America’s Frozen Housing Market Is Warping the Economy

cawacko said:
Builders aren't building these single family rental home communities because the federal government is telling them to do so. They're doing it because there's strong demand for it and there is large amounts of institutional capital wanting to invest in the space. This is a market driven response to our housing shortage.
Click to expand...
The CO2 hoax indoctrination became endemic about 3 decades ago. Many young people bought into it. Now many WANT to rent to reduce their carbon footprint.

Builders are just trying to meet the consumer Demands that the socialist gov't engineered.
 
Last edited:
ExpressLane said:
Nope lax lending practices pushed by Baney Franks were largely responsible for the housing collapse in the 80's that pushed up interest rates and crashed the economy. It took Reagan a couple years to fix it.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis​

Click to expand...
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.
 
ExpressLane said:
Nope lax lending practices pushed by Baney Franks were largely responsible for the housing collapse in the 80's that pushed up interest rates and crashed the economy. It took Reagan a couple years to fix it.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis​

Click to expand...
Wow! Barney Frank was not even in Congress during the Carter years!

It was Barney that pushed the Dodd/Franks banking regulations that saved the Banking/Mortgage industry!

You REPUBLICLOWNS are nuttier than Squirrel POOP!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Wow! Barney Frank was not even in Congress during the Carter years!

It was Barney that pushed the Dodd/Franks banking regulations that saved the Banking/Mortgage industry!

You REPUBLICLOWNS are nuttier than Squirrel POOP!
Click to expand...
Dodd Frank was a failure. It attempted to shut the barn door after the cows had fled on poor banking practices. It was no different really than the belated and late government response to the S&L scandals of the 1970's and 80's. That's the one where the Clintons were unindicted co-conspirators in one of those operations, among other big fish.

In both, finance operators took advantage of porous regulation created by amateur idiots within government to bilk millions from customers or their own operations in quasi-legal or questionable but legal ways.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Wow! Barney Frank was not even in Congress during the Carter years!

It was Barney that pushed the Dodd/Franks banking regulations that saved the Banking/Mortgage industry!

You REPUBLICLOWNS are nuttier than Squirrel POOP!
Click to expand...
You are correct Carter's poor policies plunged to economy into recession. Franks caused the housing collapse of the early 2000's.

Barney pushed for subprime leaning to people with bad credit worthiness. They defaulted in huge numbers. That caused a housing collapse.
 
Bigdog said:
Correct. The author of the article.
Click to expand...
To me, he's not saying anything that anyone in the industry (or who writes about it) is saying. Home sales are down (understandable that people with a 2.75% mortgage don't want to move and get a new mortgage at 6%) because there is less inventory and prices are up (less supply, more competition). And that has a detrimental effect on the overall economy.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong. They're following the money. They are building small multifamily apartments with 3 to 5 units, and rental homes that previously would have been owner occupied.

National Rental Home Council

www.rentalhomecouncil.org www.rentalhomecouncil.org


www.forbes.com

Ten Billion Reasons Why There Is A Built-For-Rent Land Rush

Capital is flowing into the built-for-rent single-family development business, to the tune of $10 billion in equity investment. The demand from renters is enormous, and the land rush is just beginning.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

learn.roofstock.com

Why is the demand for build-to-rent homes growing?

Have you noticed a rising trend of build-to-rent homes? Here's your guide to what they are and why they have become increasingly popular.
learn.roofstock.com learn.roofstock.com

When the government will subsidize you building rental properties, like above, you build rental properties. This started with the Obama administration and is on steroids with the Biden administration. The problem is, like everything the Left touches, the idea turned into shit and now we're seeing the consequences of it. People want ownership, not perpetual rental. They want to build equity in owning a home not pay rent until they die. The Left fucked the housing market up.
Click to expand...
You're telling me I'm wrong then linked to an article (Forbes) saying the exact same thing I did. Your article says nothing about the federal government. The money is coming from institutional investors and the demand is coming from people who can't afford to purchase (so instead of living in an apartment they get to live in a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes).

