Hacker News Reader

Comment by rank0 | Hacker News Reader

Speculation isn’t great, but let’s not pretend this is some elaborate scheme orchestrated by all the homeowners.

If it’s feasible and profitable to build new homes, then developers will do so.

Everyone loves the simple solution of “build more houses”. Very few actually consider the execution of the master plan. What would it take for you to start building homes? It’s an enormous risk, requires tons of upfront capital, specialized labor and supplies.

When everyone wants to live in the same areas, housing prices go up. Lifting zoning restrictions isn’t some magic bullet that will alleviate that fact.

View on HN

> Speculation isn’t great, but let’s not pretend this is some elaborate scheme orchestrated by all the homeowners.

No, but real estate companies wouldn't be able to lower property taxes alone. It's only happening once there is a critical mass of homeowners that is voting themselves a tax cut. Large real estate companies get exactly the same tax cut and since they have more property they benefit more than the average homeowner. One could have a tax cut for owner occupied housing but no, there is no limit to the tax cut. Everyone including billionaires gets it. That's incredibly unfair.

If most voters are homeowners then what exactly do we expect? Of course they're going to push for lower property taxes...maybe homeowners feel that their money already gets taxed 5+ times before they can spend it on their literal shelter. Most folks effectively work for the government 4 months/yr AND owning property requires another annual fee to the tax man.

High property taxes hurt renters too. Rent prices increase to cover the difference.

I never said it was an "elaborate scheme orchestrated by all the homeowners." It is a natural result of people independently acting purely based on their personal incentives.

Homeowners don't need to orchestrate and elaborate scheme, they just vote for the politicians who will prioritize increasing home values because that will help them financially. That politician will enact policies favorable to homeowners because that is what their constituency wants. That will encourage more people to become homeowners because people see homeownership as a financially beneficial endeavor. That will increase the power of homeowners as a constituency which will lead to more politicians courting homeowners with favorable policies making homeownership more attractive. And on and on the cycle goes until it isn't "feasible and profitable to build new homes" because we have made it difficult and expensive through all our pro-homeowner policies.

> Homeowners don't need to orchestrate and elaborate scheme, they just vote for the politicians who will prioritize increasing home values because that will help them financially.

Or y'know...maybe homeowners don't want to have their neighborhood become overcrowded. Not everyone wants to live in a megacity with traffic, air pollution, constant bustle, and restricted personal liberty.

If financial gain is your only motive as a homeowner, you would actually WANT an increase in density. As you cram more people into a smaller space, the land underneath becomes more valuable. Increased density attracts amenities, restaurants, businesses, nightlife...etc, all of which raise the value of your property.

Homeowners care about things other than net worth.

> maybe homeowners don't want to have their neighborhood become overcrowded.

Then it’s time to collect your scarcity-generated windfall and move someplace rural you’ll like better! Super-common, and you can even complain self-righteously about the terribly governed crime-ridden hellhole you’re leaving behind.

I live in a duplex the middle of a big city with practically no zoning restrictions. I love it here. You're the one complaining self righteously.

I am quoting my original comment because it seems like you didn't read it:

> Not everyone wants to live in a megacity with traffic, air pollution, constant bustle, and restricted personal liberty.

> If financial gain is your only motive as a homeowner, you would actually WANT an increase in density. As you cram more people into a smaller space, the land underneath becomes more valuable. Increased density attracts amenities, restaurants, businesses, nightlife...etc, all of which raise the value of your property.

Do you have an actual response? Or do you just need to be outraged at something?

>Or y'know...maybe homeowners don't want to have their neighborhood become overcrowded.

Nothing I said here is specific to neighborhoods. It also applies at the city, state/province, and national level. A homeowner in San Diego likely doesn't care about the density of various neighborhood in San Francisco. But they might still vote for Prop 13 which put harsh limitations on property taxes in the state and in turn increased the value of homeownership and the cost of housing. That decision has nothing to do with personal preferences of what type of neighborhood in which people want to live. It is purely homeowners being powerful enough to vote themselves tax breaks which makes homeownership more attractive which makes homeowners more powerful...

Prop 13 is intended to protect homeowners from being gentrified out of their residence. Even if I think it's backfired, I understand the motivation. I would be livid if I was a lifelong CA resident and suddenly could no longer afford my lax liabilities as a result of demand/speculation.

This is just one piece of the puzzle, and frankly its a bit much to chalk it all up to power/greed. Again, if CA homeowners make up the majority of voters what exactly is the alternative?

If I'm being honest, my opinion on CA housing markets means nothing...but it seems pretty sensible to me that when a shitload of people all want to live in a handful of cities, prices HAVE TO increase. Removing prop 13 and zoning restrictions isn't going to double the housing supply.

On a semi-related note, pretty much everything in CA is more expensive. The residents there vote for expensive public services and legislation. When everything is more expensive, you bet your sweet ass houses will be as well.

> What would it take for you to start building homes? It’s an enormous risk, requires tons of upfront capital, specialized labor and supplies.

There's also no incentive to build affordable or well-constructed homes. Many builders will try to maximize profit by investing the bare minimum (i.e., cutting corners) and creating the largest number of dwellings possible. Mattamy Homes is infamous for developing large neighborhoods with pretty homes that practically fall apart in a matter of months if you look at them wrong.

> There's also no incentive to build affordable or well-constructed homes.

This is sort of my point. Who's going to build the "affordable housing"? Why won't the affordable housing get snatched up by the highest bidder?

The federal government already spends way more than it can afford. State/local governments don't have anywhere near enough tax revenue. It would require a multi-trillion dollar operation to increase supply enough to offset shortages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com