America’s Frozen Housing Market Is Warping the Economy

[Into the Night]

The 11% is just the increase in regulation costs, Hawk.

From NAHB: Material cost increases since 2020 are shown in red ... (blue is 2016-20}

Material Costs

The rising cost of building materials is harming housing affordability as the trade war on softwood lumber, steel, aluminum and other imported materials and equipment exacerbates price volatility and needlessly drives up housing costs.

www.nahb.org

And ...
"The Associated Builders and Contractors reports that building material costs have increased by 37.7% since 2020. Since 2022, lumber has come down in price by 12.3%, while concrete products have increased by 14.8%. Builders still face significant labor shortages, too.

Overcoming construction inflation: How to beat rising construction costs​

View attachment 27442
Buildertrend
https://buildertrend.com › blog › tips-for-inflation-constr...

That's about what I'm seeing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You're giving the NIMBY line for stopping development. Some of the most expensive places in the country, NY, SF and LA (among others) don't have large plots of land just sitting there waiting for single family development. We need duplexes, triplexes, apartments complexes, ADUs, being allowed to convert garages etc. All those things play a role in adding to the housing supply which will help bring down prices.

The attitude that we can only build single family homes that are for sale is a perfect playbook if your goal is to exacerbate the current supply crisis and drive prices up even higher.

Edit: And the attitude that we need a higher percentage of home owners in the country is what drove us to the GFC in 2008.

Row houses are preferable to apartments. Condos are preferable to apartments. Ownership beats rentals every time.

 

[cawacko]

Row houses are preferable to apartments. Condos are preferable to apartments. Ownership beats rentals every time.

Ok. But the discussion is over why housing costs are so high and now you're arguing about limiting supply based on only wanting certain types of housing built. I'm not making this personal about you but (unfortunately) many people share the position you are advocating. So you can complain about the the governments role but the position you hold is a huge reason why.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ok. But the discussion is over why housing costs are so high and now you're arguing about limiting supply based on only wanting certain types of housing built. I'm not making this personal about you but (unfortunately) many people share the position you are advocating. So you can complain about the the governments role but the position you hold is a huge reason why.

If you have to spend months, even years, dealing with red tape, environmental regulations, required 'stuff' and paperwork to build a house, that all costs massively in time and money.

I just spent a 3 month period dealing with government and bureaucracy to do a 3-day job to replace a service panel on an existing house. That's the sort of bullshit I'm talking about.

 

[cawacko]

If you have to spend months, even years, dealing with red tape, environmental regulations, required 'stuff' and paperwork to build a house, that all costs massively in time and money.

I just spent a 3 month period dealing with government and bureaucracy to do a 3-day job to replace a service panel on an existing house. That's the sort of bullshit I'm talking about.

Yes it does but that still doesn't address when citizens fight new development because they only want a certain type of home to be built. NIMBYism plays a huge role in this and the positions you've argued are the definition of NIMBYism. (again, not trying to make it personal about you or an attack on you but just referencing you when talking about the large number of people who share your position).

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes it does but that still doesn't address when citizens fight new development because they only want a certain type of home to be built. NIMBYism plays a huge role in this and the positions you've argued are the definition of NIMBYism. (again, not trying to make it personal about you or an attack on you but just referencing you when talking about the large number of people who share your position).

We now get lambasted for objecting to our neighborhoods being turned into slums without our consent.

It has come to this.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Do you remember all of those decades of lectures that action without consent is abuse?

I Do.

 

[cawacko]

We now get lambasted for objecting to our neighborhoods being turned into slums without our consent.

It has come to this.

You do a great illustration of the (liberal) elite in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, San Francisco etc. You’ve joined the Revolution and the Woke in believing that mere commoners shouldn’t be allowed to live near you?

I’ve seen it all now Hawkeye.

 

[cawacko]

Do you remember all of those decades of lectures that action without consent is abuse?

I Do.

Sure, once you’ve bought a home in a neighborhood that neighborhood should never change and no new development should be allowed and unless you’re rich then you can’t come here.

