How is the US economy right now?

[Lucas1980]

It's utter...........................................Shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

They could tap into their equity for such renovations, that's hardly unheard of for middle class families. In fact if a homeowner is to tap into their equity its generally recommended they use it for renovations that add value to a home and few things can add as much value as an extra unit. You could double or etriple the value of a SFH by turning it into a duplex and adding an ADU.

The solution is to build better transit and integrate it with new and existing neighborhoods so that we don't need massive roads everywhere.

The issue is many metro areas don't have a lot of space for new construction and if there is its often very far from the center of the metro and involves developing on farmland and natural areas. I think its better to preserve those things than exclusive SFH neighborhoods, not to mention building more dense neighborhoods nearer to the city center makes commuting easier for the residents and makes it easier to integrate those developments into existing transit networks.

They're becoming less affordable precisely because of the policies you support of restricting supply. You can't detach housing prices from the issue of lack of supply even with cheap credit.

No, that's the reality you want where the barrier to entry for development is made artificially high with onerous regulations.

I grew up in a semi-rural suburb and it wasn't uncommon for people to build ADUs even illegally. Of course I prefer such things are above board so that adherence to safety standards can be enforced but the point is families can afford such things partly because they can pay themselves off in a way that a new pool or a renovated kitchen won't.

Of course I believe in limits, I never said I don't have limits and have even said the opposite. But our limits are very different, I'm all for allowing property owners to invest in their own property in accordance with safety standards and certain general parameters whereas you want to restrict that as much as possible.

I think all of this relates to the Local Knowledge Problem identified by Hayek. Rob wants to centrally plan everything, but it's simply impossible to do that effectively.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No one mentioned RVs, those are for camping. We're talking about things like ADUs and multiplexes. And yes of course allowing the market to add more supply instead of artificially restricting it will help housing affordability, how is that a controversial statement?

How is it making things worse? For a person who can barely afford a home an ADU in a nice neighborhood is absolutely a good thing. Its also good for keeping families together. In many cases ADUs are intended for either elderly parents like in the example I mentioned or adult children. Why is it wrong if someone wants to move their elderly parents in with them while allowing those parents to retain some independence?

"Durr, if you make cheap housing illegal, everyone will just live happily ever after in expensive homes."

 

[Rob Battisti]

OK, you're just proving my point, though. Which is that calling yourself a "libertarian" is just a way to disassociate yourself with the GOP brand. You don't have libertarian values.

Whatever dude.

They could tap into their equity for such renovations, that's hardly unheard of for middle class families.

At these interest rates? Why isn’t this happening in places that passed these ordinances?

The solution is to build better transit and integrate it with new and existing neighborhoods so that we don't need massive roads everywhere.

That’s not always possible and takes multiple years and increases in taxes.

They're becoming less affordable precisely because of the policies you support of restricting supply.

My hesitation with allowing for unrestricted AUDs in backyards is the sole reason housing is unaffordable despite my support of various other things to make housing affordable? Are tiny homes and RVs the main solution?(for the 3rd time)

No, that's the reality you want where the barrier to entry for development is made artificially high with onerous regulations.

No. That’s the reality in places these ordinances have been passed. I want less restriction on new development.

Of course I believe in limits

What are they and why?

 

[Rob Battisti]

I think all of this relates to the Local Knowledge Problem identified by Hayek. Rob wants to centrally plan everything, but it's simply impossible to do that effectively.

I want to centrally plan everything? Because I believe in existing zoning ordinances?

 

[Rob Battisti]

"Durr, if you make cheap housing illegal, everyone will just live happily ever after in expensive homes."

You really are dense.

In Austin, in reality, this just passed. What is happening is RVs are being placed in backyards due to the changes.

If you want some restrictions on AUDs I’d be curious to hear what they are.

In reality, what is happening is people are allowing those with RVs to either park them in backyards or small tiny homes are being build in backyards.

Forgive me if I doubt this is the solution to housing affordability.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Isnt the US 1st in the world by quite a massive margin in debt. Like 33 trillion?

 

[Rob Battisti]

The funny thing is, I support nearly every other way to make housing affordable outside of allowing for unrestricted development in existing suburban neighborhoods. I love that I’m being painted as the cause of housing unaffordability.

 

[Lucas1980]

Isnt the US 1st in the world by quite a massive margin in debt. Like 33 trillion?

Well at least were still Ranked 1 in something,,,,,But Yeah 33 Trillion and growing quickly with no resolve in sight.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It’s also funny that this conversation has devolved from my original point that a indication of a strong economy is housing affordability.

In me saying that, I meant SFH affordability not just some kind of roof over your head.