The federal government (and President specifically) is not in control of everything even though, at least on this board, we tend to frame it in that manner.
 
cawacko said:
You're telling me I'm wrong then linked to an article (Forbes) saying the exact same thing I did. Your article says nothing about the federal government. The money is coming from institutional investors and the demand is coming from people who can't afford to purchase (so instead of living in an apartment they get to live in a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes).

The federal government (and President specifically) is not in control of everything even though, at least on this board, we tend to frame it in that manner.
Click to expand...
Cherry picking one source and one thing said in that source doesn't invalidate the other 95% of my position. A big part of the housing problem is interference by government, particularly federal government, in the housing market. When there are fewer homes for sale, and more construction is going into apartments and rental homes, there are less opportunities to buy and the cost per house on the market rises.

The Biden administration is clearly, by their own admission, seeking to increase the supply of rentals over the supply of owned homes. That is a major problem.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Cherry picking one source and one thing said in that source doesn't invalidate the other 95% of my position. A big part of the housing problem is interference by government, particularly federal government, in the housing market. When there are fewer homes for sale, and more construction is going into apartments and rental homes, there are less opportunities to buy and the cost per house on the market rises.

The Biden administration is clearly, by their own admission, seeking to increase the supply of rentals over the supply of owned homes. That is a major problem.
Click to expand...
Respectfully you are so focused on Biden you are missing the big picture vis a vis housing.

The housing crisis isn't largely driven by the federal government. California, for example,has underbuilt housing for decades. No President told us we couldn't build. It was a state and local level decisions (across many localities). The state of California has now stepped in and passed laws mandating each City must build more housing or face punishment. That has nothing to do with the federal government.

We can get into a big discussion about the Fed and the housing issues caused by their low interest rate policies.

Many coastal cities practice NIMBYism as a religion. As a result, they don't build and their prices have skyrocketed over the past several decades (as more people moved back into urban areas). The federal government didn't institute a policy forcing these people to be NIMBYs.

And back to the idea that the President controls everything. Housing and everything involved with it is arguably the largest driver of our economy but notice during Presidential debates and questioning they are almost never asked a question about it? The reason of course is how small of a role they play in it. So focusing on them and their actions misses what drives the market.
 
cawacko said:
Respectfully you are so focused on Biden you are missing the big picture vis a vis housing.

The housing crisis isn't largely driven by the federal government. California, for example,has underbuilt housing for decades. No President told us we couldn't build. It was a state and local level decisions (across many localities). The state of California has now stepped in and passed laws mandating each City must build more housing or face punishment. That has nothing to do with the federal government.

We can get into a big discussion about the Fed and the housing issues caused by their low interest rate policies.

Many coastal cities practice NIMBYism as a religion. As a result, they don't build and their prices have skyrocketed over the past several decades (as more people moved back into urban areas). The federal government didn't institute a policy forcing these people to be NIMBYs.

And back to the idea that the President controls everything. Housing and everything involved with it is arguably the largest driver of our economy but notice during Presidential debates and questioning they are almost never asked a question about it? The reason of course is how small of a role they play in it. So focusing on them and their actions misses what drives the market.
Click to expand...
The same problem exists in California for the same reason: Government. Regulations on land use, to a Byzantine bureaucracy you have to navigate. It all drives costs up, and makes construction take many times longer than it should.

Do you really think that allowing people to build a casita on their property is a solution? It isn't. In coastal cities, it's added layers of bureaucracy. The California Coastal Commission is probably the worst offender of all.

The federal government today is starting to do nationally what California already has to fuck everything up when it comes to land use and construction.

Government has become the problem, not the solution to the shortage of housing.
 
cawacko said:
To me, he's not saying anything that anyone in the industry (or who writes about it) is saying. Home sales are down (understandable that people with a 2.75% mortgage don't want to move and get a new mortgage at 6%) because there is less inventory and prices are up (less supply, more competition). And that has a detrimental effect on the overall economy.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, I read your bolded points and skimmed the rest of the article.

He seemed to place the blame for the housing shortage squarely on a 3.25% increase in interest which is why I saw the article as filler and fluff.

This is a snippet from a recent article about the Co-Living ESG trend ...

