this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
166 points (97.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1825 readers
492 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Exeous@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago

More house for llc. Make law to house people not corporation.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Put caps on how many homes any family/llc/company can own. Stop any foreign entity from owning more than two single family homes in the US, and the problem will be fixed.

Homes aren't scarce because housing is scarce. Homes are scarce because way too many people are making their living as landlords and property investors.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Someone should make a pie chart of how much a house cost is labour, materials, taxes/government shit, and how much just goes to the landlords pocket.

If we really want to solve the problem we mine as well use proper data to see where efforts would be best spent

[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's going to depend heavily on state, municipality, and zone type of where each project is taking place. You'd also need to control for local labor prices and materials cost.

There's too much variability in local conditions to make broad statements.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

For sure, and like any study its going to be bias towards its creator, but even some sort of frequency analysis I believe would be telling to say at the least

[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 month ago

It's going to be telling in certain places and under certain circumstances.

Some places require certain (high) insulation values for all new construction housing. Building housing in those places costs more. Neighboring states and municipalities that do not have those laws will have lower costs.

Similarly, some areas are in high demand. Housing there sells for a higher price.

It ain't rocket surgery.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How will building more housing break up corporate landlords exactly?

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is such a non fix being spun into a fix that this premise is garbage.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

If more houses are built and become available, rental markets drop. Landlords are not going to keep buying houses and letting them sit empty. It's not that complicated.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Developers in Canada are going bust because houses aren't worth the building costs. No amount of clearing red tape changes the insane cost of materials.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 9 points 1 month ago

Do they think the new homes pricing is going to reflect actual supply/demand or the twisted nightmare that is venture capital investment plans in real estate?

[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Oh, good, even shittier build quality. How about rezoning?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago

And where do you want to PUT these bungalows? We won't see the density we need, and it'll just be more sprawl of shitty little wooden urban huts.