Economy Great Article Breaking Down the US Housing Crisis & Why Government Isn't Doing Anything About It

[Rob Battisti]

Yes that is from many decades ago, back when such things weren't banned. So clearly its possible.

There's a unique benefit to allowing these things in suburbs because they allow aspiring entrepreneurs a way to have retail space without having to rent out a separate property. It lowers the barrier to entry for small business owners as well providing an amenity for locals.

They think of criminals and strangers because in their mind it’s the out-groups who will come to their neighborhood to patronize these stores. In reality such small stores with no parking are going to primarily service the local residents.

God forbid I want my kids to play outside without strangers coming and going.

Once again, what you showed isn’t the suburbs. @Sinister we were agreeing I have no idea why you think I’m against mixed use development.

I can walk to literally every store you can think of from my home. There is zero reason to want a store on my street. It’s why people move from cities to mixed use areas to suburbs.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Suburbs can seem fine if you have a lot of friends, and they arent increasingly far from things, but a few contributing factors have made them markedly worse over the years. One is the prevalence of big box retail. There is a gigantic Wal-Mart center...there are actually 2, within less than 5 minutes driving of me, but each would be a 30-minute walk crossing 2 massive stroads. Sometimes you see people with their kids walking, but its rare. Shopping now is more of a destination venture where, as the second video above says, you spend as much or more time in the car as you do in the store.

Even with big box stores on the outskirts, there are still a myriad of local shops and smaller chains located throughout the suburbs. Again, i can only speak on my experience in the GTA and living in both city cores and the burbs, but shopping for food is extremely easy in both; car or not . Also to tack onto the point of automation, i can have my groceries (and a plethora of other goods) delivered right to my home. Now if you want to take advantage of the cost savings from big box stores, then its harder without a vehicle but cost savings on groceries are also not a big selling point in city centers either.

As far as kids go, city centers are among the lower end of declining in terms of households with children; as there main growth come from young singles who tend to hold on to be childless.

As a Coach, I see parents who want to put their kids in Sports all the time. But one of the first questions they ask is "where is your gym located?" Because they may have heard great things about me, or seen my work online, but if it's too far, it's just too far. And the idea of the kid coming on their own just isnt practical. Add to that an increasing unease about possible bad things happening and you have paranoid parents who don't let their kids take a bus, ride a bike, etc. Parents often ask me if they can just hang around while their kids train, because they HAVE to drive them. If they didnt need to I'd have much more business.

Right now my kids dont mind our neighborhood because they have friends on the block, if those kids moves my kids would be bored out of their skulls, and that's with the socialization they get from having me as a Dad and always being in gyms. Oh and right now we have a neighbor who has taken on the fun police role and is feuding with the children because the idea of them riding their little electric dirt bikes down the street sends him into a rage, apparently.

Again, your experiences are your experiences; but i cant imagine helicopter parents being more allowing of freedom in city cores, and i will contend that as a child of the 80's and 90's, i had way more freedom; but i think thats true regardless of core city or suburban kids of my gen.

As for me in the burbs now, kids socializing at each others houses / backyards / local parks ( i have 7 playgrounds within a 20 min walk of my home) is super common. I really dont see road hockey, pool parties and fort building in downtown toronto

 

[panamaican]

There are many neighborhoods still like that. I wouldn’t classify what you’re showing there as “suburbs”. Also my goodness it’s from what looks like the 60s.


There are plenty of town centers that have what you’re showing. It’s called mixed use.

It’s not the suburbs.

It’s why people want to live in the suburbs OR they can choose to live in mixed use areas.

How the hell did we even get on this conversation?

Because he thinks that people who choose to move to the suburbs also want to live in mixed use or multi-family dwellings. Which makes no sense since the entire appeal of the suburbs is detached single family dwellings. If people wanted mixed use or multi-family, they wouldn't leave urban centers in the first place.

 

[helltoupee]

There's another thing those corporations do when they buy trailer parks also, which is they raise the rates so high that people can't afford them and then they lose their trailer but they can't afford to move their trailer either. So now they abandon their trailer and the part gets to keep it.

It's despicable intentional behavior.

