T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, but allowing a maximum of flexibility rather than rigid adherence to a narrow set of rules seems highly useful to getting more homes built.
America’s Frozen Housing Market Is Warping the Economy
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
That’s rather abstract.
There are some people who are ideologues and against market rate housing on principle.
But plenty of other NIMBYs will claim to support new development as long as it fits criteria that is acceptable to them (not in their neighborhood and maybe a particular kind of housing). And this type of NIMBY comes in all political shapes and sizes. And it’s why we have the housing crisis we do.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
I believe in AGI and GFI's because they do save lives. ANd I believe the cost is justified.
I do agree that HOA'S can become HARMFUL TO HOMEOWNERS FREE RIGHTS, ARE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, AND IS overreach. I do believe in City Codes and Zoning laws and the enforcement of them, and those normally cover things HOA's try to enforce.
One of my favorite places to visit, is my relatives in Scottsdale, Arizona out in your neck of the woods, and because I love the way those who live there will go with their natural landscape, with the use of rocks and cacti plants. HOA's do not agree with these type of landscapes, and will ban them in neighborhoods.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
Tell me about it. The government and bureaucracy took 3 years to approve a driveway job done in one day.
Into the Night
Verified User
He's not talking at all about NIMBYism. He's talking about excessive costs due to government regulations and bureaucracy. Try to pay attention, Wacko.
Into the Night
Verified User
Bankers are not government, Sybil.
The Fed IS government, Sybil.
Mortgage companies can dictate any qualification they wish, so long as they aren't racist or bigoted about it.
The 'swaps' you refer to have owners. The banks.
They lost trillions, Sybil. Did you forget the 2007 crash?
Nobody told mortgage lenders anything.
Good.
On other words, fascism.
Into the Night
Verified User
Not to worry. The next wildfire because of uncleared brush will take care of it!
cawacko
Well-known member
The discussion is housing but we should ignore one of the major drivers (and the people who elect anti-development politicians) because why?
Do you believe the government should be able to restrict what type of housing developers can build? If yes, why?
Into the Night
Verified User
You can't pivot that way! Ignoring what TA Gardner said won't work!
cawacko
Well-known member
You make a great point. If we’re going to talk about the real estate market why would someone bring up one of the biggest drivers of the crisis we face today? That makes no sense
Yes, but to a lessor degree. Housing was more affordable in the 1970's, and the rate hikes were slower. This was a sudden, huge jump.
So that would be a 50% increase in about ten years. This is 100% increase in about one year.My first home was at 8,75% my second home was at 13%
Hopefully the strong move by the Fed will cut inflation quickly. It is looking good right now. There is some pain, but I would rather have some short term pain than decades of trying to fight inflation.
Carter's nominee for Fed Chairman, Volcker shot the interest rates sky high, to take a strong stand against inflation. It worked, and so interest rates were reduced a little, but stayed high. Reagan did one thing right, he renominated Volcker.
Taking a strong stand against inflation is a good thing. It is tough over the short term, but worth it.
Lane is quoting again from the Big Ass Book of Things That never happened.
Frank and Reagan came to power in the same election of 1980, so it would be impossible for Frank to have caused something that later Reagan had to fix.
There was no national housing collapse of the 1970's or 1980's. It just did not happen. Mortgage rates were pushed up by Fed interest rates, but that was to fight inflation. It was not pushed up by lending practices.
Reagan renominated Volcker. That is the opposite of "fixing" it. In fact, Reagan decided higher interest rates had been worth it to fight inflation.
Lanes link claims that the government caused the Housing Crisis of 2008. That was decades after Reagan's Presidency, and did not involve higher interest rates.
The last one is interesting. Interest rates at the beginning of the Housing Crisis of 2008 were about as high as they are now. It was as a response to the deflation involved in the Housing Crisis of 2008 that we got the much lower rates that we got used to. So it did the complete opposite of raise interest rates.
Don't confuse Lane with facts. He is on a fantasy role.
Sort of, but you are more wrong than right.
The reaction to deflation caused interest rates to be bizarrely low. When inflation happened, they had to rise. That being said, they may never go down to 2% again. That requires insanely low interest rates, because of a threat of deflation.
On the bright side, you can get CD's at 5+%.
The developers I know are always complaining about the lack of rules. They invest in a piece of land, only to find that local zoning boards changing the rules with every case.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Developers would. It prevents entry into the market by small contractors and such. For a big developer, more government is a good thing. I guess you like big government colluding with big corporations...
Big developers can weather the delays of ever changing rules better than small developers. The small developer who buys a property meaning to develop it only to enter into a multi-year political battle can not weather that.
Make a rule ahead of time, and let everyone decide what they want to do.