Kamalanomics
August 16, 2024 11:35 AM Subscribe
Kamala Harris Economic Policy (WaPo, NPR, NYT)
She's delivering a speech about the economy in Raleigh, NC, today (PBS) Plans include expanded child tax credits, assistance for first-time homebuyers, an increased minimum wage, and a ban on food price gouging.
She's delivering a speech about the economy in Raleigh, NC, today (PBS) Plans include expanded child tax credits, assistance for first-time homebuyers, an increased minimum wage, and a ban on food price gouging.
i know this goes against the whole neoliberal project, but rent control is such a better way of addressing the housing crisis than tax incentives to get more people to become homeowners (and potentially landlords). price gouging on rent has been the biggest issue affecting a huge chunk of americans
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:44 AM on August 16 [49 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:44 AM on August 16 [49 favorites]
(First link is broken, should be this one.)
"Harris also aims to expand rental assistance, ban rental price-fixing and stop Wall Street firms from buying homes in bulk."
posted by box at 11:46 AM on August 16 [36 favorites]
"Harris also aims to expand rental assistance, ban rental price-fixing and stop Wall Street firms from buying homes in bulk."
posted by box at 11:46 AM on August 16 [36 favorites]
So what's the plan if the dems secure a congressional majority and they don't have an excuse to not follow through?
posted by jy4m at 11:53 AM on August 16 [12 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 11:53 AM on August 16 [12 favorites]
So what's the plan if the dems secure a congressional majority and they don't have an excuse to not follow through?
"Sorry, Supreme Court says no"
The price gouging ban in particular seems like a stretch in a legal landscape where authority of EPA to P the E is in question.
posted by Reyturner at 11:54 AM on August 16 [17 favorites]
"Sorry, Supreme Court says no"
The price gouging ban in particular seems like a stretch in a legal landscape where authority of EPA to P the E is in question.
posted by Reyturner at 11:54 AM on August 16 [17 favorites]
From what I have seen locally, "affordable new housing" is code for "homes for gentrifiers." A $25k coupon on a down payment will be a gift for moneyed young people, but I'm skeptical it would get the truly poor of most markets over the hump.
It would be nice if she could bring back the child tax credit, an early Biden success that was inexplicably beefed at the earliest possible convenience, though he continued to try to take credit for it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:55 AM on August 16 [20 favorites]
It would be nice if she could bring back the child tax credit, an early Biden success that was inexplicably beefed at the earliest possible convenience, though he continued to try to take credit for it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:55 AM on August 16 [20 favorites]
A national ban on Single Family Housing zoning and other exclusionary measures inhibiting construction. Single stair construction. Removal of parking minimums when inside a transit zone (rapid bus service multiple times an hour and/or subway service).
On a preferences level: smaller bedrooms. Why is every condo bedroom a 14'x12' I see a real monster. It needs to fit a bed, a chest of drawers, maybe a bookshelf.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:00 PM on August 16 [13 favorites]
On a preferences level: smaller bedrooms. Why is every condo bedroom a 14'x12' I see a real monster. It needs to fit a bed, a chest of drawers, maybe a bookshelf.
posted by Slackermagee at 12:00 PM on August 16 [13 favorites]
I think there's a reason the interests of middle class people are prioritized above that of the poor when trying to entice voters with subsidies. People are somewhat slower to ask "who's going to pay for this?" when they believe that it is for them, "the taxpayer".
posted by Selena777 at 12:10 PM on August 16 [9 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 12:10 PM on August 16 [9 favorites]
There's a live video on the link under the fold and as of 3:13 ET she hasn't gone on yet, so maybe jump in and see what she has to say!
posted by greta simone at 12:13 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
posted by greta simone at 12:13 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
A national ban on Single Family Housing zoning and other exclusionary measures inhibiting construction. Single stair construction. Removal of parking minimums when inside a transit zone (rapid bus service multiple times an hour and/or subway service).
I love it and want to see this in every urban and suburban area but I do not see any way the federal government can claim the authority to do this. A supreme court several deviations to the left of the Warren court would almost certainly still rule that zoning falls under powers that remain with the States.
Which is aggravating, because the best way to fix the problems with the housing market—including the software that makes landlords a quasi-cartel and makes housing such an attractive investment for Wall Street—is to build a ton more housing where people actually want to live.
On a preferences level: smaller bedrooms. Why is every condo bedroom a 14'x12' I see a real monster. It needs to fit a bed, a chest of drawers, maybe a bookshelf.
There is almost certainly a weird unexpected consequence that's driving this, like families buying SUVs because car seat mandates make sedans and station wagons way less convenient (far from the only reason SUVs are so popular, but an unexpected consequence nonetheless)
posted by thecaddy at 12:14 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
I love it and want to see this in every urban and suburban area but I do not see any way the federal government can claim the authority to do this. A supreme court several deviations to the left of the Warren court would almost certainly still rule that zoning falls under powers that remain with the States.
Which is aggravating, because the best way to fix the problems with the housing market—including the software that makes landlords a quasi-cartel and makes housing such an attractive investment for Wall Street—is to build a ton more housing where people actually want to live.
On a preferences level: smaller bedrooms. Why is every condo bedroom a 14'x12' I see a real monster. It needs to fit a bed, a chest of drawers, maybe a bookshelf.
There is almost certainly a weird unexpected consequence that's driving this, like families buying SUVs because car seat mandates make sedans and station wagons way less convenient (far from the only reason SUVs are so popular, but an unexpected consequence nonetheless)
posted by thecaddy at 12:14 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
Which is aggravating, because the best way to fix the problems with the housing market—including the software that makes landlords a quasi-cartel and makes housing such an attractive investment for Wall Street—is to build a ton more housing where people actually want to live.
How fortunate that this is exactly what's already happening, with one yuppie hamster cage built on top of another in every urban environment in America, inflating property values so that longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford and then move to, you know, whatever shitty place all the new arrivals moved from, I guess. I hope that President Harris can somehow keep this trend going, it's great and in no way a huge blight on society.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:20 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
How fortunate that this is exactly what's already happening, with one yuppie hamster cage built on top of another in every urban environment in America, inflating property values so that longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford and then move to, you know, whatever shitty place all the new arrivals moved from, I guess. I hope that President Harris can somehow keep this trend going, it's great and in no way a huge blight on society.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:20 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
if you don't build the yuppie hamster cages I can't see how that stops the yuppies showing up anyway and bidding up the existing housing stock
posted by BungaDunga at 12:30 PM on August 16 [27 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 12:30 PM on August 16 [27 favorites]
longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford
Is this a thing that actually happens?
I'm not discounting the prospect of gentrification, but generally that applies to renters getting priced out of a neighborhood. Generally owners get pretty excited about increases in property values! And while it can lead to people getting priced out or losing homes due to liens:
posted by thecaddy at 12:32 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
Is this a thing that actually happens?
I'm not discounting the prospect of gentrification, but generally that applies to renters getting priced out of a neighborhood. Generally owners get pretty excited about increases in property values! And while it can lead to people getting priced out or losing homes due to liens:
- I'm not aware of anywhere where property value reassessments happen frequently enough to actually sharply drive up taxes on a year-to-year basis
- If they are forced to sell they should be able to benefit from the increased property values (though not if they get screwed on liens)
posted by thecaddy at 12:32 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
Also, I originally came back to lay out a way that the federal government could get rid of single-family zoning:
A massive federal investment in public housing, but the only way cities can unlock the funds to build is by updating their zoning laws. I think we're at least a generation away from the general public not recoiling at the concept of "public housing" in the United States yet, though.
posted by thecaddy at 12:37 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
A massive federal investment in public housing, but the only way cities can unlock the funds to build is by updating their zoning laws. I think we're at least a generation away from the general public not recoiling at the concept of "public housing" in the United States yet, though.
posted by thecaddy at 12:37 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
Is this a thing that actually happens?
Yeah.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:40 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
Yeah.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:40 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
I am sorry Kitten, but you have the causation completely backwards. new construction does not inflate the price of existing housing or force anyone else. Not building new housing when there is clearly demand is what inflates the price. Existing homeowners (and landlords) protected by regimes like CA prop13. We need both new construction and rent control to balence the system.
posted by CostcoCultist at 12:42 PM on August 16 [33 favorites]
posted by CostcoCultist at 12:42 PM on August 16 [33 favorites]
Stopping the old cannot be done without creating the new first. You can't just kill what's working for many people and expect them to adapt to a new model. If we want socialized public housing for the masses, create socialized public housing for the masses, but don't pretend that by suppressing single family homes, folks will move to smaller and less desirable homes gladly. They certainly won't vote for such policies. People need to find homes that both allows for basic survival and family rearing along with allowing for maximizing our full potential in the places we live.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:43 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:43 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
Is this a thing that actually happens?
Yes, this is happening to my elderly mother bc the cost of basic upkeep of her house (which is only 20 years old and otherwise in good shape) is outpacing what she can afford.
posted by greta simone at 12:43 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
Yes, this is happening to my elderly mother bc the cost of basic upkeep of her house (which is only 20 years old and otherwise in good shape) is outpacing what she can afford.
posted by greta simone at 12:43 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
I can tell this thread is going to piss me off, so I bid you adieu. I would like to say simply that Kamala Harris' strategy of "Vibes" is a strong one; I want to vote for her, and everything she can do not to talk me out of that is great. Less policy, more Kamala Is Brat, I beg of you.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:43 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:43 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
Canadian Here. We've tried going after "price gouging" in grocery for a while now. We have a clear oligopoly in the food market here and the current Government has tried making it their fault prices are so high.
It's fine, there are elements of it that are true, but it's so hard to police and actually enforce. And there is so much more to it.
I wish we could (both countries) just have an honest conversation about the factors creating high prices (Covid, War, Climate Change) and address THOSE policy issues as a way of fighting inflation.
But alas, I know most people just want to hear what they want to hear (and want someone to blame) and if this gets her elected; More power to her.
posted by dogbusonline at 12:44 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
It's fine, there are elements of it that are true, but it's so hard to police and actually enforce. And there is so much more to it.
I wish we could (both countries) just have an honest conversation about the factors creating high prices (Covid, War, Climate Change) and address THOSE policy issues as a way of fighting inflation.
But alas, I know most people just want to hear what they want to hear (and want someone to blame) and if this gets her elected; More power to her.
posted by dogbusonline at 12:44 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
To add on, new construction with controls will "air out" the housing market. We have to encourage new homes to be built, not just badger the ones that exist.
Also, yuppies? I feel so out of date if I'm worried about yuppies moving in to the neighborhood.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:45 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
Also, yuppies? I feel so out of date if I'm worried about yuppies moving in to the neighborhood.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:45 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
I respect your willingness to step out if you don’t want to engage Kitten,
For anyone who does want to engage, this is a quick primer
https://cayimby.org/blog/yes-building-market-rate-housing-lowers-rents-heres-how/
posted by CostcoCultist at 12:47 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
For anyone who does want to engage, this is a quick primer
https://cayimby.org/blog/yes-building-market-rate-housing-lowers-rents-heres-how/
posted by CostcoCultist at 12:47 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
For every 10% increase in the housing stock, rents decrease by 1% within the 500ft vicinity. (Quick math exercise: what would happen with a 100% supply increase?)