From what I understand, that has happened quite a bit, exactly as you said. They raise the rents so high that people who can barely afford it go broke and can't afford the space rent, so the park owners let them go in arrears and then simply take their mobile home as back payment for rent, which is a steal. They may have someone owe them a few thousand in back rent, they then acquire the pink slip or title, and then the park owner turns around and sells the place for $150,000. Most of the people this seems to happen to is seniors with fixed budgets who know once they fall behind in rent they can't then afford to pay several thousand to have their mobile home moved somewhere else. So they sign over the title and end up getting kicked out anyway (now less their mobile home).

 

[Andy Capp]

Good presentation. And this is why everyone who blathers on about zoning or some other crap doesn't really understand the problem.

The absence of affordable housing is not the result of zoning regulation. Affordable housing is not affordable to build. Without the government actually spending the money on building these projects, the market will not provide them. Until people grasp that, they'll keep flailing away pointlessly at the problem. You want affordable housing? The government must heavily subsidize the construction. Just like any basic good/service that consumers demand -- you need government intervention for there to be low cost, quality provided to the public.

We have cheap food because of government. Cheap electricity? Government. A free national highway system? Government. Free public schools? Government. Why anyone would think that housing is different is absurd.

Well, of course, the government should be building housing. That does not obviate NIMBY barriers to zoning changes.

By the way, my province, PEI, seems to be ahead of the curve on this score. New units are being built where the tenants will pay at most 25% of their income for rent--the government will subsidize the rest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

From what I understand, that has happened quite a bit, exactly as you said. They raise the rents so high that people who can barely afford it go broke and can't afford the space rent, so the park owners let them go in arrears and then simply take their mobile home as back payment for rent, which is a steal. They may have someone owe them a few thousand in back rent, they then acquire the pink slip or title, and then the park owner turns around and sells the place for $150,000. Most of the people this seems to happen to is seniors with fixed budgets who know once they fall behind in rent they can't then afford to pay several thousand to have their mobile home moved somewhere else. So they sign over the title and end up getting kicked out anyway (now less their mobile home).

The problem with this model is that land owners don't have unlimited or even all that much pricing power. It's not like they charge whatever they want and then find buyers, and some are just kind enough not to want that much. Prices are set according to markets. There are buyers who want to pay as little as possible and sellers who want to get as much as possible, and the dance plays out. The issue is that with housing, the gov't gets involved and artificially restricts supply, which hurts buyers and helps sellers, though the process of driving house prices up also keeps land prices from rising. Just horrible policy all around.

Because he thinks that people who choose to move to the suburbs also want to live in mixed use or multi-family dwellings. Which makes no sense since the entire appeal of the suburbs is detached single family dwellings. If people wanted mixed use or multi-family, they wouldn't leave urban centers in the first place.

I think the issue here is just authoritarianism vs. liberalism. If I don't want minorities, poor people, or restaurants in my neighborhood, should I be able to call on gov't force to prevent it or not?

 

[Islam Imamate]

God forbid I want my kids to play outside without strangers coming and going.

Once again, what you showed isn’t the suburbs. @Sinister we were agreeing I have no idea why you think I’m against mixed use development.

I can walk to literally every store you can think of from my home. There is zero reason to want a store on my street. It’s why people move from cities to mixed use areas to suburbs.

The vast majority of Americans do not live within walking distance of amenities

By combining these spaces into a single scale, we were able to identify three distinct community types: high-, moderate-, and low-amenity neighborhoods. Americans in high-amenity communities live on average within walking distance of four of the six types of neighborhood amenities. Americans in moderate-amenity communities are on average no more than a short car trip (five to 15 minutes) away, while low-amenity residents live on average a 15-to-30-minute drive from all six types of amenities.

We found that 23 percent of Americans live in high-amenity communities, close to half (44 percent) live in moderate-amenity communities, and one-third (33 percent) live in low-amenity communities. But more notable is the effect that living near these amenities has on how we relate to our communities and to one another.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/america-needs-more-community-spaces/589729/

Less than 1/4 do and I bet the vast majority of the ones who do live in cities like NYC and Boston. Don't you think it'd be better for more, not fewer, Americans to live within walking distance of amenities?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Because he thinks that people who choose to move to the suburbs also want to live in mixed use or multi-family dwellings. Which makes no sense since the entire appeal of the suburbs is detached single family dwellings. If people wanted mixed use or multi-family, they wouldn't leave urban centers in the first place.

