing, and the various counties/towns/cities can find a developer to give a decent price on building them, or use Habitat for Humanity.
Dayton has so many boarded up abandoned homes that could be fixed up and occupied its not even funny, other cities have similar situations. Often times the cost of restoration exceeds the market value of the house but with current prices that could change.
The median voter is 52 years old. Somewhere close to 70% (it’s 65% among adults) of voters would own homes. The median voter probably bought their home in 2012.
The median voter is 52 and bought their house only ten years ago? That seems a little late in life. I'm 52 and we bought our house in 1997, when most of our peers were also buying houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
New homes are starting at over $2 million, and they sell fast too. No developer is going to build 1,200 3/2 starter homes when they can build a 5/3 4,500 sf house on the same 5,000 sf lot.
So this is of course a huge part of the problem. Pretty much the only people who can afford those giant house are investors who are going to use them as rental, not younger singles and couples just starting out.
And another part of the problem is that the existence of so many giant houses makes everyone think they need one. But two people can live very comfortably in 1200 square feet. In fact, we raised three children in 1300 sq ft and we all lived to tell the tale. Sure, if those small starter homes were still being built young couples would be eager to buy them, but after three years and/or one baby they would be getting antsy and saying they need a bigger place...because that's what society is telling them.
Interesting topic. My question is "what changed"? 5 years ago, we didn't have a housing shortage, at least not to the point we see today. Was this last couple of years the tipping point? Did our population grow just that much since then? Where did all these people live in 2019 that suddenly need houses in 2021/2022? And homelessness has gone up by a lot. That implies we have way more people, quite suddenly.
What baffles me is that above point, combined with the fact Rents AND housing prices are both skyrocketing. I can see if the pandemic created demand for people living in apartments to want more space and thus the housing market goes nuts. But then, wouldn't there be a lot of empty apartments they've left behind? And if so, how does rent go up that much?
My buddy lives in a complex where rent went up 20%, yet, there is a ton of vacancy. That makes no sense to me. If you want to fill vacancy, lower your prices...but that's not happening.
Interesting topic. My question is "what changed"? 5 years ago, we didn't have a housing shortage, at least not to the point we see today. Was this last couple of years the tipping point? Did our population grow just that much since then? Where did all these people live in 2019 that suddenly need houses in 2021/2022? And homelessness has gone up by a lot. That implies we have way more people, quite suddenly.
I may be all wrong with this but it occurs to me that the majority of Boomers (a very large cohort) are now over 60 years old. They are living longer than previous generations, and are less willing to downsize / move in with the kids / go into retirement living, so there are fewer houses becoming available for the Millennials, who are an even larger cohort than Boomers and are all now at the age when they are wanting to settle down. Again, just a guess, but this may be part of it.
People in Gen X, including me, slipped in under the wire and were able to get into houses before the prices went through the roof. We were a less heavily populated generation anyway.
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.