What in the name of the Child Mind Institute...Jesus fucking Christ
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:53 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
What in the name of the Child Mind Institute...Jesus fucking Christ
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:53 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford
Is this a thing that actually happens?
The longtime home-owners I know paid off the mortgage long ago. It's maintenance they can no longer handle. The kids are long gone, many empty rooms; but the inventory of rentals available is so unpleasant, they stay put.
I wish we could (both countries) just have an honest conversation about the factors creating high prices (Covid, War, Climate Change) and address THOSE policy issues as a way of fighting inflation.
When it comes to the rental housing market I think Greed is the primary factor affecting prices.
posted by Rash at 12:56 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
Is this a thing that actually happens?
The longtime home-owners I know paid off the mortgage long ago. It's maintenance they can no longer handle. The kids are long gone, many empty rooms; but the inventory of rentals available is so unpleasant, they stay put.
I wish we could (both countries) just have an honest conversation about the factors creating high prices (Covid, War, Climate Change) and address THOSE policy issues as a way of fighting inflation.
When it comes to the rental housing market I think Greed is the primary factor affecting prices.
posted by Rash at 12:56 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
I'm not aware of anywhere where property value reassessments happen frequently enough to actually sharply drive up taxes on a year-to-year basis
They reassess every year here in Seattle. Multiple years in a row I've seen 20% increases in assessed value. Good problem to have? Sort of
posted by keep_evolving at 1:05 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
They reassess every year here in Seattle. Multiple years in a row I've seen 20% increases in assessed value. Good problem to have? Sort of
posted by keep_evolving at 1:05 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
So what's the plan if the dems secure a congressional majority and they don't have an excuse to not follow through?
This - I’m voting to avoid outright fascism and maybe eventually create an environment where my kids are less worried about being murdered at synagogue. The idea that the Democrats would fundamentally change a predatory housing market in any way seems laughable to me. She’s underestimating how many of us have heard promises like this before.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:05 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
This - I’m voting to avoid outright fascism and maybe eventually create an environment where my kids are less worried about being murdered at synagogue. The idea that the Democrats would fundamentally change a predatory housing market in any way seems laughable to me. She’s underestimating how many of us have heard promises like this before.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:05 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
Yes, this is happening to my elderly mother bc the cost of basic upkeep of her house (which is only 20 years old and otherwise in good shape) is outpacing what she can afford.
New people with money moving in are causing elderly people's houses to fall apart? What am I missing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:07 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
New people with money moving in are causing elderly people's houses to fall apart? What am I missing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:07 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
I'm not aware of anywhere where property value reassessments happen frequently enough to actually sharply drive up taxes on a year-to-year basis
At least in Northern Ohio, it's the other way 'round - reassessments don't happen for years, so you spend like a decade paying taxes on what your house was worth in 2014, and then all of a sudden in 2024 you're paying taxes on a house that's "worth" 3 or 4 or 5 times as much, partly because values headed for the moon in the last couple years.
I think most people here would prefer more frequent reassessments with smaller tax raises more often. That way you can at least try to budget for it.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:07 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
At least in Northern Ohio, it's the other way 'round - reassessments don't happen for years, so you spend like a decade paying taxes on what your house was worth in 2014, and then all of a sudden in 2024 you're paying taxes on a house that's "worth" 3 or 4 or 5 times as much, partly because values headed for the moon in the last couple years.
I think most people here would prefer more frequent reassessments with smaller tax raises more often. That way you can at least try to budget for it.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:07 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
inflating property values so that longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford and then move to, you know, whatever shitty place all the new arrivals moved from, I guess.
This is pretty offensive. Long time owners where prices have been driven up so their punishment is they sell at huge, mostly tax free gains and move to live the same lives as immigrants (is that who you are denigrating?) come from? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not what's happening.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:10 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
This is pretty offensive. Long time owners where prices have been driven up so their punishment is they sell at huge, mostly tax free gains and move to live the same lives as immigrants (is that who you are denigrating?) come from? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not what's happening.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:10 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
Also, in New Jersey, land of some of the highest property taxes on earth, if you're 65 plus and below the income limit, your property taxes don't increase!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:13 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:13 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
New people with money moving in are causing elderly people's houses to fall apart? What am I missing.
Inflated costs means she can't maintain her home, but also the equity in her house wouldn't be enough fully cover rent in her now HCOL area and her medical care if she were to sell.
posted by greta simone at 1:16 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
Inflated costs means she can't maintain her home, but also the equity in her house wouldn't be enough fully cover rent in her now HCOL area and her medical care if she were to sell.
posted by greta simone at 1:16 PM on August 16 [11 favorites]
A national ban on Single Family Housing zoning and other exclusionary measures inhibiting construction.
This is akin to wishing for a magic bracelet that makes it so you never get sick or need to eat.
There! I just fixed everyone's budget with one simple proposal!
Wait, why isn't anyone enacting my proposal? I'd save everyone in one fell swoop!
posted by aramaic at 1:18 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
This is akin to wishing for a magic bracelet that makes it so you never get sick or need to eat.
There! I just fixed everyone's budget with one simple proposal!
Wait, why isn't anyone enacting my proposal? I'd save everyone in one fell swoop!
posted by aramaic at 1:18 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
Inflated costs means she can't maintain her home, but also the equity in her house wouldn't be enough fully cover rent in her now HCOL area and her medical care if she were to sell.
Okay, this makes sense. Thank you for explaining it!
I still think the solution is tons more housing, like lots of it, at least some of it publicly owned. That would lower rents enough for her equity from a sale to cover her rent—or afford something smaller and more maintenable that she owned. The medical costs, of course, should not exist.
posted by thecaddy at 1:22 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
Okay, this makes sense. Thank you for explaining it!
I still think the solution is tons more housing, like lots of it, at least some of it publicly owned. That would lower rents enough for her equity from a sale to cover her rent—or afford something smaller and more maintenable that she owned. The medical costs, of course, should not exist.
posted by thecaddy at 1:22 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
immigrants (is that who you are denigrating?) come from? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not what's happening.
I think this person is talking about "out of towners" from different places in the U.S.
posted by Selena777 at 1:23 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
I think this person is talking about "out of towners" from different places in the U.S.
posted by Selena777 at 1:23 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
I would like to say simply that Kamala Harris' strategy of "Vibes" is a strong one; I want to vote for her, and everything she can do not to talk me out of that is great. Less policy, more Kamala Is Brat, I beg of you.
Fundamentally, you get this dynamic among Dems where policy proposals lead to everyone under the very big tent arguing about the policy and its particulars, on the basis that the candidate and the party can be pushed in a preferred direction, and the press will bring in experts to say why such and such proposal isn't possible or is bad, actually, Dems dooming about how it's never going to happen because Congress or Supreme Court etc etc.
So like, yeah, the vibes are good when it's all just slogans, but when people push for policy and get it in imperfect form, this whole process immediately kicks off with everyone registering their unhappiness with the policy and arguing over the details, and none of it seems to do any good in terms of actually moving the needle with voters. Meanwhile, such detailed Republican campaign policy proposals like "build the Wall" and "deport millions of people" are accepted wholesale by Republicans, are not questioned by the base, get some pushback from the press but not nearly as much as they should, and no Republicans ask about how they'll actually be implemented or what their impact will be.
I'm not really trying to talk anyone out of having these policy debates or whatever, I just thought I'd point out why this kind of thing always seems to end up being a vibe-killing, lose-lose situation for Dems. Keep the good vibes going at the expense of the media, your opponents, and a bunch of your own supporters pointing out that there aren't enough detailed policies, or put out the policies and immediately have the media, your opponents, and the big tent coalition of Dems argue over them and tear them apart, while Republicans get to avoid this whole dilemma. Not sure there's any way to fix this dynamic, but I am pretty heartily sick of it.
And before anyone says the answer is "well then, just have [insert policy here] as the policy!!", I'll point to the big tent thing again. There is always going to be someone in this diverse coalition who's going to 'well, actually' every single policy. There's no way to please everybody. And there's always someone suggesting some simple thing that would fix everything, but oh wait, that would require the federal government, all the state governments, a constitutional amendment, and a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court all to agree in order to pull it off. If this is just the price to pay for a big coalition, fine, but I think it behooves us to think about why vibes seem to hit with the many voters who aren't nearly as attentive to the policy details as they are to the general commitments to policies and intentions to make their lives better (Dems and Dem-aligned people) or to have some aspect of their grievances, however muddled, addressed in an emotionally satisfying way (Republicans).
posted by yasaman at 1:28 PM on August 16 [55 favorites]
Fundamentally, you get this dynamic among Dems where policy proposals lead to everyone under the very big tent arguing about the policy and its particulars, on the basis that the candidate and the party can be pushed in a preferred direction, and the press will bring in experts to say why such and such proposal isn't possible or is bad, actually, Dems dooming about how it's never going to happen because Congress or Supreme Court etc etc.
So like, yeah, the vibes are good when it's all just slogans, but when people push for policy and get it in imperfect form, this whole process immediately kicks off with everyone registering their unhappiness with the policy and arguing over the details, and none of it seems to do any good in terms of actually moving the needle with voters. Meanwhile, such detailed Republican campaign policy proposals like "build the Wall" and "deport millions of people" are accepted wholesale by Republicans, are not questioned by the base, get some pushback from the press but not nearly as much as they should, and no Republicans ask about how they'll actually be implemented or what their impact will be.
I'm not really trying to talk anyone out of having these policy debates or whatever, I just thought I'd point out why this kind of thing always seems to end up being a vibe-killing, lose-lose situation for Dems. Keep the good vibes going at the expense of the media, your opponents, and a bunch of your own supporters pointing out that there aren't enough detailed policies, or put out the policies and immediately have the media, your opponents, and the big tent coalition of Dems argue over them and tear them apart, while Republicans get to avoid this whole dilemma. Not sure there's any way to fix this dynamic, but I am pretty heartily sick of it.
And before anyone says the answer is "well then, just have [insert policy here] as the policy!!", I'll point to the big tent thing again. There is always going to be someone in this diverse coalition who's going to 'well, actually' every single policy. There's no way to please everybody. And there's always someone suggesting some simple thing that would fix everything, but oh wait, that would require the federal government, all the state governments, a constitutional amendment, and a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court all to agree in order to pull it off. If this is just the price to pay for a big coalition, fine, but I think it behooves us to think about why vibes seem to hit with the many voters who aren't nearly as attentive to the policy details as they are to the general commitments to policies and intentions to make their lives better (Dems and Dem-aligned people) or to have some aspect of their grievances, however muddled, addressed in an emotionally satisfying way (Republicans).
posted by yasaman at 1:28 PM on August 16 [55 favorites]
> I wish we could (both countries) just have an honest conversation about the factors creating high prices (Covid, War, Climate Change) and address THOSE policy issues as a way of fighting inflation.