I don't think that's a fair or accurate assessment of what I believe.

I believe that in general people want the most optimally located housing for the best price. People's individual priorities and tastes will change what they think an optimal location is but there's a reason that in real estate they have the say "location, location, location" is the first rule.

Right now the government is artificially restricting the market which I believe is a significant cause of the shortage in supply that is driving prices up. Allowing mixed use, multifamily housing in suburbs would offer more options both in terms of location and price point and would help increase supply across the metro area.

Good presentation. And this is why everyone who blathers on about zoning or some other crap doesn't really understand the problem.

The absence of affordable housing is not the result of zoning regulation. Affordable housing is not affordable to build. Without the government actually spending the money on building these projects, the market will not provide them. Until people grasp that, they'll keep flailing away pointlessly at the problem. You want affordable housing? The government must heavily subsidize the construction. Just like any basic good/service that consumers demand -- you need government intervention for there to be low cost, quality provided to the public.

We have cheap food because of government. Cheap electricity? Government. A free national highway system? Government. Free public schools? Government. Why anyone would think that housing is different is absurd.

There is no such thing as "affordable housing", housing becomes more or less affordable depending on market conditions. A shoebox apartment in a prime location in one of the largest metro areas is going to be roughly comparable in value, if not more valuable, than a SFH with a yard in a rural area with no jobs.

 

[Sinister]

Even with big box stores on the outskirts, there are still a myriad of local shops and smaller chains located throughout the suburbs. Again, i can only speak on my experience in the GTA and living in both city cores and the burbs, but shopping for food is extremely easy in both; car or not . Also to tack onto the point of automation, i can have my groceries (and a plethora of other goods) delivered right to my home. Now if you want to take advantage of the cost savings from big box stores, then its harder without a vehicle but cost savings on groceries are also not a big selling point in city centers either.

As far as kids go, city centers are among the lower end of declining in terms of households with children; as there main growth come from young singles who tend to hold on to be childless.

Again, your experiences are your experiences; but i cant imagine helicopter parents being more allowing of freedom in city cores, and i will contend that as a child of the 80's and 90's, i had way more freedom; but i think thats true regardless of core city or suburban kids of my gen.

As for me in the burbs now, kids socializing at each others houses / backyards / local parks ( i have 7 playgrounds within a 20 min walk of my home) is super common. I really dont see road hockey, pool parties and fort building in downtown toronto

I don't know, maybe sh*t is different in parts of Canada but here big box stores decimate smaller retailers. On the way to those Wal-Marts by my house are sad little strip malls that are essentially abandoned. There is A LOT of unused commercial property here that just sits empty. I've lived in 4 States, similar stories. The notion I was making about automation is that Westerners tend to think of automation inside the store as negative (jobs) and delivery as positive (convenience). Automation inside the store doesnt need to be a net negative, and delivery doesnt have to severely f*ck over that labor market. Both are just often true because we dont check how the corporations apply them. We allow technology to be used to suit the needs of the capitalists, not what would make living better.

I'd expect city centers to be increasingly devoid of families in Countries that advertise suburban living as the ideal concept to raise a family.



Yeah I grew up in the 80's and 90's as well. When crime was a lot worse, and were were constantly taught to be hyper-vigialnt for potential kidnappers, had to have everyone's phone number memorized, etc. The phenomeno of safety through eyes on the street is a measurable occurrence. In a place that has more human traffic someone is far more likely to have seen your lost kid than somewhere where everyone is inside their houses, or confined to their yards. I'm glad your area has that many playgrounds, mine doesn't. All 3 of the parks closest to me (and I live in a fairly housing-dense area) require crossing 3+ lane stroads to get to them.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Because he thinks that people who choose to move to the suburbs also want to live in mixed use or multi-family dwellings. Which makes no sense since the entire appeal of the suburbs is detached single family dwellings. If people wanted mixed use or multi-family, they wouldn't leave urban centers in the first place.

THANK YOU

 

[Sinister]

Because he thinks that people who choose to move to the suburbs also want to live in mixed use or multi-family dwellings. Which makes no sense since the entire appeal of the suburbs is detached single family dwellings. If people wanted mixed use or multi-family, they wouldn't leave urban centers in the first place.

