NationStates

Local officials like to talk about the housing crisis in major cities yet there are simple steps they could take to solve it.

First ban Airbnb. This would instantly free up tons of housing as too many use it simply to make money denying housing to people.

Build only affordable housing. Deny the permits for eyesores like 432 park avenue.

Maybe have rent control for everyone.

Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

What do you think NSG?

It doesn’t matter. NIMBY will always win.

San Lumen wrote:Local officials like to talk about the housing crisis in major cities yet there are simple steps they could take to solve it.

First ban Airbnb. This would instantly free up tons of housing as too many use it simply to make money denying housing to people.

Build only affordable housing. Deny the permits for eyesores like 432 park avenue.

Maybe have rent control for everyone.

Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

What do you think NSG?

Most high-density urban neighborhoods would be illegal to build today(At least in the USA), due to zoning and land use restrictions. Fixing those would be a good first step.

Juansonia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Local officials like to talk about the housing crisis in major cities yet there are simple steps they could take to solve it.

First ban Airbnb. This would instantly free up tons of housing as too many use it simply to make money denying housing to people.

Build only affordable housing. Deny the permits for eyesores like 432 park avenue.

Maybe have rent control for everyone.

Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

What do you think NSG?

Most high-density urban neighborhoods would be illegal to build today(At least in the USA), due to zoning and land use restrictions. Fixing those would be a good first step.

Not that simple. For example, resources come into play. We do have endless people who prattle on about just build more and yet ignore checking if available resources can support the increase.

San Lumen wrote:Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

The best way to build more houses is to build more houses, not to tell people they cannot let rooms in their house to strangers on the internet and tell constructors they cannot build houses in places typically inhabited by really rich people tailored to really rich people.

Tinhampton wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

The best way to build more houses is to build more houses, not to tell people they cannot let rooms in their house to strangers on the internet and tell constructors they cannot build houses in places typically inhabited by really rich people tailored to really rich people.

No city should be tailored to rich people.

San Lumen wrote:Local officials like to talk about the housing crisis in major cities yet there are simple steps they could take to solve it.

First ban Airbnb. This would instantly free up tons of housing as too many use it simply to make money denying housing to people.

Build only affordable housing. Deny the permits for eyesores like 432 park avenue.

Maybe have rent control for everyone.

Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

What do you think NSG?

I don't think you COULD ban the practice of short term rentals like Airbnb. People will find a way (or several ways) around any such ban.

I don't think 432 Park Avenue is an eyesore. And with a limited amount of acreage available, you NEED to build upwards in cities, otherwise you'll run out of acreage.

There's a lot of arguments both for and against rent control, I'd have to look into it more before I take a position on it.

You’ve had this debate a dozen times. None of these answers go far enough to fix the real issue.

The Black Forrest wrote:It doesn’t matter. NIMBY will always win.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said, yeah. There's simple solutions to just about every problem you can conjure up but people aren't willing to accept said solutions in most cases.

Build more schools. Have us live in our schools.

I think we can do away with most your proposed policies. More social housing is a good idea. But instead of relying on towering commie blocks, it is a lot more effective to reform planning and zoning laws to encourage more mixed density urban spaces. Of course, you have to ask yourself though, what interest groups will have something to lose from these changes and how do you hope to address their pushback?

Usually if someone proposes a simple solution to a complicated issue it means their idea is too simpleminded to actually work without negative consequences.

I don't have access to the article, but the headline seemed somewhat relevant:

TheAtlantic wrote:Are Suburbs the Future?
The dream of the city could be on its way out.

My simple solution would be to ban or limit overseas/foreign based investment in real estate. You could make it a requirement that someone from overseas physically move into the dwelling if they intend to buy it. No it wouldn't solve all housing issues, but it'd increase the supply in that being an absentee landlord/owner wouldn't be viable.

It was a mistake for example, to have ever allowed China to buy up any portion of the US' farmland. To undo the mistake that letting it go to the highest bidder has caused, the land could be nationalized and the US can give back the money China paid for the land. As a geopolitical rival, the US is going to need to tell China to "shove it" sooner or later on many if not most things.

The Black Forrest wrote:It doesn’t matter. NIMBY will always win.

As a lifelong Californian, NIMBY can never be underestimated.

I agree that addressing supply and demand is key.

I'm disappointed that we're ignoring the obvious simple solution: round up the poor, unemployed, and uneducated into labour camps; these can be used to recycle the precious bodily fluids of the weak into an elixir of life for those over-50s who hold PhDs from properly accredited institutions. The resulting cull of the unworthy will also have a beneficial impact on the urban housing market.