The main factors causing high prices for food is ... Energy, Energy, Energy.
Since 2019, Fuel Fertilizer and Feed have gone up almost 2x, and everything else by 1.2x (which ... is probably also Energy driven). Every other input cost looks like noise compared to Energy.
The War caused a shock in Energy prices, but we can't let it go back down until we decarbonize.
Selling that is hard, given that we have piles of Climate Change skeptics. And mass decarbonized power is more than a 2-4 year US election cycle project. We are getting there (solar farms > coal plants today, solar farms+batteries =~ peaker gas plants today), but it ain't gonna be overnight.
If this is the truth (and I could easily be wrong), then how do you sell that to the American people?
1. Build an arsenal of democracy, win in Ukraine, mothball once victory is complete.
2. Use taxes to pay for US energy independence. (Energy, Energy, Energy)
3. Increase min wage to ensure that workers gain a fair share of the economy yield from growth.
and... those bullet points seem to be present, no?
posted by NotAYakk at 1:32 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
The main factors causing high prices for food is ... Energy, Energy, Energy.
Since 2019, Fuel Fertilizer and Feed have gone up almost 2x, and everything else by 1.2x (which ... is probably also Energy driven). Every other input cost looks like noise compared to Energy.
The War caused a shock in Energy prices, but we can't let it go back down until we decarbonize.
Selling that is hard, given that we have piles of Climate Change skeptics. And mass decarbonized power is more than a 2-4 year US election cycle project. We are getting there (solar farms > coal plants today, solar farms+batteries =~ peaker gas plants today), but it ain't gonna be overnight.
If this is the truth (and I could easily be wrong), then how do you sell that to the American people?
1. Build an arsenal of democracy, win in Ukraine, mothball once victory is complete.
2. Use taxes to pay for US energy independence. (Energy, Energy, Energy)
3. Increase min wage to ensure that workers gain a fair share of the economy yield from growth.
and... those bullet points seem to be present, no?
posted by NotAYakk at 1:32 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
^ ^ ^ yasaman nailed it.
I fucking wish we were living in a world where we could argue about policy nitty gritties to our heart's content. God knows I am wired for it, I live on debates! Probably MeFi is the best suited place to have those discussions, because the chances of people picking up their vote and going home are low around here. Nevertheless, it gives me a nasty feeling because folks here do get heated and start attacking the candidate using over-the-top rhetoric and that's ... really bad for vibes.
I'm in a place where I need the vibes, god help me. IDK, I think after 2016 and Covid and everything that has happened these past 8 years, I'm still feeling a little fragile, and quite bruised. I don't have it in me to tolerate the knocking ourselves down, the dragging ourselves out - even within the privacy of a MeFi thread, even when it won't necessarily have the consequence of people vowing not to vote for Kamala.
I'm staying out of here to protect the vibes for myself at least. I hope you all do what you need to protect your own spirits this season.
posted by MiraK at 1:34 PM on August 16 [39 favorites]
I fucking wish we were living in a world where we could argue about policy nitty gritties to our heart's content. God knows I am wired for it, I live on debates! Probably MeFi is the best suited place to have those discussions, because the chances of people picking up their vote and going home are low around here. Nevertheless, it gives me a nasty feeling because folks here do get heated and start attacking the candidate using over-the-top rhetoric and that's ... really bad for vibes.
I'm in a place where I need the vibes, god help me. IDK, I think after 2016 and Covid and everything that has happened these past 8 years, I'm still feeling a little fragile, and quite bruised. I don't have it in me to tolerate the knocking ourselves down, the dragging ourselves out - even within the privacy of a MeFi thread, even when it won't necessarily have the consequence of people vowing not to vote for Kamala.
I'm staying out of here to protect the vibes for myself at least. I hope you all do what you need to protect your own spirits this season.
posted by MiraK at 1:34 PM on August 16 [39 favorites]
a ban on single-family zoning isn’t a ban on single-family houses. it just means houses can’t be required to be single-family. there’s currently situations where homeowners have bigger houses than they need but can’t rent the extra space, or that a neighborhood can have a multi-unit home in it. Currently a lot of places in the US have zoning codes preventing this.
also, it’s not just the cost of maintenance, it’s the taxes that become unaffordable if your modest home’s neighborhood happens to become hot on the real estate market and the price of their home (and thus the tax liability) jumps up. homeowners living on fixed incomes get screwed by this.
posted by Jon_Evil at 1:47 PM on August 16 [25 favorites]
also, it’s not just the cost of maintenance, it’s the taxes that become unaffordable if your modest home’s neighborhood happens to become hot on the real estate market and the price of their home (and thus the tax liability) jumps up. homeowners living on fixed incomes get screwed by this.
posted by Jon_Evil at 1:47 PM on August 16 [25 favorites]
I have a modest home that I paid off decades ago. Mortgage free! Yay me!
I created a trust for my heir. She has her own home and I would prefer that she just GIVE my home to someone who was like myself in the old days, young and struggling and not burden than person with a mortgage. But there's no way I can enforce that beyond the grave. And NO, I'm not open to making that a clause in my will. At some point, you just have to let go of control, y'know?
posted by SPrintF at 1:53 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
I created a trust for my heir. She has her own home and I would prefer that she just GIVE my home to someone who was like myself in the old days, young and struggling and not burden than person with a mortgage. But there's no way I can enforce that beyond the grave. And NO, I'm not open to making that a clause in my will. At some point, you just have to let go of control, y'know?
posted by SPrintF at 1:53 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
Inflated costs means she can't maintain her home, but also the equity in her house wouldn't be enough fully cover rent in her now HCOL area and her medical care if she were to sell.
Am I supposed to believe that maintenance cost increases are neighborhood specific? Having wealthier people on your block ain’t what’s driving maintenance costs.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:55 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
I think this person is talking about "out of towners" from different places in the U.S.
Well that sounds even more fun. Maybe we could expand the border patrol, and present papers for every neighborhood. Apparently the problem with Trump is that he's not fascist enough for some people.
Since 2019, Fuel Fertilizer and Feed have gone up almost 2x, and everything else by 1.2x (which ... is probably also Energy driven). Every other input cost looks like noise compared to Energy.
The US has been a net energy exporter since 2019
US energy usage peaked in like 2005 and is slowly decreasing.
So I'm not sure I buy the 'energy' argument, and "Drill Baby Drill" is Trump's answer. I don't think it's correct. Rent inflation (and imputed rent) is the primary factor of inflation in the US and has been for the past year or more. The US could drop energy usage off a cliff we we switched to more mass transit and just slightly denser living.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:57 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
Well that sounds even more fun. Maybe we could expand the border patrol, and present papers for every neighborhood. Apparently the problem with Trump is that he's not fascist enough for some people.
Since 2019, Fuel Fertilizer and Feed have gone up almost 2x, and everything else by 1.2x (which ... is probably also Energy driven). Every other input cost looks like noise compared to Energy.
The US has been a net energy exporter since 2019
US energy usage peaked in like 2005 and is slowly decreasing.
So I'm not sure I buy the 'energy' argument, and "Drill Baby Drill" is Trump's answer. I don't think it's correct. Rent inflation (and imputed rent) is the primary factor of inflation in the US and has been for the past year or more. The US could drop energy usage off a cliff we we switched to more mass transit and just slightly denser living.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:57 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
That energy peaked in 2005 is also why plenty of places are courting high energy using data centers like crypto miners. That capacity is still being amortized.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:59 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:59 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
That's an interesting argument, because most of the articles I have read seem to be talking about the challenges to local energy infrastructure posed by new data centers, which runs counter to the idea that these are taking advantage of existing capacity originally built for higher demand in other sectors. Any thoughts on that?
posted by biogeo at 2:16 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 2:16 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
miraK and yasaman have A pointer about the usefulness of vibe, and I think at a deeper level, the presidency ought to be a position of moral leadership and not a bean-counting. All of the actual details, log-rolls, and tenths of percentage points are going to be hashed out in committees and regulatory bodies anyway.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:58 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:58 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
Georgia Power is literally going to build more fossil fuel plants to support the energy demand of data centers.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:58 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 2:58 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
I love it and want to see this in every urban and suburban area but I do not see any way the federal government can claim the authority to do this. A supreme court several deviations to the left of the Warren court would almost certainly still rule that zoning falls under powers that remain with the States.
Sure, but the feds can do what they used to be willing to do with stuff like the drinking age and the 55mph speed limit, and tie federal funding to it.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:05 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
Sure, but the feds can do what they used to be willing to do with stuff like the drinking age and the 55mph speed limit, and tie federal funding to it.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:05 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
So what's the plan if the dems secure a congressional majority and they don't have an excuse to not follow through?
That's the beauty of it all, Cap, they aren't getting a majority so can just point to that as to why none of this is ever done.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:45 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
That's the beauty of it all, Cap, they aren't getting a majority so can just point to that as to why none of this is ever done.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:45 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
Why is every condo bedroom a 14'x12' I see a real monster. It needs to fit a bed, a chest of drawers, maybe a bookshelf.
Kids need a desk to do homework at as well as a bookshelf, bed, chest of drawers, and closet. If the condo is shared among adults, adults typically like having a larger bed. Or if two kids share the room, in addition to a bunk bed it needs space for two dressers, two desks, and one or two bookshelves. Probably 10’x12’ is reasonable, but 14’x12’ is hardly monstrous. ‘Course, if no one actually lives in the room and it’s just your spare room, that’s different. But that’s maybe on people buying condos with more bedrooms than they use on the daily.
I don’t get the vehemence over the single stairway thing. There’s a common “missing middle” apartment building style in the mid-Atlantic region of four-plexes with two apartments on each of two floors. They have a front stair that opens into the living room of each apartment, and a back stair that opens off of the back hallway (or kitchen, depending on apartment size), goes down to the basement (where shared laundry facilities often are, if the building has laundry facilities at all), and isn’t really used regularly. The back stair can thus be smaller and very service-oriented. No shared hallway down the middle taking up space. The format could easily be extended to three to six floor buildings (adding space for an elevator alongside the front stair would be good in those cases, of course). It takes up minimal extra space. I’ve also seen buildings with four units to a floor, with a main central hallway and stair. Then the little narrow back service stairs on the sides between pairs of apartments. A lot of those back stairs wouldn’t meet current code for width, maybe. So maybe relax that constraint for secondary back stairs. But if something is in the fire code, it generally means that people have died due to its lack in the past. Every apartment in an apartment building should have two routes of egress. Even if one of them is some sort of external fire stairs structure.
Canadian Here. We've tried going after "price gouging" in grocery for a while now. We have a clear oligopoly in the food market here and the current Government has tried making it their fault prices are so high.