Wait, are we saying there's only one TYPE of suburbs? I just posted a clip from Edward Scissorhands that parodied suburban life, but this is also suburbs:



Suburbs dont NEED to be wide-built houses, far apart, on huge lots. They can be designed better to make them more walkable and make better use of the land, as well as implementing commerce within them.

 

[helltoupee]

The problem with this model is that land owners don't have unlimited or even all that much pricing power. It's not like they charge whatever they want and then find buyers, and some are just kind enough not to want that much. Prices are set according to markets. There are buyers who want to pay as little as possible and sellers who want to get as much as possible, and the dance plays out. The issue is that with housing, the gov't gets involved and artificially restricts supply, which hurts buyers and helps sellers, though the process of driving house prices up also keeps land prices from rising. Just horrible policy all around.

I think the issue here is just authoritarianism vs. liberalism. If I don't want minorities, poor people, or restaurants in my neighborhood, should I be able to call on gov't force to prevent it or not?

While of course what you say is true, you have to keep in mind that when supply is limited enough, the land owners pretty much do set the prices they want to rent or sell their properties, and it makes it worse when said land owner owns 50% of the available trailer parks in San Diego. So you invest in a park model mobile home, and get priced out of rent at one park, only to have your options severely limited because that same owner is doing the same thing with rents at most all the other parks in town. Further, the other parks now know they can charge more because they see the corporate owners getting away with charging insane rents, making seniors go broke, and then taking the title to their homes as payment.

I mean, I'm sure you are aware how monopolies destroy the market, and I think that's what people are fearful of. Huge, multinational corporations slowly buying up all the housing supply so they are eventually in a position to charge whatever they want, as so famously demonstrated by Andrew Carnegie and his monopolization of the steel industry. I think people are worried that the same thing is slowly happening with housing.

I just honestly believe that basic housing should be a human right, like clean air or water. Not everything attached to a profit motive is beneficial to society. I don't think that's more true than with healthcare and housing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Suburbs dont NEED to be wide-built houses, far apart, on huge lots. They can be designed better to make them more walkable and make better use of the land, as well as implementing commerce within them.

They really can't even be without very large tax increases. The fundamental issue is that maintenance costs cannot be covered by the existing tax base in '50s style developments. What you have in a lot of them is the gov't fronting a lot of the initial costs, and then the first generation can have very low taxes because there's not much that needs to be done, but eventually maintenance needs rise, and towns can cover it with debt or small tax increases or by putting off maintenance. But that's not indefinitely sustainable.

 

[Sinister]

While of course what you say is true, you have to keep in mind that when supply is limited enough, the land owners pretty much do set the prices they want to rent or sell their properties, and it makes it worse when said land owner owns 50% of the available trailer parks in San Diego. So you invest in a park model mobile home, and get priced out of rent at one park, only to have your options severely limited because that same owner is doing the same thing with rents at most all the other parks in town. Further, the other parks now know they can charge more because they see the corporate owners getting away with charging insane rents, making seniors go broke, and then taking the title to their homes as payment.

I mean, I'm sure you are aware how monopolies destroy the market, and I think that's what people are fearful of. Huge, multinational corporations slowly buying up all the housing supply so they are eventually in a position to charge whatever they want, as so famously demonstrated by Andrew Carnegie and his monopolization of the steel industry. I think people are worried that the same thing is slowly happening with housing.

I just honestly believe that basic housing should be a human right, like clean air or water. Not everything attached to a profit motive is beneficial to society. I don't think that's more true than with healthcare and housing.

So much this. Libertarian-minded people look at our system and think "ugh, all these pesky regulations are ruining the market"...when a deeper look reveals possible impending market failure. The cost of developing the service (middle housing, as an example) may be too much for potential developers to get the kind of profit they want from it. I made this case in another thread, but each time we were presented with market failure in the past we very quickly socialized them. Imagine a fire department asking people if they have enough money to put their burning house out, because well, fighting fires is expensive and if I dont make a profit, your house isnt worth putting out.

Ultimately the problem comes down to how these things are viewed. Police and firefighting are viewed as essential, necessary services. As are sanitation, water, etc. Housing and health care are not looked at this way currently, and moneyed interests are fighting tooth and nail to prevent them from being so.