I’ll keep saying NIMBYism is one the few truly remaining bi-partisan things in this country and this is a perfect example

 

[Nordberg]

A lot of it was people doing speculation in the housing market. The rules put in place by Democrats on mortgages gave rise to this. You had mortgages that were:

Zero down
Interest only
ARM's
Second and thirds

What all those did was allow people who had homes to buy a second or even third home using those sorts of mortgages and rent them out. That paid for the mortgage on the rental. I knew people back then up to their eyeballs in mortgage debt that owned 2, 3, even 5 homes as rentals financed on multiple mortgages off their first.

For people on a zero down, interest only mortgage, when the market collapsed, they simply walked away and let their house go. They had zero invested in it and wrote it off.

All of that was supposed to help the struggling and low income, but it only fueled a speculative market built on nothing but credit--think the stock market in the 20's that led to the Great Depression--led by middle-class and upper middle-class investors who were small fish wanting to become big fish in the pond.

Those rules were put in place by bankers. They got accepted by Greenspan who was god of money back then. The mortgage companies dictated the qualifications because they were into selling SWAPs. They had no liability because they sold the mortgages or spread them as a backing for the swaps.
They started with normal mortgage qualifications for the SWAPS. When they were used up, they dropped the qualifications. The investment bankers were making trillions. So they told the mortgage lenders to drop requirements over and over.
The great Depression resulted in rules for banks. They were called Glass Steagall, The Repubs pushed the bill killing it in a late-night Senate vote. The author was Repub., Phil Gramm

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes it does but that still doesn't address when citizens fight new development because they only want a certain type of home to be built. NIMBYism plays a huge role in this and the positions you've argued are the definition of NIMBYism. (again, not trying to make it personal about you or an attack on you but just referencing you when talking about the large number of people who share your position).

NIMBY is generally less of a problem than simply dealing with government regulation. Another non-NIMBY is environmentalism. Here, groups, generally on the Left, sue and fight any development and developer simply on political grounds.

 

[cawacko]

NIMBY is generally less of a problem than simply dealing with government regulation. Another non-NIMBY is environmentalism. Here, groups, generally on the Left, sue and fight any development and developer simply on political grounds.

NIMBYism is the state religion in California. It is so bad here that there is now a YIMBY movement in response to it with the goal of electing officials open to the building of more housing. But California in no way has an exclusive hold on NIMBYism. (And NIMBYism is VERY bi-partisan)

And the position you (people who share your position, again not trying to make this personal) advocate is speaking out of both sides of the mouth so to speak. On one hand you're saying government regulation is the problem but then you're saying I don't want duplexes/triplexs in any single family neighborhoods and I want less apartments built (and you need to use government regulation to do that).

Less government regulation would allow that type of development. But NIMBYs use the zoning code to prevent it.

It goes back to what is the goal? Is it more housing with the goal of bringing down prices? (if yes, that would necessarily include all types of housing, not just single-family) Or is to make sure existing neighborhoods aren't touched?

 

[cawacko]

NIMBY is generally less of a problem than simply dealing with government regulation. Another non-NIMBY is environmentalism. Here, groups, generally on the Left, sue and fight any development and developer simply on political grounds.

You're not wrong about the government regulation however. People complain that developers only build luxury apartments for example. The biggest reason they do is with all the regulatory/permitting costs etc. the only thing that pencils out is luxury development. They make it so more affordable apartments can't be built.

Then you have those who are against market rate development and basically want only the government to build affordable housing. For starters those "affordable" units cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands each to build. There is zero way the gov't can scale that. So they build a few units but it does nothing to address the problem.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

NIMBYism is the state religion in California. It is so bad here that there is now a YIMBY movement in response to it with the goal of electing officials open to the building of more housing. But California in no way has an exclusive hold on NIMBYism. (And NIMBYism is VERY bi-partisan)

And the position you (people who share your position, again not trying to make this personal) advocate is speaking out of both sides of the mouth so to speak. On one hand you're saying government regulation is the problem but then you're saying I don't want duplexes/triplexs in any single family neighborhoods and I want less apartments built (and you need to use government regulation to do that).

Less government regulation would allow that type of development. But NIMBYs use the zoning code to prevent it.

It goes back to what is the goal? Is it more housing with the goal of bringing down prices? (if yes, that would necessarily include all types of housing, not just single-family) Or is to make sure existing neighborhoods aren't touched?