The US has anti-trust legislation that, if the relevant regulatory agency so chooses, can be used to sue to break up companies with effective monopolies or put real enforcement measures in place for cartels that are acting monopolistically. It doesn’t get used nearly as often as it should, but is something the US federal government can do. I’d be a bit surprised if Canada didn’t have anything similar, though perhaps not as powerful? The tendency over the past 40 or so years for fines in either country to be so small relative to profits from the monopolistic practices as to be simply another business expense rather than a deterrent is of course a problem that hinders effective enforcement.
posted by eviemath at 3:55 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
Kids need a desk to do homework at as well as a bookshelf, bed, chest of drawers, and closet. If the condo is shared among adults, adults typically like having a larger bed. Or if two kids share the room, in addition to a bunk bed it needs space for two dressers, two desks, and one or two bookshelves. Probably 10’x12’ is reasonable, but 14’x12’ is hardly monstrous. ‘Course, if no one actually lives in the room and it’s just your spare room, that’s different. But that’s maybe on people buying condos with more bedrooms than they use on the daily.
I don’t get the vehemence over the single stairway thing. There’s a common “missing middle” apartment building style in the mid-Atlantic region of four-plexes with two apartments on each of two floors. They have a front stair that opens into the living room of each apartment, and a back stair that opens off of the back hallway (or kitchen, depending on apartment size), goes down to the basement (where shared laundry facilities often are, if the building has laundry facilities at all), and isn’t really used regularly. The back stair can thus be smaller and very service-oriented. No shared hallway down the middle taking up space. The format could easily be extended to three to six floor buildings (adding space for an elevator alongside the front stair would be good in those cases, of course). It takes up minimal extra space. I’ve also seen buildings with four units to a floor, with a main central hallway and stair. Then the little narrow back service stairs on the sides between pairs of apartments. A lot of those back stairs wouldn’t meet current code for width, maybe. So maybe relax that constraint for secondary back stairs. But if something is in the fire code, it generally means that people have died due to its lack in the past. Every apartment in an apartment building should have two routes of egress. Even if one of them is some sort of external fire stairs structure.
Canadian Here. We've tried going after "price gouging" in grocery for a while now. We have a clear oligopoly in the food market here and the current Government has tried making it their fault prices are so high.
The US has anti-trust legislation that, if the relevant regulatory agency so chooses, can be used to sue to break up companies with effective monopolies or put real enforcement measures in place for cartels that are acting monopolistically. It doesn’t get used nearly as often as it should, but is something the US federal government can do. I’d be a bit surprised if Canada didn’t have anything similar, though perhaps not as powerful? The tendency over the past 40 or so years for fines in either country to be so small relative to profits from the monopolistic practices as to be simply another business expense rather than a deterrent is of course a problem that hinders effective enforcement.
posted by eviemath at 3:55 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
Yes, this is happening to my elderly mother bc the cost of basic upkeep of her house (which is only 20 years old and otherwise in good shape) is outpacing what she can afford.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I don't see how the rising cost of upkeep to her house has anything to do with a changing neighborhood. She would have the same problem even if the neighborhood doesn't change at all.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:02 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
If I'm understanding you correctly, I don't see how the rising cost of upkeep to her house has anything to do with a changing neighborhood. She would have the same problem even if the neighborhood doesn't change at all.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:02 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
Do we have any details about this 'ban on food price gouging
When that idea was floating around a couple days ago, my first thought was, "fuck, Kamala, don't make the wheels fall off now"! But from what I'm reading, she's pivoting more toward enforcing antitrust law. Which isn't as dramatic a campaign pitch, but mercifully reasonable and doable.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:12 PM on August 16
When that idea was floating around a couple days ago, my first thought was, "fuck, Kamala, don't make the wheels fall off now"! But from what I'm reading, she's pivoting more toward enforcing antitrust law. Which isn't as dramatic a campaign pitch, but mercifully reasonable and doable.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:12 PM on August 16
If I'm understanding you correctly, I don't see how the rising cost of upkeep to her house has anything to do with a changing neighborhood. She would have the same problem even if the neighborhood doesn't change at all.
Hi, so look, I know the average user of this site is a pretty well-educated individual, and so I don't believe questions like this are being asked in good faith. This is someone talking about a problem their elderly parent is having in real life, and the "but I'm just asking questions" seems very disingenuous and I'm basically just explaining my rationale for flagging this.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:28 PM on August 16 [14 favorites]
Hi, so look, I know the average user of this site is a pretty well-educated individual, and so I don't believe questions like this are being asked in good faith. This is someone talking about a problem their elderly parent is having in real life, and the "but I'm just asking questions" seems very disingenuous and I'm basically just explaining my rationale for flagging this.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:28 PM on August 16 [14 favorites]
How fortunate that this is exactly what's already happening, with one yuppie hamster cage built on top of another in every urban environment in America, inflating property values so that longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford and then move to, you know, whatever shitty place all the new arrivals moved from, I guess.
I thought nimby property owners didn't like multi-unit housing because it decreased their property values, and decreased property values are bad? What is the mechanism whereby increased property values force people to sell their now more valuable homes?
Assuming that new homeowners moved from some other, shittier place completely overlooks that renters don't necessarily live in shitty places; and plenty of people can rent in a nice neighborhood and then choose to buy in a less nice neighborhood (for us, "less nice" meant less centrally located, and further from transit).
posted by oneirodynia at 4:28 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
I thought nimby property owners didn't like multi-unit housing because it decreased their property values, and decreased property values are bad? What is the mechanism whereby increased property values force people to sell their now more valuable homes?
Assuming that new homeowners moved from some other, shittier place completely overlooks that renters don't necessarily live in shitty places; and plenty of people can rent in a nice neighborhood and then choose to buy in a less nice neighborhood (for us, "less nice" meant less centrally located, and further from transit).
posted by oneirodynia at 4:28 PM on August 16 [1 favorite]
It's because their fucking taxes get too high to pay. Do you guys really not understand this stuff? What the hell
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:30 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:30 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
So what's the plan if the dems secure a congressional majority and they don't have an excuse to not follow through?If your goal isn’t helping Trump, maybe try not to depress potential Democratic voters treating failure as inevitable? If you want to help, look for the close races and see what you can do to boost them – as we’ve seen in recent years, many of these come down to one or two votes so every Democratic win in the Senate makes a huge difference. Manchin and Sinema blocked a lot of things which would have helped millions of people but a few thousand votes in other races would have meant things like BBB would have passed.
Or, keep fishing for impulse favorites. Those are basically the same, right?
posted by adamsc at 4:33 PM on August 16 [12 favorites]
thecaddy: "Is this a thing that actually happens?
"
If you live in a state with high property taxes, it can happen. I live in Texas, which does not have a state income tax, so it relies disproportionately on property taxes. If you live in your own home, the rate at which those taxes can go up is limited to 10% per year, which means your property taxes can double in 7 years. Which is exactly what happened to me at my previous address.
posted by adamrice at 4:50 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
"
If you live in a state with high property taxes, it can happen. I live in Texas, which does not have a state income tax, so it relies disproportionately on property taxes. If you live in your own home, the rate at which those taxes can go up is limited to 10% per year, which means your property taxes can double in 7 years. Which is exactly what happened to me at my previous address.
posted by adamrice at 4:50 PM on August 16 [10 favorites]
Kittens I think there was a genuine misunderstanding when you used the word maintenance meaning paying, property taxes, as opposed to actually maintaining the house. However, as noted in many markets, property tax increases are very restricted. there are many elderly people in California sitting on million plus dollar pieces of property and paying taxes on a sub $100,000 assessment.
posted by CostcoCultist at 4:56 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
posted by CostcoCultist at 4:56 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
Forgive my lack of economic expertise, particularly in this industry, but I feel like food should have big asterisks next to it in a capitalistic market. Local farm-raised food, co-ops and things close enough... willing to pay very high for that. A McDonald's hamburger? Of course not. Wouldn't a nuanced path to better local economies be regulating a portion of the market that is taking advantage, and call that "price gouging"? One needs the $$ to subsist, they don't apply, the other is riding the wake of that industry and lying about how much their food costs. I see people fretting about price gouging being a viable economic solution, but I'm wondering if that's the same ilk that say a press conference asap is critical. Cuz maybe that's not right anymore, these days.
posted by kybix at 5:00 PM on August 16
posted by kybix at 5:00 PM on August 16
My property taxes have gone up to the point that I’m sinking a bit further under the water. We bought a lumpy little house for 89K. Not a level floor in the place, in a neighborhood that was a little raggedy. But recent market forces, which seem to be made up of Covid, out-of-town companies snapping up houses to turn into rentals, and the costs of everything going up, means that my stupid little house is now being taxed as 170K after the eight years we’ve been here. We can’t afford to sell because there’s no place for us to go. And our homeowners insurance has decided our perfectly good roof is caving in, so I’m racing to see if I can get a federal grant to pay the 10K for a new one before the deadline hits and we are officially uninsured. They gave us two months, by the way. And they’re doing it to a lot of people in the area because we have Midwest weather and climate change has made our location less profitable.
posted by PussKillian at 5:24 PM on August 16 [13 favorites]
posted by PussKillian at 5:24 PM on August 16 [13 favorites]
Hi, so look, I know the average user of this site is a pretty well-educated individual, and so I don't believe questions like this are being asked in good faith. This is someone talking about a problem their elderly parent is having in real life, and the "but I'm just asking questions" seems very disingenuous and I'm basically just explaining my rationale for flagging this.
Kittens I think there was a genuine misunderstanding when you used the word maintenance meaning paying, property taxes, as opposed to actually maintaining the house.
If you mean taxes, say taxes. AFAIK, maintenance and upkeep means, well, maintenance and upkeep.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:34 PM on August 16 [18 favorites]
Kittens I think there was a genuine misunderstanding when you used the word maintenance meaning paying, property taxes, as opposed to actually maintaining the house.
If you mean taxes, say taxes. AFAIK, maintenance and upkeep means, well, maintenance and upkeep.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:34 PM on August 16 [18 favorites]
It's because their fucking taxes get too high to pay. Do you guys really not understand this stuff? What the hell
I understand it perfectly, but you weren't specific about the issue in question. Not sure why asking for information is so offensive.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:40 PM on August 16 [12 favorites]
So what's the plan if the dems secure a congressional majority and they don't have an excuse to not follow through?
