this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
390 points (98.3% liked)
politics
23672 readers
2946 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree with this comment. but that doesn't change the fact that you're a disingenuous dickhead.
"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union [...] promote the general Welfare [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Promoting the general welfare is literally stated in the constitution as one of the purposes of the United States. Anyone disagreeing with that hates America.
They just change the definition of what America is and accuse you of being a Communist
The Constitution is conservative toilet paper unless they are referencing it for their own gain. They define reality in the moment as what is most convenient for them. Also, if you disagree with them you hate America, obviously.
But if we do that now how will bankers and private equity buy their yachts!!!!!!??? Oh the humanity
This is straight up the problem. You cant reduce housing costs without reducing the price of houses. Individuals know this and reject housing development in their communities because they like to see line go up.
But if we want young people to ever be able to move out/buy a house, the price of houses has to fall.
The Republican strategy is to deport illegal immigrants and free up the housing they occupy, there by increasing supply and lowering demand.
The Democrat strategy is to build more low income housing and allow in anybody who wants to come here. Increasing supply slowly and increasing demand substantially.
Neither really push for a program to build low income housing and 1500sqft starter homes that are reasonably priced.
What is a starter home today is 2500sqft, and that is only because builders make more money on those than 1500sqft.
You forgot the increased subsidies for first time homebuyers in the democrat plan.
You are correct that neither party has proposed a solution that would help because neither party will admit that home prices need to fall, substancially.
Those subsidies are a fart in the wind against home prices inflated by artificial scarcity cause by passive income seekers and restrictive building codes that prevent low income and high density housing. It is like retailers giving a 10% discount for a week when they raise the prices 15%.
Such a weak and empty gesture to pander to voters. It is better than nothing, but that shouldn't be the bar they campaign on. Dems need to grow some teeth.
Absolutely. Subsidies just make the problem worse next election cycle.
I'd challenge the word "illegal" in the Republican strategy, but I'm with the spirit of your post.
Still only great for white men. No one else was eligible for these programs.
So... repeat the policies without the racism and sexism then?
Kinda… There’s not so much need to build, though, as there are currently 28 vacant homes for every one person experiencing homelessness in the U.S., many of which are owned not by individuals but by large corporations. The same corps that took advantage of the housing market collapses over the last several decades.
Large corporations are sitting on ridiculous numbers of vacant homes rather than make them affordable for people who need them. Fixing that would help.
Yeah, it's kind of insane. They buy them for the value, but they only have value because there's perceived scarcity, and there's only perceived scarcity because they buy them. It's an incestuous system that harms us all and creates nothing of value.
The ouroboros of capitalism.
Just because there are homes, doesn’t mean that the homes are in desirable locations.
1k empty homes in Iowa doesn’t do any good for someone in New York
Where do you think these tens of millions of vacant homes are? They are in every single city and suburb across the country. I'll bet even Hawaii has homes sitting vacant. I know for a fact that there are almost 25,000 homes sitting vacant between downtown and the greater San Diego area, which happens to be 10,000 more than our entire county's homeless population. The county of San Diego is larger than the smallest two or three states, BTW.
Ah yes, the Tankie-Nimby zombie myth that California already has enough homes if not for the evil capitalists hoarders at Blackrock. Note that 25,000 housing units is around 1% of the total housing supply in the SD metro area; i.e. about the number of empty homes we would expect just due to normal turnover and renovations.
Did you look at my link?
These numbers are not referring to temporarily vacant homes that are in between buyers, but longer term vacancies, often held by investment firms. From the article:
Vacant homes and buildings often succumb to the elements and deteriorate due to leaks, damage and general lack of maintenance before ever finding a buyer willing to pay their inflated prices. An abundance of vacant homes on the market are also attributed to rising rent and home prices.
These homes can sit abandoned for years, causing neighbourhood blight and increased crime, in addition to removing opportunities from people who need housing.
Yes, it’s an uncaring capitalist thing, and no, it’s not a NIMBY thing – quite the opposite. The neighbourhoods with these homes would be far better off with residents than simply letting these homes rot .
Without even clicking I knew what the links would be, because they are the same ones that always get posted. And because this is a zombie myth, it doesn't matter how many times they get debunked people still post them anyway. Your United Way "Study" is especially silly; for example it claims more than 25% of San Francisco housing units are vacant which is obviously not true.
Okay, how about actually presenting data to support your argument rather than just ‘nuh-uh’ and vague aspersions?
San francisco has around 50,000 vacant residencies and around 8,000 unhoused people. There is supply in these "desirable" locations, it's just that under the logic of capitalism this supply isn't made available to those who need it.
There are solutions, and most vacant houses are in major cities, which is also where many homeless people already are.
Detroit, for example, has large numbers of homeless people and also large numbers of these houses. Same with New York, large cities in California, etc.
There are ways to solve this, but there’s no way these large corporations will participate in a solution out of the goodness of their heart.
Right there must be a wealth transfer.
Just because there are homes, doesn’t mean that the homes are in desirable locations.
They're desirable enough for large financial firms to hold as investment properties.
I'm a white man, it's not so great for me either, what I think you mean is wealthy white men
He meant the programs in the OP. They don't exist anymore, but when they did they weren't open to everyone. See: redlining.
My Silent Gen parents used to grumble about that. They called it communism.
Brainwashed into thinking they did it all by their own bootlaces
Hahahaha we’re doing this in Canada right now.
Suburbs are about as ugly housing as possible
The community I grew up in was this way.. the "CCC boys" as they were known locally built everything from houses to schools to churches to bridges.
Still, hating on others less fortunate than yourself, even if you've got fuck all, is proven to be more powerful than getting them and yourself benefits.
You typically had to be white.
Nowadays they would just sell it immediately after for more than market rate to some moron from California who thinks they’re getting a deal.
If enough of them are built it's a non issue, why buy the one someone is trying to sell for a profit when you can buy the brand new one that is selling for less?
You could buy them faster than they are built, if you're extremely rich.
Oh, so you just need to pass a law that these houses can only be owned by people who don't own another house
It's not magic
Yeah, I was just pointing out a loophole — and there are likely more.
Build enough of them and that problem will work itself out.
But you could also regulate or tax your way to making houses undesirable as investments.
They can do limited equity programs to mitigate this and other speculation. Ie. When you buy the house you agree to sell it at the inflation adjusted price you bought it at, maybe with a percent or two of appreciation as well.