Saiwana wrote:My simple solution would be to ban or limit overseas/foreign based investment in real estate. You could make it a requirement that someone from overseas physically move into the dwelling if they intend to buy it. No it wouldn't solve all housing issues, but it'd increase the supply in that being an absentee landlord/owner wouldn't be viable.

California has about 1 million unoccupied houses currently, the US has about 16 million according to this article.

I've been a fan of the 'use it or lose' it approach where tax penalties increase as long as properties sit unused.

Also not opposed to limiting short time rentals. I just don't know how you go about enforcing something like 'has to be occupied by owner for x amount of time' etc.

There are things I like that would never fly some for good reasons, like limiting property consolidation. I don't think you could even get the votes for that much less it probably fucks up some mechanism that the whole goddamn real estate world operates on.

My dad was a developer and while I expressed zero interest in what he did, the little I do know about real estate investing etc is enough for me to think that whole financial sector is ass.

Also fun times growing up with your dad being the bad guy in movies about colorful kids defending their community centers.

The Archregimancy wrote:I agree that addressing supply and demand is key.

I'm disappointed that we're ignoring the obvious simple solution: round up the poor, unemployed, and uneducated into labour camps; these can be used to recycle the precious bodily fluids of the weak into an elixir of life for those over-50s who hold PhDs from properly accredited institutions. The resulting cull of the unworthy will also have a beneficial impact on the urban housing market.

This has real Jonathan Swift “A Modest Proposal” energy here.

The Archregimancy wrote:I agree that addressing supply and demand is key.

I'm disappointed that we're ignoring the obvious simple solution: round up the poor, unemployed, and uneducated into labour camps; these can be used to recycle the precious bodily fluids of the weak into an elixir of life for those over-50s who hold PhDs from properly accredited institutions. The resulting cull of the unworthy will also have a beneficial impact on the urban housing market.

This proposal is very modest.

Soviet Ostmark wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:I agree that addressing supply and demand is key.

I'm disappointed that we're ignoring the obvious simple solution: round up the poor, unemployed, and uneducated into labour camps; these can be used to recycle the precious bodily fluids of the weak into an elixir of life for those over-50s who hold PhDs from properly accredited institutions. The resulting cull of the unworthy will also have a beneficial impact on the urban housing market.

This has real Jonathan Swift “A Modest Proposal” energy here.

Fucking ninjas...

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Local officials like to talk about the housing crisis in major cities yet there are simple steps they could take to solve it.

First ban Airbnb. This would instantly free up tons of housing as too many use it simply to make money denying housing to people.

Build only affordable housing. Deny the permits for eyesores like 432 park avenue.

Maybe have rent control for everyone.

Supply and demand is always discussed. Build more supply. All this is way to simple therefore no city will ever do it. We must overcomplicate everything.

What do you think NSG?

I don't think you COULD ban the practice of short term rentals like Airbnb. People will find a way (or several ways) around any such ban.

I don't think 432 Park Avenue is an eyesore. And with a limited amount of acreage available, you NEED to build upwards in cities, otherwise you'll run out of acreage.

There's a lot of arguments both for and against rent control, I'd have to look into it more before I take a position on it.

That building is only for the mega rich as a place to park their vast wealth.

Fractalnavel wrote:I don't have access to the article, but the headline seemed somewhat relevant:

TheAtlantic wrote:Are Suburbs the Future?
The dream of the city could be on its way out.

The Atlantic is a utter crap news source. I give no credence to what they have to say.

Create incentives for people and businesses to move out of major cities and into second tier cities that are declining.

Tokyo is doing it - https://www.livemint.com/news/world/jap ... 03502.html

The lure of major cities is a rather false one, high cost of living, low wages - there's more jobs because everything has been gravitating to major cities over the past 200 years, but it's not necessary. The pandemic led to many people realising there's a better life away from cities.

So create the incentives to disperse crowded cities.

Fractalnavel wrote:I don't have access to the article, but the headline seemed somewhat relevant:

TheAtlantic wrote:Are Suburbs the Future?
The dream of the city could be on its way out.

I'm happiest in suburbs and prefer them significantly over both cities and rural living, but they probably shouldn't be the future.

Saiwana wrote:My simple solution would be to ban or limit overseas/foreign based investment in real estate. You could make it a requirement that someone from overseas physically move into the dwelling if they intend to buy it. No it wouldn't solve all housing issues, but it'd increase the supply in that being an absentee landlord/owner wouldn't be viable.

It was a mistake for example, to have ever allowed China to buy up any portion of the US' farmland. To undo the mistake that letting it go to the highest bidder has caused, the land could be nationalized and the US can give back the money China paid for the land. As a geopolitical rival, the US is going to need to tell China to "shove it" sooner or later on many if not most things.

for once I agree with you. I think this is an excellent idea.