They will get their marching orders from the corporations that bankrolled their campaigns. Same as the Republicans.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:42 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
They will get their marching orders from the corporations that bankrolled their campaigns. Same as the Republicans.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:42 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
I didn't discuss the issue in question. I just read the thread, like you did.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:43 PM on August 16
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:43 PM on August 16
It's greta simone's mom's house, and she said "basic upkeep".
posted by Selena777 at 5:51 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 5:51 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
The reason why asking for answers to obvious questions is offensive is because it seems disingenuous. As I said above, I know that most users of this site are smart people who went to college. Questions like "do taxes really get high?" and "does it cost a lot to fix stuff?" are annoying because they are questions people with no understanding of the real world would ask, and either the people asking them are very naive or simply deliberately testing the patience of people who, frankly, are expressing to you that they and their loved ones are in difficult straits, and yes, obviously, that's not very nice. I assure you that one day soon you may face these problems yourself; perhaps then they will click for you.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:54 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:54 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
I mean, basic upkeep and maintenance costs have gone through the roof over the past 4-5 years as a direct result of housing prices and interest rates going up. Contractors and electricians and plumbers in my area were at one point in 2023 charging double their 2018 rates and have now come down to "only" about 1.6x ish. It happened because nobody could afford to move to bigger houses from starter homes, so everyone decided to build an addition instead to accommodate their growing family - or fix what they had at least. Demand for those services and those skills went way way up. Boom, maintenance and upkeep becomes unaffordable for the rest of us too.
posted by MiraK at 6:40 PM on August 16 [13 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 6:40 PM on August 16 [13 favorites]
I can attest to rising costs being difficult to keep up with as one ages. Our house has appreciated considerably since we bought it, but we also did a lot of work to help that appreciation. I so glad we put on a metal roof - our neighbors are being told they have to replace their 13-year old roof (which was completely brand new then, the house was rebuilt substantially after a fire) or they will lose this insurance. The thought of losing insurance because you can’t afford a roof would keep me up nights.
Our property taxes (WA, like TX, has no income tax, and so everything gets paid for with property taxes and sales taxes) are rapidly catching up to our principal payments on our home loan.
And yes, professional maintenance can and does cost more in nicer neighborhoods. Those purveyors know what median incomes are, and adjust prices accordingly. Raw materials don’t change much, but many folks over 75 can’t do much in the way of DYI, especially if it involves being on one’s knees or up on a ladder.
Lastly, my income doesn’t go up at the same rate it did when I was working in the corporate world, nor are there bonuses or stock options. I really *hate* the term “fixed income” - I mean, whose income isn’t fixed. We are living on a much more limited income that previously, with occasional medical expense surprises.
Tl;dr - more missing middle housing, please!
posted by dbmcd at 6:42 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
Our property taxes (WA, like TX, has no income tax, and so everything gets paid for with property taxes and sales taxes) are rapidly catching up to our principal payments on our home loan.
And yes, professional maintenance can and does cost more in nicer neighborhoods. Those purveyors know what median incomes are, and adjust prices accordingly. Raw materials don’t change much, but many folks over 75 can’t do much in the way of DYI, especially if it involves being on one’s knees or up on a ladder.
Lastly, my income doesn’t go up at the same rate it did when I was working in the corporate world, nor are there bonuses or stock options. I really *hate* the term “fixed income” - I mean, whose income isn’t fixed. We are living on a much more limited income that previously, with occasional medical expense surprises.
Tl;dr - more missing middle housing, please!
posted by dbmcd at 6:42 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
The reason why asking for answers to obvious questions is offensive is because it seems disingenuous.
Without advocating for why you say that, I will say I do that because sometimes you're talking to metafilter and sometimes you're talking to the world (ether).
posted by kybix at 6:54 PM on August 16
Without advocating for why you say that, I will say I do that because sometimes you're talking to metafilter and sometimes you're talking to the world (ether).
posted by kybix at 6:54 PM on August 16
New people with money moving in are causing elderly people's houses to fall apart? What am I missing.
New people with new money often renovate and rebuild, reducing supply of building materials, contractors, and builders. This makes it difficult for existing homeowners to do basic repairs, which occur naturally as houses age alongside their owners. Further, neighborhoods with increased wealth are charged more by contractors for the same repairs. Gentrification may lead to better coffee shops around the corner, but it is also a vicious cycle in a lot of ways that go beyond simply raised property taxes, to increased costs for maintenance, upkeep, and more complex repairs for homeowners whose incomes may be static or stagnant.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:49 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
New people with new money often renovate and rebuild, reducing supply of building materials, contractors, and builders. This makes it difficult for existing homeowners to do basic repairs, which occur naturally as houses age alongside their owners. Further, neighborhoods with increased wealth are charged more by contractors for the same repairs. Gentrification may lead to better coffee shops around the corner, but it is also a vicious cycle in a lot of ways that go beyond simply raised property taxes, to increased costs for maintenance, upkeep, and more complex repairs for homeowners whose incomes may be static or stagnant.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:49 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
The reason why asking for answers to obvious questions is offensive is because it seems disingenuous. As I said above, I know that most users of this site are smart people who went to college. Questions like "do taxes really get high?" and "does it cost a lot to fix stuff?" are annoying because they are questions people with no understanding of the real world would ask, and either the people asking them are very naive or simply deliberately testing the patience of people who, frankly, are expressing to you that they and their loved ones are in difficult straits, and yes, obviously, that's not very nice. I assure you that one day soon you may face these problems yourself; perhaps then they will click for you.
First of all, the question was not at all obvious. Not to me nor several others reading this thread. You need to get over that.
Second of all, as a home owner in a place that's had property values go up quite a bit in the time I've owned the house, I have a pretty good understanding of the real world issues that go along with home ownership.
Thirdly, whether one is telling the story of a loved one or a hypothetical homeowner at risk of losing their home is not really relevant if one actually want to discuss the topic that's been brought up. If someone is bringing up a real world situation, I don't see why it should it be off limits to discuss said situation, especially if it was brought up cryptically enough that many people thought it was describing something else entirely.
Fourth, I'm very much aware that this day will come. Furthermore, I may have no opportunity to mitigate the effects when it happens, despite how much I plan for it. This is part of being a homeowner. And it isn't unique to anybody's relatives here. It's reality that needs to be discussed.
Though probably not in this thread as all of this drama you've insisted on has nothing to do with any of the proposals Kamala Harris released today.
Lastly, I didn't go to college. Nor is it necessary to understand any of the ideas brought up today by the campaign. Or the side issues in this thread.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:13 PM on August 16 [21 favorites]
First of all, the question was not at all obvious. Not to me nor several others reading this thread. You need to get over that.
Second of all, as a home owner in a place that's had property values go up quite a bit in the time I've owned the house, I have a pretty good understanding of the real world issues that go along with home ownership.
Thirdly, whether one is telling the story of a loved one or a hypothetical homeowner at risk of losing their home is not really relevant if one actually want to discuss the topic that's been brought up. If someone is bringing up a real world situation, I don't see why it should it be off limits to discuss said situation, especially if it was brought up cryptically enough that many people thought it was describing something else entirely.
Fourth, I'm very much aware that this day will come. Furthermore, I may have no opportunity to mitigate the effects when it happens, despite how much I plan for it. This is part of being a homeowner. And it isn't unique to anybody's relatives here. It's reality that needs to be discussed.
Though probably not in this thread as all of this drama you've insisted on has nothing to do with any of the proposals Kamala Harris released today.
Lastly, I didn't go to college. Nor is it necessary to understand any of the ideas brought up today by the campaign. Or the side issues in this thread.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:13 PM on August 16 [21 favorites]
It definitely does have to do with what Harris proposed today. Her proposals to build "more affordable housing" (which sounds like she's saying low-income housing; in my experience with this currently popular phrase, she isn't) and to reward first-time home owners with $25k of free money for a down payment -- not enough to get anyone who's actually struggling over the hump, but enough to make someone with money blessed with even more money (our money) -- are going to lead, if carried out, to even more gentrification, which from what I can tell is the biggest problem America faces domestically today. So, that sucks, and it's also very germane to a thread about what are her policy plans, since those are her policy plans.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:25 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:25 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
New people with new money often renovate and rebuild, reducing supply of building materials, contractors, and builders. This makes it difficult for existing homeowners to do basic repairs, which occur naturally as houses age alongside their owners. Further, neighborhoods with increased wealth are charged more by contractors for the same repairs. Gentrification may lead to better coffee shops around the corner, but it is also a vicious cycle in a lot of ways that go beyond simply raised property taxes, to increased costs for maintenance, upkeep, and more complex repairs for homeowners whose incomes may be static or stagnant.
Several people have now said something along these lines, and it has not at all been my experience as a homeowner in a neighborhood where I certainly could not afford to buy now. Things and services are more expensive than they were 20 years ago, but pretty proportional to overall inflation. Frankly the most difficult part of maintenance and upkeep is finding trustworthy contractors. I've found that process to be utterly excruciating. I dread the possibility I'll have to get a significant repair done in a hurry.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:26 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
Several people have now said something along these lines, and it has not at all been my experience as a homeowner in a neighborhood where I certainly could not afford to buy now. Things and services are more expensive than they were 20 years ago, but pretty proportional to overall inflation. Frankly the most difficult part of maintenance and upkeep is finding trustworthy contractors. I've found that process to be utterly excruciating. I dread the possibility I'll have to get a significant repair done in a hurry.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:26 PM on August 16 [5 favorites]
I'm here for Harris's YIMBY policies.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:33 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:33 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
Housing is a human right. 20th century policy makers made a conscious decision to prioritize its investment potential over its essence as a home to humans - hence, among many other things, a plethora of tax credits for homeowners which leave out renters or homeless people - and this emphasis on property, on growth, on good old American fuck-you-got-mine normalization and victim-blaming of housing-poor and unhoused people, is what has led us to where we are are today.
Kamala Harris needs to win. I do not expect her to recognize housing a a human right, because that's not how you win presidential elections in America in 2024. But housing is a human right, and our failure to recognize and act on this keeps making things worse and worse.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:41 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
Kamala Harris needs to win. I do not expect her to recognize housing a a human right, because that's not how you win presidential elections in America in 2024. But housing is a human right, and our failure to recognize and act on this keeps making things worse and worse.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:41 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
This strikes me as mostly politically motivated economic nonsense. And if that kinda crap appeals to swing voters, I say go for it. While she's at it, promise them all ponies, if that's what it takes to keep the madman out of power.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:48 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:48 PM on August 16 [3 favorites]
The reason why asking for answers to obvious questions is offensive is because it seems disingenuous.
This is what you said:
inflating property values so that longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford
and I asked: What is the mechanism whereby increased property values force people to sell their now more valuable homes? Because generally speaking, most people want their home values to rise, and do not lose their houses because of it; and just saying that home values rising= higher property taxes isn't true in every part of the country and for every homeowner. But thanks for reading my question asking for clarity in the worst possible way I guess, and then implying I'm stupid.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:51 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
This is what you said:
inflating property values so that longtime home owners have no choice but to sell the house they can no longer afford
and I asked: What is the mechanism whereby increased property values force people to sell their now more valuable homes? Because generally speaking, most people want their home values to rise, and do not lose their houses because of it; and just saying that home values rising= higher property taxes isn't true in every part of the country and for every homeowner. But thanks for reading my question asking for clarity in the worst possible way I guess, and then implying I'm stupid.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:51 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
I don't think $25K per person is going to lead to a wave of gentrification. It's a spiff to convince people to take on a 6-7% mortgage, which no one is keen to do right now. Otherwise investors with fat wallets will continue to hoover up the cheap properties.
posted by credulous at 8:53 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
posted by credulous at 8:53 PM on August 16 [4 favorites]
Insulting people’s intelligence is always a winning way to help folks understand what you’re talking about. Works like a charm every time.