"'Environmental'
There may also be environmental benefits to co-living schemes. As a new type of asset, property will require development to fit the co-living model. This development allows sponsors to fulfil their own environmental requirements and credentials or deliver on those set by lenders under sustainability linked loans.

On a base level, by combining the social and amenity spaces for the whole building, environmental efficiencies can be achieved in respect of the carbon footprint of the building at the outset and throughout its life cycle. Any additional requirements or targets can be built into the development financing discussions and process between sponsors and lenders. "

www.taylorwessing.com

Co-living: a new solution to achieving ESG goals

www.taylorwessing.com www.taylorwessing.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The same problem exists in California for the same reason: Government. Regulations on land use, to a Byzantine bureaucracy you have to navigate. It all drives costs up, and makes construction take many times longer than it should.

Do you really think that allowing people to build a casita on their property is a solution? It isn't. In coastal cities, it's added layers of bureaucracy. The California Coastal Commission is probably the worst offender of all.

The federal government today is starting to do nationally what California already has to fuck everything up when it comes to land use and construction.

Government has become the problem, not the solution to the shortage of housing.
Click to expand...
California's issue are caused by our state and local regulations. Your claim was this was largely caused by the federal government and Biden. That isn't the case. Not that we're going to fix the problem on this board but you can't begin to solve the problem if you can't accurately address where it is coming from.
 
Imo, Inflation is warping the housing market. That should be the title of he article. I believe inflation is the largest factor in freezing the housing market.

We've all seen our home owners insurance rates going up because house replacement costs are rising. Due to Higher wages and higher material costs.

And the rising cost of living is eating up family incomes. Keeping people stagnant. Limiting class mobility.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
California's issue are caused by our state and local regulations. Your claim was this was largely caused by the federal government and Biden. That isn't the case. Not that we're going to fix the problem on this board but you can't begin to solve the problem if you can't accurately address where it is coming from.
Click to expand...
California's problems in housing and construction are going federal today.
 
The economy has been a warped disaster for a long time, a complete collapse is inevitable but it has been long propped up with debt and dollar making (the money trees), which are near death.

Buckle Up.
 
This neo-marxist revolution is constantly hammering private property rights, especially landlords.....it is unclear to me what the long term plan is.....but it must be understood in the context of "You will own nothing and be happy". I have been hearing rumblings that people who are in homes considered more than they need will be removed so that more people can live in them.
 
Stealing $300ish billion in Russian money must be seen in the context of the Revolutions total disregard for property rights.
 
cawacko said:
How? The federal gov't is actively pushing regulations to prevent the development of housing across the country?
Click to expand...
www.nahb.org

NAHB Tells Congress How Excessive Regulations and Codes Harm Housing Affordability

NAHB today told Congress that burdensome government regulations and mandates which support environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies impede the housing industry’s ability to increase the production of quality, affordable housing.
www.nahb.org

Builders and developers are telling Congress that federal DIE and ESG regulations are killing their industry.

Testifying on this topic at a House Financial Services subcommittee hearing, NAHB Chairman Alicia Huey, a custom home builder and developer from Birmingham, Ala., said a growing number of ESG policies at the local, state and federal level are having a direct impact on housing production and affordability.

“ESG policies already have caused home insurance companies to drop out of some areas and raise rates in others..."
www.constructiondive.com

Home building costs soar due to government regulations, material price increases

Regulations and codes add $93,870 to the cost of a new home, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
www.constructiondive.com www.constructiondive.com
  • Regulations imposed by all levels of government account for $93,870, or about 24% of the current average sales price ($397,300) of a new single-family home, according to a new study by the National Association of Home Builders. This amount marks a 10.9% increase over the past five years.
www.adn.com

Government regulations make home building hard in Alaska

With the recent fiscal crisis and battles of the budget, investing in development has been put on the back burner. However, home building is exactly what Alaska needs to help build the economy.
www.adn.com www.adn.com


Even the Biden administration's attempt to rule that many current 'gig workers' are now employees is killing the construction industry


Rules and regulations cost money. More rules and regulations strangle industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top