As a possible counterpoint, regulations like this help prevent rent-seeking development companies from buying up all the land, bulldozing all the houses, and building shitty apartment buildings.
Cities probably should open more of these zones to high-density/low-income housing but you have to be really careful how you do it or these assholes will come in, outbid everyone else and monopolize the rental market.
Ugh, it’s so true, and they’ll hold them with shell companies to dodge regulations.
I am very much in favor of residency requirements - basically if you don’t personally live in this jurisdiction you can’t buy property in it, especially if you in another country.
The trick is catching investors who employ someone to live locally and pretend to be the owner.
Yes, well, unfortunately the most efficient actors in any market are typically the ones making the wealth extraction features of the whole system more efficient - this occupation pays the best. I often feel that the only thing that saves us from absolute, overwhelming exploitation is inefficiency.
Saving people by purposefully denying them the means to build affordable housing?
Keep in mind, it won’t be those people building affordable housing for themselves - it will be some company doing it, and some company managing the property after it’s built, possibly the same company, possibly not, possibly the same company pretending to be different companies.
Those companies will have a contractual relationship with the government and/or landowners. Government contracts will be required to go with the lowest bidder by default, so bare minimum construction quality necessary to pass inspection. Nongovernment contracts will be pushed to maximize profits and minimize costs, so construction designed to look upscale while being made of the absolute cheapest contractor-grade materials available.
You understand that OP and others are talking about R1 zoning, right? Splitting a single family home into two lots of homes? Or building an inlaw in the backyard? I’d truly enjoy a discussion for exceptionally high density city planning, but our missing housing isn’t from highrises. It’s legally mandated half acre lots of mostly lawn.
Big corps and developers are not bidding on government contracts to pave over a suburban half acre. For sure they do big projects and what you point out is a problem with those, but it’s an independent problem from R1 zoning.
Hell, corps are doing shitty things with today’s regulations! Why shouldn’t we change our laws to prevent housing exploitation and build more housing in R1 zones?
Bulldozing all the houses and building higher density homes is what should be done to fix the housing crisis. And the car-depndency and plenty other issues.
It’s simple, forbid corporations for buying the houses to rent. They can buy houses to house their employees, but they can’t buy to rent to third party.
As a possible counterpoint, regulations like this help prevent rent-seeking development companies from buying up all the land, bulldozing all the houses, and building shitty apartment buildings.
Cities probably should open more of these zones to high-density/low-income housing but you have to be really careful how you do it or these assholes will come in, outbid everyone else and monopolize the rental market.
So instead those same companies buy up all the single family homes and turn them into perpetual rentals.
Ugh, it’s so true, and they’ll hold them with shell companies to dodge regulations.
I am very much in favor of residency requirements - basically if you don’t personally live in this jurisdiction you can’t buy property in it, especially if you in another country.
The trick is catching investors who employ someone to live locally and pretend to be the owner.
Refusing to build higher density housing is an awfully inefficient way of regulating predatory market capture.
Yes, well, unfortunately the most efficient actors in any market are typically the ones making the wealth extraction features of the whole system more efficient - this occupation pays the best. I often feel that the only thing that saves us from absolute, overwhelming exploitation is inefficiency.
Saving people by purposefully denying them the means to build affordable housing? I don’t know, man. Who’s exploiting who?
Keep in mind, it won’t be those people building affordable housing for themselves - it will be some company doing it, and some company managing the property after it’s built, possibly the same company, possibly not, possibly the same company pretending to be different companies.
Those companies will have a contractual relationship with the government and/or landowners. Government contracts will be required to go with the lowest bidder by default, so bare minimum construction quality necessary to pass inspection. Nongovernment contracts will be pushed to maximize profits and minimize costs, so construction designed to look upscale while being made of the absolute cheapest contractor-grade materials available.
You understand that OP and others are talking about R1 zoning, right? Splitting a single family home into two lots of homes? Or building an inlaw in the backyard? I’d truly enjoy a discussion for exceptionally high density city planning, but our missing housing isn’t from highrises. It’s legally mandated half acre lots of mostly lawn.
Big corps and developers are not bidding on government contracts to pave over a suburban half acre. For sure they do big projects and what you point out is a problem with those, but it’s an independent problem from R1 zoning.
Hell, corps are doing shitty things with today’s regulations! Why shouldn’t we change our laws to prevent housing exploitation and build more housing in R1 zones?
Bulldozing all the houses and building higher density homes is what should be done to fix the housing crisis. And the car-depndency and plenty other issues.
It’s simple, forbid corporations for buying the houses to rent. They can buy houses to house their employees, but they can’t buy to rent to third party.
YIMBY!