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:07 PM on August 16
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:07 PM on August 16
It definitely does have to do with what Harris proposed today. Her proposals to build "more affordable housing" (which sounds like she's saying low-income housing; in my experience with this currently popular phrase, she isn't) and to reward first-time home owners with $25k of free money for a down payment -- not enough to get anyone who's actually struggling over the hump, but enough to make someone with money blessed with even more money (our money) -- are going to lead, if carried out, to even more gentrification, which from what I can tell is the biggest problem America faces domestically today. So, that sucks, and it's also very germane to a thread about what are her policy plans, since those are her policy plans.
You keep saying this, and dismissing arguments contrary with little more than your own not entirely coherent assertions.
She wasn't very specific about what kind of housing she aims to get constructed. And it doesn't really matter, really. The goal is to get more housing stock. Build, Baby, Build!
As for "reward first-time home owners with $25k of free money", it's a good way to help people to build wealth by buying a house (not to mention getting a place to live). Anyone who's "actually struggling over the hump" isn't going to be buying a home. It's not a good idea to get someone into home ownership who isn't able to pull it off. The person taking advantage of that "free money" will move out of that rental, leaving a vacancy. Which is the whole point here, benefiting not only the person with the new home, but also the person who cannot (or is unwilling to) buy a house.
If you're insisting none of these goals are worthwhile, in order to benefit persons on a fixed income, you're insisting on extending the housing shortage in perpetuity. You have good intentions, and it's not what you're aiming for. But it's what you'll be getting. The gentrification argument is nothing more than NIMBYism with a heavy dose of "concern". It doesn't matter what your intentions are if the outcomes you prefer are indistinguishable from the NIMBY outcome. It screws people who need affordable housing. If you're really concerned about old people being taxed to death on their property, move to California, where Proposition 13 basically put this into stone back in the 70s. It's like rent control, but for property taxes. Hey, MeFites, let's hear it for Prop 13, amirite?!?! Good luck finding a cheap rental, tho.
And this angle about fixed income homeowners is still only tenuously related to today's reveal, at best.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:19 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
You keep saying this, and dismissing arguments contrary with little more than your own not entirely coherent assertions.
She wasn't very specific about what kind of housing she aims to get constructed. And it doesn't really matter, really. The goal is to get more housing stock. Build, Baby, Build!
As for "reward first-time home owners with $25k of free money", it's a good way to help people to build wealth by buying a house (not to mention getting a place to live). Anyone who's "actually struggling over the hump" isn't going to be buying a home. It's not a good idea to get someone into home ownership who isn't able to pull it off. The person taking advantage of that "free money" will move out of that rental, leaving a vacancy. Which is the whole point here, benefiting not only the person with the new home, but also the person who cannot (or is unwilling to) buy a house.
If you're insisting none of these goals are worthwhile, in order to benefit persons on a fixed income, you're insisting on extending the housing shortage in perpetuity. You have good intentions, and it's not what you're aiming for. But it's what you'll be getting. The gentrification argument is nothing more than NIMBYism with a heavy dose of "concern". It doesn't matter what your intentions are if the outcomes you prefer are indistinguishable from the NIMBY outcome. It screws people who need affordable housing. If you're really concerned about old people being taxed to death on their property, move to California, where Proposition 13 basically put this into stone back in the 70s. It's like rent control, but for property taxes. Hey, MeFites, let's hear it for Prop 13, amirite?!?! Good luck finding a cheap rental, tho.
And this angle about fixed income homeowners is still only tenuously related to today's reveal, at best.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:19 PM on August 16 [2 favorites]
What is the mechanism whereby increased property values force people to sell their now more valuable homes?
Increased property values invariably lead to higher property taxes, because property taxes are based on an assessment of property value by the municipality.
If you have an aging, retired population that is living on fixed incomes by virtue of no longer being in the work market, higher taxes can force those people to decide that they can no longer afford where they live and that they must sell their homes and move. And that is if it is even possible, due to both shortages in housing supply, the inflated cost of what supply is available, and the relatively high expense of buying a mortgage to cover the difference.
This effect is magnified with inflation that raises costs of externals like energy and food. Income remains stagnant or depreciates — said fixed income no longer has the purchase power it had — and some people are having to make hard decisions about whether to eat, buy medication, put gas in the car, etc. while being faced with higher tax bills and what the consequences are when not being able to pay them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:00 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
Increased property values invariably lead to higher property taxes, because property taxes are based on an assessment of property value by the municipality.
If you have an aging, retired population that is living on fixed incomes by virtue of no longer being in the work market, higher taxes can force those people to decide that they can no longer afford where they live and that they must sell their homes and move. And that is if it is even possible, due to both shortages in housing supply, the inflated cost of what supply is available, and the relatively high expense of buying a mortgage to cover the difference.
This effect is magnified with inflation that raises costs of externals like energy and food. Income remains stagnant or depreciates — said fixed income no longer has the purchase power it had — and some people are having to make hard decisions about whether to eat, buy medication, put gas in the car, etc. while being faced with higher tax bills and what the consequences are when not being able to pay them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:00 PM on August 16 [7 favorites]
The person taking advantage of that [25K for homebuyers] will move out of that rental, leaving a vacancy.
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like "trickle-down" economics to me. Families are getting evicted for unaffordable rent, can't we give them 25K directly instead of giving it to someone else and hoping some crumbs will trickle down?
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:08 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like "trickle-down" economics to me. Families are getting evicted for unaffordable rent, can't we give them 25K directly instead of giving it to someone else and hoping some crumbs will trickle down?
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:08 PM on August 16 [6 favorites]
There is are multiple things that need to happened to make housing more affordable for everyone, and Harris rightly seems to have a variety of policies proposed. Make it easier to build more Housing, Ban wall street buying up house, give grants to home buyers etc.
This debate (in this thread and nationally) seems to keep breaking down around the belief that building more housing leads to displacement and higher costs for everyone. Every serious empirical study I have seen shows this is not the case.
Rents and property values go up because demand exceed supply. Rent control and other tenant protections are necessary. I have seen my neighbors forced to move over frequently rising rents. I have also seen a lot of young people leaving California because they will never be able to afford a home.
There can be individuals displaced if a developer knocks down a small apartment building to build a high rise, Those tenants should get some protection and help finding a new affordable place. But if we don't build anything than the people who could afford to live in the high rise will just bid up rents or purchase prices of existing housing.
posted by CostcoCultist at 11:59 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
This debate (in this thread and nationally) seems to keep breaking down around the belief that building more housing leads to displacement and higher costs for everyone. Every serious empirical study I have seen shows this is not the case.
Rents and property values go up because demand exceed supply. Rent control and other tenant protections are necessary. I have seen my neighbors forced to move over frequently rising rents. I have also seen a lot of young people leaving California because they will never be able to afford a home.
There can be individuals displaced if a developer knocks down a small apartment building to build a high rise, Those tenants should get some protection and help finding a new affordable place. But if we don't build anything than the people who could afford to live in the high rise will just bid up rents or purchase prices of existing housing.
posted by CostcoCultist at 11:59 PM on August 16 [8 favorites]
Could this country please just fucking tax the rich and stop giving trillions to the military-industrial complex and billions (as weapons) to Israel. The Social Security trust fund is on track to be exhausted by 2033, dribs and drabs shit like tax breaks for real-estate developers and property investors is not "the vibe."
posted by tovarisch at 1:14 AM on August 17 [15 favorites]
posted by tovarisch at 1:14 AM on August 17 [15 favorites]
maybe something along these lines, re: (affordable) housing?
Reducing Housing Burdens While Creating a Longer-Term Affordable Housing Solution - "The nation's housing affordability crisis can be softened in the near term through multiple production efforts to create a sustainable, affordable housing infrastructure for generations to come."
Reducing Housing Burdens While Creating a Longer-Term Affordable Housing Solution - "The nation's housing affordability crisis can be softened in the near term through multiple production efforts to create a sustainable, affordable housing infrastructure for generations to come."
Adequately increasing the housing supply will take time. But there are some immediate actions that can help cost-burdened households while production efforts begin to add to the affordable housing stock. This report includes the following short-term federal policy interventions:posted by kliuless at 1:49 AM on August 17 [4 favorites]In the longer term, policymakers must substantially increase the supply of affordable units by taking the following steps:
- Increase rental assistance to low- and moderate-income (LMI)4 renters by expanding assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher program: Black and Latino/Hispanic renters, as well as renters of other or multiple races, make up relatively large shares of renters in general, as discussed later in the report, and of LMI renters in particular,5 and thus would benefit especially from the additional assistance.
- Provide rental assistance to LMI renters in existing low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) units, where almost 40 percent of tenants are cost burdened despite past federal development subsidy.6
- Convert the income tax deductions for LMI homeowners’ mortgage interest and property taxes to income tax credits.
This menu of solutions clearly requires political will, but it avoids pitfalls of past housing efforts. The recommendations leverage existing frameworks, mix direct governmental expenditure with private incentives, place local communicates at the center of meeting their unique needs, and acknowledge the ongoing need for subsidized operating costs for very low-income families.
- Provide direct federal funding to state and local governments to fund the construction of rental units and homeownership units that are affordable to LMI families.
- Increase incentives for state and local jurisdictions to reform zoning and land use rules to permit more multifamily and modular housing construction.
- Reform and expand the current Housing Choice Voucher system to serve more families with subsidies that are more readily available and acceptable to public and private landlords.
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like "trickle-down" economics to me. Families are getting evicted for unaffordable rent, can't we give them 25K directly instead of giving it to someone else and hoping some crumbs will trickle down?
Please, people, stop thinking of terms like "trickle down" as if it's some kind of evil magical incantation. One of the goals set out by the Harris campaign, as I've already pointed out, is to put people on the path to building wealth by being able to buy a house, who otherwise would have found it much more difficult. A key component is building new housing stock to meet actual demand. Which is also one of the goals, and without it, housing is never going to go anywhere but increasingly unaffordable.
It's not a difficult concept to understand, yet progressives seem eager to dismiss it because of (what seem to be ideological or philosophical) reasons. It isn't trickle down, but supply and demand. We will never even begin to encourage affordable housing by restricting new construction where it's needed, which has been the big tool of NIMBYs around the country and a huge component here in California keeping prices/property values high and rents skyrocketing.
FWIW, keeping supply constricted in a high demand area is a fantastic way to raise property values and property tax burdens, without ever constructing a single new dwelling. If it isn't already obvious. How happy are those fixated on rising property taxes with that scenario? Sacrificing new housing construction to keep fixed income homeowners in their homes is not a solution, but a continuation of the problem.
The reason for unaffordable rent is the demand outstripping supply. That is fixed by increasing supply. You can subsidize demand ($25k to renters or buyers) all you want, but it will have no effect on actual housing and possibly make rents/prices go even higher. As long as the supply is kept restricted.
Building more to meet demand is key.