In California if you live in a location controlled by the Coastal Commission (CCC) it can take up to a year or more with a small mountain of paperwork to get a permit to clear brush off of your property.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Yet another one, Lizard? What makes you think it will work better than the other ones already out there?

Yes, more can be done to ease the cost of real estate. For instance, building more affordable new homes, will certainly compete with the price of the used homes on the market, that are out of control.

Starting prices for all new homes should not start at prices that require new owners to make $250,000 a year just to be able to qualify for a new home.

So building more affordable houses is in dire need right now. Not every person wanting to enjoy the American Dream of owning a home needs a McMansion with a 3 car garage, and that seems to be the only New Homes that become available today due to moratoriums put in place by certain municipalities today.

Municipalities today are too much drunk on REAL ESTATE TAXES while creating huge swaths of building only new homes with HIGH LOCAL TAX bases, that prevents the building of lower priced affordable homes that more meets the public need for working class families.

Many municipalities also have moratoriums that prevents the building of High Density Housing which allows rental prices to run out of control as well, and is a a huge contribution to the Housing Crisis today.

 

[cawacko]

In California if you live in a location controlled by the Coastal Commission (CCC) it can take up to a year or more with a small mountain of paperwork to get a permit to clear brush off of your property.

Yes, but that is just one component. The CEQA law has been weaponized and is used by NIMBYs to fight basically all new development. (and even people on the right abuse CEQA).

 

[Into the Night]

Row houses are preferable to apartments. Condos are preferable to apartments. Ownership beats rentals every time.

He's trying a special pleading fallacy. It's blowing up in his face for a reason.

Apartments have largely left larger Democrat run cities, since it's no longer possible to operate them profitably. They've been replaced with condos or simply flattened and some office building or shopping center is built there.

Around such cities, apartments are being built wholesale (much of it looks like shit). Refugees from the cities and some of those local to the area are moving into these. Most of them have Section 8 housing, and crime goes up accordingly.

In the cities, illegal immigrants are given what little free housing there is, and they are also put up in fancy hotels (which they trash) and that city is building $600,000 per unit condos for them (which they trash).

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes, but that is just one component. The CEQA law has been weaponized and is used by NIMBYs to fight basically all new development. (and even people on the right abuse CEQA).

The bottom line though is it comes back to government regulation. The regulations exist and the government and individuals use them to complicate or stop others from doing anything with land.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes, more can be done to ease the cost of real estate. For instance, building more affordable new homes, will certainly compete with the price of the used homes on the market, that are out of control.

Starting prices for all new homes should not start at prices that require new owners to make $250,000 a year just to be able to qualify for a new home.

So building more affordable houses is in dire need right now. Not every person wanting to enjoy the American Dream of owning a home needs a McMansion with a 3 car garage, and that seems to be the only New Homes that become available today due to moratoriums put in place by certain municipalities today.

Municipalities today are too much drunk on REAL ESTATE TAXES while creating huge swaths of building only new homes with HIGH LOCAL TAX bases, that prevents the building of lower priced affordable homes that more meets the public need for working class families.

Many municipalities also have moratoriums that prevents the building of High Density Housing which allows rental prices to run out of control as well, and is a a huge contribution to the Housing Crisis today.

The problem with that is government regulations and building codes force builders and developers to do certain things. Some of it is absolutely necessary, much of it is simply fluff.

For example, every new home or apartment requires AFI breakers installed for all receptacles in bedrooms. These are, quite frankly, a useless code requirement. They cost about $30 - $50 more than a typical circuit breaker and add somewhere between $100 and $200 to a home for no added value and a miniscule, tiny, almost irrelevant, improvement in safety. That seems like a small amount, but these things add up as you pile them on.

Another is the HOA. These are nothing but an added expense. I suppose some people want to live in one, but many don't. Try to find a new construction home that isn't in an HOA these days. HOA's can be expensive, and many actually decrease equity on a home by the membership fees exceeding the increases in value the home accrues. The crossover point is about $50 in fees per $1000 paid in mortgage. Maybe you like "Yard Nazis," but I know I don't.

 

[cawacko]

The bottom line though is it comes back to government regulation. The regulations exist and the government and individuals use them to complicate or stop others from doing anything with land.

Would you support letting any type of housing to be built anywhere? Or do you support some level of regulation not allowing that?