 

[Sinister]

They really can't even be without very large tax increases. The fundamental issue is that maintenance costs cannot be covered by the existing tax base in '50s style developments. What you have in a lot of them is the gov't fronting a lot of the initial costs, and then the first generation can have very low taxes because there's not much that needs to be done, but eventually maintenance needs rise, and towns can cover it with debt or small tax increases or by putting off maintenance. But that's not indefinitely sustainable.

Check out the videos I posted earlier about the ponzi schemes that are how we think of the suburbs. Non-dense large plot suburbs with wide roads are actually a lot worse for maintenance costs (specifically road maintenance), and it's so bad in some areas that municipalities are giving more power to HOA's in exchange for them taking responsibility for road maintenance. That said, better use of the land means higher tax revenue per size of the area. Seems like a much better way to sustain that revenue than single families who hate the idea of taxation living on huge separated plots of land with big box retailers who hate taxation even more being the lion's share of the nearby commerce.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I don't know, maybe sh*t is different in parts of Canada but here big box stores decimate smaller retailers. On the way to those Wal-Marts by my house are sad little strip malls that are essentially abandoned. There is A LOT of unused commercial property here that just sits empty. I've lived in 4 States, similar stories. The notion I was making about automation is that Westerners tend to think of automation inside the store as negative (jobs) and delivery as positive (convenience). Automation inside the store doesnt need to be a net negative, and delivery doesnt have to severely f*ck over that labor market. Both are just often true because we dont check how the corporations apply them. We allow technology to be used to suit the needs of the capitalists, not what would make living better.

I'd expect city centers to be increasingly devoid of families in Countries that advertise suburban living as the ideal concept to raise a family.



Yeah I grew up in the 80's and 90's as well. When crime was a lot worse, and were were constantly taught to be hyper-vigialnt for potential kidnappers, had to have everyone's phone number memorized, etc. The phenomeno of safety through eyes on the street is a measurable occurrence. In a place that has more human traffic someone is far more likely to have seen your lost kid than somewhere where everyone is inside their houses, or confined to their yards. I'm glad your area has that many playgrounds, mine doesn't. All 3 of the parks closest to me (and I live in a fairly housing-dense area) require crossing 3+ lane stroads to get to them.

Ok, my original response was regarding using London, Ontario as the example in that video can be debunked with google maps; or by anyone who lives or been to that city

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ok, my original response was regarding using London, Ontario as the example in that video can be debunked with google maps; or by anyone who lives or been to that city

London Ontario has an average walk score of 39. Better than I expected but still car dependent. Scores better on transit(45) and biking(53) but overall not great on any metric and most errands still require a car. Of course those are averages and there will be some neighborhoods with better scores on all metrics but there will also be ones that score worse.

 

[Sinister]

Ok, my original response was regarding using London, Ontario as the example in that video can be debunked with google maps; or by anyone who lives or been to that city

The owner of that channel is from London and has family there. His contention has always been that London is worse than Amsterdam, but that doesn't mean its not better than the US. In that video he was saying why he doesnt see lots of kids around when he visits the lart of London where his family live. He used that as part of the broader contention that sparse suburbs deteriorate childhood independence.

 

[Rob Battisti]

So much this. Libertarian-minded people look at our system and think "ugh, all these pesky regulations are ruining the market"...when a deeper look reveals possible impending market failure. The cost of developing the service (middle housing, as an example) may be too much for potential developers to get the kind of profit they want from it. I made this case in another thread, but each time we were presented with market failure in the past we very quickly socialized them. Imagine a fire department asking people if they have enough money to put their burning house out, because well, fighting fires is expensive and if I dont make a profit, your house isnt worth putting out.

Ultimately the problem comes down to how these things are viewed. Police and firefighting are viewed as essential, necessary services. As are sanitation, water, etc. Housing and health care are not looked at this way currently, and moneyed interests are fighting tooth and nail to prevent them from being so.

Thank god we live in a mixed economy paired with democracy.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

London Ontario has an average walk score of 39. Better than I expected but still car dependent. Scores better on transit(45) and biking(53) but overall not great on any metric and most errands still require a car. Of course those are averages and there will be some neighborhoods with better scores on all metrics but there will also be ones that score worse.

name me a neighborhood and we can easily show how far things are by foot.

"People in London can walk to an average of 5 restaurants, bars and coffee shops in 5 minutes."