And when you do, having the "crumbs trickle down", as you put it, is a good thing, because it means more housing coming on the market. That's how most homeowners in my neighborhood, myself included, became homeowners in the first place. We got the crumbs of people who moved up and/or out.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:15 AM on August 17 [9 favorites]
Please, people, stop thinking of terms like "trickle down" as if it's some kind of evil magical incantation. One of the goals set out by the Harris campaign, as I've already pointed out, is to put people on the path to building wealth by being able to buy a house, who otherwise would have found it much more difficult. A key component is building new housing stock to meet actual demand. Which is also one of the goals, and without it, housing is never going to go anywhere but increasingly unaffordable.
It's not a difficult concept to understand, yet progressives seem eager to dismiss it because of (what seem to be ideological or philosophical) reasons. It isn't trickle down, but supply and demand. We will never even begin to encourage affordable housing by restricting new construction where it's needed, which has been the big tool of NIMBYs around the country and a huge component here in California keeping prices/property values high and rents skyrocketing.
FWIW, keeping supply constricted in a high demand area is a fantastic way to raise property values and property tax burdens, without ever constructing a single new dwelling. If it isn't already obvious. How happy are those fixated on rising property taxes with that scenario? Sacrificing new housing construction to keep fixed income homeowners in their homes is not a solution, but a continuation of the problem.
The reason for unaffordable rent is the demand outstripping supply. That is fixed by increasing supply. You can subsidize demand ($25k to renters or buyers) all you want, but it will have no effect on actual housing and possibly make rents/prices go even higher. As long as the supply is kept restricted.
Building more to meet demand is key.
And when you do, having the "crumbs trickle down", as you put it, is a good thing, because it means more housing coming on the market. That's how most homeowners in my neighborhood, myself included, became homeowners in the first place. We got the crumbs of people who moved up and/or out.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:15 AM on August 17 [9 favorites]
It definitely does have to do with what Harris proposed today. Her proposals to build "more affordable housing" (which sounds like she's saying low-income housing; in my experience with this currently popular phrase, she isn't)
I believe current thinking is that governments shouldn't be building exclusively low-income housing; governments doing this in the 70s, and the many, many failed housing projects that came out of it, is one of the reasons why governments stopped building housing, and hence why we're in this mess. My understanding of the current thinking is that governments should be building a mix of low and medium income housing, which avoids it appearing to be a ghetto and getting bulldozed the next time conservatives get in, and it should involve long-term ownership, which gives people stability and also means that high-income people can't buy into the neighbourhood. Affordable housing isn't well-suited to dealing with the very desperate; the expected second-order effect, however, is to make emergency housing more accessible.
Giving people money for private housing is very popular (free money from the government always goes down well) but it's clear from the experience here that it drives prices up.
posted by Merus at 5:52 AM on August 17 [6 favorites]
I believe current thinking is that governments shouldn't be building exclusively low-income housing; governments doing this in the 70s, and the many, many failed housing projects that came out of it, is one of the reasons why governments stopped building housing, and hence why we're in this mess. My understanding of the current thinking is that governments should be building a mix of low and medium income housing, which avoids it appearing to be a ghetto and getting bulldozed the next time conservatives get in, and it should involve long-term ownership, which gives people stability and also means that high-income people can't buy into the neighbourhood. Affordable housing isn't well-suited to dealing with the very desperate; the expected second-order effect, however, is to make emergency housing more accessible.
Giving people money for private housing is very popular (free money from the government always goes down well) but it's clear from the experience here that it drives prices up.
posted by Merus at 5:52 AM on August 17 [6 favorites]
My understanding of the current thinking is that governments should be building a mix of low and medium income housing, which avoids it appearing to be a ghetto and getting bulldozed the next time conservatives get in, and it should involve long-term ownership, which gives people stability and also means that high-income people can't buy into the neighbourhood.The usual reason that governments have for bulldozing state owned housing projects is that the land under the housing project has became valuable, and well connected developers want it.
You can't fix that by including medium income renters or owner occupiers, the only benefit that will create is that when the developers come for the land some of the occupants will get paid off properly instead of being dumped in terrible housing in a failing exurb.
posted by zymil at 6:43 AM on August 17 [2 favorites]
Here in Coastal Georgia we have a law in place called the "Homestead and Stephens-Day law" it functions as a way to assist people to buy homes or keep them if circumstances change.
Essentially it freezes your property taxes where they are when the house is bought, there are more parts of it that work to keep widow(er)s in their homes as well but I'm less familiar.
$25K for a first time home buyer would be an excellent addition combined with existing HUD fixed rate loans or other local grants or supplemental assistance that are in place all over already. So when looking at purchasing a home, especially when on less grandiose budgets, do your homework locally and federally to see what opportunities exist.
Building more homes, especially HUD backed and available for HUD financing, would be even better help.
posted by djseafood at 7:13 AM on August 17 [4 favorites]
Essentially it freezes your property taxes where they are when the house is bought, there are more parts of it that work to keep widow(er)s in their homes as well but I'm less familiar.
$25K for a first time home buyer would be an excellent addition combined with existing HUD fixed rate loans or other local grants or supplemental assistance that are in place all over already. So when looking at purchasing a home, especially when on less grandiose budgets, do your homework locally and federally to see what opportunities exist.
Building more homes, especially HUD backed and available for HUD financing, would be even better help.
posted by djseafood at 7:13 AM on August 17 [4 favorites]
new construction does not inflate the price of existing housing or force anyone else. Not building new housing when there is clearly demand is what inflates the price.
I am skeptical that it's that simple. CostcoCultist, I clicked the link you provided, and looked into the main study they cite. I am not a math and equations person, but there are a few things that don't really make sense to me - I'm happy to be proven wrong here, but these strike me as red flags:
1. "Since this paper focuses only on new market-rate high-rises, I exclude new affordable housing development" [So this means the author assumes all the effect measured is due to market-rate high-rises, and assumes that affordable housing must have not impact?]
2. The main data set about rent prices the author uses to make their argument is described this way:
I have moved around a fair bit lately, and in multiple cities I've experienced the same trend - lots of "luxury" high-rise boxes get built, they mostly sit empty as they are priced way above what most people can afford, but it sharply raises the average rental price of a 2br, then landlords of small-unit properties point to that increase and tell tenants "Oh hey, turns out this current price you're paying is way under market value so I'm going to up the rental price by 35% - ready to resign your lease?" (Yes, this has happened to me more than once)
This has only gotten worse since the pandemic and rise of WFH have allowed a certain set of high earners to take their NYC, San Francisco, etc. salaries to places where the medium income is significantly lower.
In short, seems a little bit more complicated than the supply and demand models taught in Econ 101.
posted by coffeecat at 8:05 AM on August 17 [12 favorites]
I am skeptical that it's that simple. CostcoCultist, I clicked the link you provided, and looked into the main study they cite. I am not a math and equations person, but there are a few things that don't really make sense to me - I'm happy to be proven wrong here, but these strike me as red flags:
1. "Since this paper focuses only on new market-rate high-rises, I exclude new affordable housing development" [So this means the author assumes all the effect measured is due to market-rate high-rises, and assumes that affordable housing must have not impact?]
2. The main data set about rent prices the author uses to make their argument is described this way:
"The estimated gross rental income reported in the NOPV is based on the Real Property Income and Expense (RPIE), filed by property owners. Residential properties that are not required to file the RPIE include those with 1) an actual assessed value of $40,000 or less, 2) ten or fewer dwelling units, 3) six or fewer dwelling units and no more than one commercial unit, or 4) a special franchise." [Emphasis added]So, if I'm reading this correctly, the study that "proves" that building housing for yuppies raises all boats excludes a lot of housing most likely to be low or mid-income! The old building with a deli at the bottom level and a few units on top isn't included in this data. That doesn't even get into all the ways that NYC is not necessarily a stand in for all of America.
I have moved around a fair bit lately, and in multiple cities I've experienced the same trend - lots of "luxury" high-rise boxes get built, they mostly sit empty as they are priced way above what most people can afford, but it sharply raises the average rental price of a 2br, then landlords of small-unit properties point to that increase and tell tenants "Oh hey, turns out this current price you're paying is way under market value so I'm going to up the rental price by 35% - ready to resign your lease?" (Yes, this has happened to me more than once)
This has only gotten worse since the pandemic and rise of WFH have allowed a certain set of high earners to take their NYC, San Francisco, etc. salaries to places where the medium income is significantly lower.
In short, seems a little bit more complicated than the supply and demand models taught in Econ 101.
posted by coffeecat at 8:05 AM on August 17 [12 favorites]
How are the people who are building these luxury high-rises making money if they just sit there?
posted by Selena777 at 8:43 AM on August 17 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 8:43 AM on August 17 [2 favorites]
Because the rents are priced high enough that they can at least break even, despite a large chunk are empty. Basically, the strategy is speculative - start higher than the market value, get some rich people in, then this will eventually give rise to more yoga studios and fancy cafes, then in five-ten years the vacancy rates will be lower. That's the gambit anyway. I know there was a deep dive about this by Curbed in recent years - I guess the monthly limit for non-subscribers is one article per month, and the first one I clicked wan't it, but I'm pretty sure this article is the one I read earlier.
posted by coffeecat at 8:52 AM on August 17 [6 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 8:52 AM on August 17 [6 favorites]
You mean a city or a nation’s housing supply and real estate market is more complicated and nuanced than what an 18 year old learns in freshman economics!? Gee golly!
posted by flamk at 9:14 AM on August 17 [2 favorites]
posted by flamk at 9:14 AM on August 17 [2 favorites]
I know this was written before Biden dropped out of the race, but I think it still holds true that No One Cares About the Economy in Good Faith.
posted by angrynerd at 9:19 AM on August 17 [3 favorites]
posted by angrynerd at 9:19 AM on August 17 [3 favorites]
A one time gift of 25k for housing means I'd get to sleep at campgrounds way more than rest stops! I'm in
posted by Jacen at 2:53 PM on August 17 [4 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 2:53 PM on August 17 [4 favorites]
"Oh hey, turns out this current price you're paying is way under market value so I'm going to up the rental price by 35%"
This is the Greed I mentioned, yet nobody addressed. Landlords aren't obligated to raise their rents just because everybody else is. Oh sure, of course they will (except for their few pet tenants: relatives usually). Why I'm a big fan of Rent Control, remember that?
posted by Rash at 3:35 PM on August 17 [4 favorites]
This is the Greed I mentioned, yet nobody addressed. Landlords aren't obligated to raise their rents just because everybody else is. Oh sure, of course they will (except for their few pet tenants: relatives usually). Why I'm a big fan of Rent Control, remember that?
posted by Rash at 3:35 PM on August 17 [4 favorites]
Trump definitely not rambling:
posted by kirkaracha at 4:12 PM on August 17 [14 favorites]
"I heard the other day, and this isn't anything, I'm just saying, they'll say 'he was rambling.' I don't ramble. I'm a really smart guy, really smart. I don't ramble. But, the other day, any time I hit too hard, they say 'he was rambling.' 'Rambling'? You know, I get up and make a speech, sometimes two hours, two and a half hours, because you know, people are waiting outside for three days, four days. You guys were waiting out there for a long time. Front row Joes are waiting, I don't know how you guys do it. And I feel like I have an obligation to speak and speak in a certain way and speak a little bit longer. You know, how would you like it, a guy's waiting with his family for three and a half, four days, they have a tent, and the tent is set up, they have hundreds of 'em and they wait, and I walk in, speak for 15 minutes, and leave. I don't know somehow, would that be OK, North Carolina?"Sir, this is Pennsylvania.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:12 PM on August 17 [14 favorites]
I thought about this a lot more today... I'm thankful at least there's no promise to renew Trump's corporate tax cuts, nor (as with Biden) any promise not to raise taxes for people making more than 400k. It seems that bolder policies would elicit further Republican invocations of the boogeyman of *gasp* socialism, and that could endanger election prospects in swing states.
It's just shameful how far the to the right the Overton window sits in the US. I guess that's the motivation for the limited set of economic reforms proposed. It's probably good campaign strategy, sadly.
But like why can we not work on getting the trillions back that the billionaire class bled out of the lower classes during COVID? Because that would be *gasp* socialism? Would that proposition not be extremely popular?
posted by tovarisch at 1:38 AM on August 18 [4 favorites]
It's just shameful how far the to the right the Overton window sits in the US. I guess that's the motivation for the limited set of economic reforms proposed. It's probably good campaign strategy, sadly.
But like why can we not work on getting the trillions back that the billionaire class bled out of the lower classes during COVID? Because that would be *gasp* socialism? Would that proposition not be extremely popular?
posted by tovarisch at 1:38 AM on August 18 [4 favorites]
On a preferences level: smaller bedrooms. Why is every condo bedroom a 14'x12' I see a real monster. It needs to fit a bed, a chest of drawers, maybe a bookshelf.
If adults who are not a couple are sharing an apartment or house [which has become a necessity for a lot of people in recent decades], a person's bedroom is the only space that is solely theirs, and that situation is more livable if the bedroom is not teeny-tiny. I have lived in a maybe 7x10 or smaller bedroom in that situation and it was doable but not ideal.
posted by needs more cowbell at 4:28 AM on August 18 [7 favorites]
If adults who are not a couple are sharing an apartment or house [which has become a necessity for a lot of people in recent decades], a person's bedroom is the only space that is solely theirs, and that situation is more livable if the bedroom is not teeny-tiny. I have lived in a maybe 7x10 or smaller bedroom in that situation and it was doable but not ideal.
posted by needs more cowbell at 4:28 AM on August 18 [7 favorites]
Increased property values invariably lead to higher property taxes, because property taxes are based on an assessment of property value by the municipality
Not quite. Setting aside a lot of nuances, it works like this:
1). Through a budgeting process, the taxing jurisdiction figures out how much money it needs to provide public services, pay down bonds, etc. This is the tax levy. [Some states have laws limiting the extent it can increase annually. The term “tax levy” can be confusing because it’s used differently in the income tax world.]
2). Assessors determine the market value of your property, using a variety of techniques, which in turn determines its assessed value. Then the taxing jurisdiction adds up all of the properties’ assessed values. This is the tax base.
3). Tax Levy / Tax Base = Tax Rate [Some states have laws limiting the extent it can increase annually.]
4). Your Assessed Value * Tax Rate = Your Property Tax Bill [Setting aside any exemptions you or your property qualify to receive.]
Consequently, depending on the tax levy, the tax base, and hence the tax rate, your property taxes may go down even if your assessed value goes up. And vice versa.
posted by carmicha at 6:30 AM on August 18 [6 favorites]
Not quite. Setting aside a lot of nuances, it works like this:
1). Through a budgeting process, the taxing jurisdiction figures out how much money it needs to provide public services, pay down bonds, etc. This is the tax levy. [Some states have laws limiting the extent it can increase annually. The term “tax levy” can be confusing because it’s used differently in the income tax world.]
2). Assessors determine the market value of your property, using a variety of techniques, which in turn determines its assessed value. Then the taxing jurisdiction adds up all of the properties’ assessed values. This is the tax base.
3). Tax Levy / Tax Base = Tax Rate [Some states have laws limiting the extent it can increase annually.]
4). Your Assessed Value * Tax Rate = Your Property Tax Bill [Setting aside any exemptions you or your property qualify to receive.]
Consequently, depending on the tax levy, the tax base, and hence the tax rate, your property taxes may go down even if your assessed value goes up. And vice versa.
posted by carmicha at 6:30 AM on August 18 [6 favorites]
I wanted to introduce an interesting housing concept to this thread that I heard about on the radio, which is called “bluefield development”* and is a way of increasing density in fancy neighborhoods where most of the housing stock is single family on larger blocks with trees.
I can’t remember the program (listening while sick) but I think the concept is explained well here. It’s a way of opening up new housing in these neighborhoods of different types by subdividing the property to build a new tiny home or small apartments and turning the single land title into a shared strata land title. Strata as a concept comes from Australia, but apparently the concept is spreading? It’s basically a co-op. (I live in a strata townhouse here in Australia and it’s fine, but then again, I’ve had a lot of experience living in apartments.)
Much like California allowing mother in law apartments, this increases density, but with the benefit of it being a way of buying and building equity on both sides.
As pitched, the benefits, which are various, include letting seniors downsize out of their big house and into a smaller, more accessible new house built alongside the old house, meaning they don’t have to leave the neighborhood to find a great place for downsizing. Or you can give the small house to the kids as a way to build equity, in basically a strata version of The Great North, with the adult kids in the guest house… except it’s a well designed small house or apartment.
Or the homeowner can get the small house built and get additional equity by selling it, with the strata arrangement ensuring a bit more structured civility among the new neighbors, given that another goal is to ensure shared common and natural spaces. And that is a win for the environment in keeping existing trees standing vs. a teardown of the old house to put in regular apartments.
* Perhaps not the best name for the concept as there seems to be an unconnected business called Bluefield Development, making the concept hard to Google, but apparently in planning everything is a color+field, so there you go. The link does explain the reasoning better than I have, to be fair.
Apologies if this is a bit of a derail, but I like to bring solutions, rather than just problems.
posted by ec2y at 10:37 PM on August 18 [2 favorites]
I can’t remember the program (listening while sick) but I think the concept is explained well here. It’s a way of opening up new housing in these neighborhoods of different types by subdividing the property to build a new tiny home or small apartments and turning the single land title into a shared strata land title. Strata as a concept comes from Australia, but apparently the concept is spreading? It’s basically a co-op. (I live in a strata townhouse here in Australia and it’s fine, but then again, I’ve had a lot of experience living in apartments.)
Much like California allowing mother in law apartments, this increases density, but with the benefit of it being a way of buying and building equity on both sides.
As pitched, the benefits, which are various, include letting seniors downsize out of their big house and into a smaller, more accessible new house built alongside the old house, meaning they don’t have to leave the neighborhood to find a great place for downsizing. Or you can give the small house to the kids as a way to build equity, in basically a strata version of The Great North, with the adult kids in the guest house… except it’s a well designed small house or apartment.
Or the homeowner can get the small house built and get additional equity by selling it, with the strata arrangement ensuring a bit more structured civility among the new neighbors, given that another goal is to ensure shared common and natural spaces. And that is a win for the environment in keeping existing trees standing vs. a teardown of the old house to put in regular apartments.
* Perhaps not the best name for the concept as there seems to be an unconnected business called Bluefield Development, making the concept hard to Google, but apparently in planning everything is a color+field, so there you go. The link does explain the reasoning better than I have, to be fair.
Apologies if this is a bit of a derail, but I like to bring solutions, rather than just problems.
posted by ec2y at 10:37 PM on August 18 [2 favorites]
As land gets upzoned, it is specifically the older homes in the area that see their valuations and therefore tax burden, increase. More recently built homes will just see a decrease in the value of the improvements that counteracts the increased value of the land; when the value of the improvements goes to zero, it is logical to consider that property a tear-down, but there’s no cap on how much the value of the land can go up beyond that.
If upzoning is too aggressive, there’s not much bargaining power for the person selling their house, since the limit on new development is construction worker labor. A developer might only be bidding against potential residents, who will be tempering their bids in light of the high tax burden. That demand for labor also means that tradespeople are quoting outrageous prices, and while a lot of younger owners can make do with YouTube advice and ordering parts themselves, a less physically capable person could easily get stuck seeing the house fall down around their ears. (And there are the other reasons for maintenance cost increases that MiraK mentioned). Even if your home is well- built and doesn’t need much maintenance or you do it on your own, your insurance will go up to reflect the higher replacement costs.
House prices in an area are directly correlated with wages, but if a large number of people are moving in from a higher wage area, it is unsurprising that people will feel displaced. If upzoning happens simultaneously, the money that comes in can pay for the concrete and steel and high rise engineering, but it takes awhile to upgrade everything, and some people will be forced into inadequate housing in the meantime. This is the kind of thing that you can slow with policy. In most cases, it’s a bad idea to do rent controls, but at least it gives existing residents a little more of a foothold and forces new entrants to pay more.
One of the problems is that it encourages people to stay in a unit that’s not a good fit for them, but this could get addressed by making it transferable within a given area. There are also ways to slow down property tax increases and offer insurance backstops, but you wouldn’t want to get stuck in a Prop 13 situation like California.
posted by puffinaria at 10:27 AM on August 19
If upzoning is too aggressive, there’s not much bargaining power for the person selling their house, since the limit on new development is construction worker labor. A developer might only be bidding against potential residents, who will be tempering their bids in light of the high tax burden. That demand for labor also means that tradespeople are quoting outrageous prices, and while a lot of younger owners can make do with YouTube advice and ordering parts themselves, a less physically capable person could easily get stuck seeing the house fall down around their ears. (And there are the other reasons for maintenance cost increases that MiraK mentioned). Even if your home is well- built and doesn’t need much maintenance or you do it on your own, your insurance will go up to reflect the higher replacement costs.
House prices in an area are directly correlated with wages, but if a large number of people are moving in from a higher wage area, it is unsurprising that people will feel displaced. If upzoning happens simultaneously, the money that comes in can pay for the concrete and steel and high rise engineering, but it takes awhile to upgrade everything, and some people will be forced into inadequate housing in the meantime. This is the kind of thing that you can slow with policy. In most cases, it’s a bad idea to do rent controls, but at least it gives existing residents a little more of a foothold and forces new entrants to pay more.
One of the problems is that it encourages people to stay in a unit that’s not a good fit for them, but this could get addressed by making it transferable within a given area. There are also ways to slow down property tax increases and offer insurance backstops, but you wouldn’t want to get stuck in a Prop 13 situation like California.
posted by puffinaria at 10:27 AM on August 19
« Older Who knows the reason? We have to ask the dolphins. | There’s a significant intimidation factor Newer »
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:42 AM on August 16 [7 favorites]