This is my issue with hacks, you would have us all believe that housing would be more affordable by including anything that keeps rain off your head. You’d lessen what it meant to be a home owner by including a 300sqft property in the definition of homeownership.

This is absurd.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Well at least were still Ranked 1 in something,,,,,But Yeah 33 Trillion and growing quickly with no resolve in sight.

I mean ya, US is ranked #1 in plenty of things. But it seems the average person is still in debt and there some serious issues they try to mask with what they are excelling in.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country

 

[Lucas1980]

I mean ya, US is ranked #1 in plenty of things. But it seems the average person is still in debt and there some serious issues they try to mask with what they are excelling in.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country

Well everything is looking Up....Grocery prices..Gas Prices...Rent...Heating Costs..Home and Car Insurance..Credit Debt..Streaming services.... Yep they're all Up.

 

[Islam Imamate]

At these interest rates? Why isn’t this happening in places that passed these ordinances?

It is happening though of course high interests rates are going to affect the pace that it does happen at. In SoFlo we've always had ADUs but the relaxing of restrictions on them has led to more being built and rented out.

That’s not always possible and takes multiple years and increases in taxes.

So does building roads and they are in fact more expensive. At the end of the day the best answer to traffic is better public transit.

My hesitation with allowing for unrestricted AUDs in backyards is the sole reason housing is unaffordable despite my support of various other things to make housing affordable? Are tiny homes and RVs the main solution?(for the 3rd time)

Well for one I never called for unrestricted ADUS in backyards, there have to be some regulations in place for safety reasons.

Second, it is true that NIMBY zoning codes is a key driver of increasing housing costs as it artificially restricts supply. Its very simple, making it hard to add supply in the face of rising demand means prices go up.

No. That’s the reality in places these ordinances have been passed. I want less restriction on new development.

Of course large developers will build housing when these restrictions are removed but you also see small developers finding their niche too.

Certain projects can only be done by larger developers like big apartment complexes and sprawling SFH neighborhoods but if we're talking about ADUs and duplex conversions those can be done by small developers at the behest of households.

To the extent that they can't its often because of NIMBYs who impose lots of legal costs on developers through all sorts of delays imposed by community meetings and environmental review. This means that only larger developers who can bear those costs will prevail as smaller developers get edged out.

What are they and why?

Some of it is going to be subjective and depend on the locality.

In general for currently SFH only neighborhoods about 2-4 units allowed per lot seems to be what cities are deciding works. In SoFlo it seems that ~400-800sqft is the range allowed for ADUs with no more than one allowed per SFH lot.

Some of these restrictions are more about making the reforms politically viable. Some parts of SoFlo only allow relatives of the homeowner to live in ADUs. I don't agree with that restriction but it does make these reforms more viable in some localities.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I don't think we need to assume. I would conclude it.

Inflation went off the rails and it was a huge problem and it was addressed, and inflation is now roughly in line with targets.

Housing costs are not a nationwide issue--or at least they are less of one than they usually are. There are regional issues--a lot of high-value locations have had restrictive zoning regs that have severely constrained supply while demand has soared. And that is being addressed in a serious way. In CA (where most of the localities with housing crises are), the biggest recent changes were SB 9 and SB 10, but there have been more than a dozen more bills since 2017 aimed at increasing housing supply.

It is not within targets. Inflation right now as we speak is just over 3% this past month. Target is 2%. Thats still 50% higher than target.

Even if it was 2%, it needs to go under that for a while to bring us down to target. Being at 2% after years of super high inflation doesn't mean it's solved. I don't pretend to know what can or should be done about it. I am simply pointing out that this is a legitimate problem and you can't just dismiss it like it's fine.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I want to centrally plan everything? Because I believe in existing zoning ordinances?

Because you believe in central planning. Actual libertarians believe that there is a kind of spontaneous order that arises from individuals seeking their best outcomes, sort of like biological evolution (which you also don't believe in, right?).

You really are dense.

Because I question whether making cheap homes illegal will solve problems? Your idea is brilliant. We should also remember to make homeless illegal. Problem solved! Checkmate, atheists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is not within targets. Inflation right now as we speak is just over 3% this past month. Target is 2%. Thats still 50% higher than target.

It's Core PCE that is targeted at 2%, actually. 2.9% for the year, and 1.9% annualized over the past six months. Also, FYI, you'd want to use bps rather than percentage of percentage for this.

Even if it was 2%, it needs to go under that for a while to bring us down to target. Being at 2% after years of super high inflation doesn't mean it's solved. I don't pretend to know what can or should be done about it. I am simply pointing out that this is a legitimate problem and you can't just dismiss it like it's fine.

We didn't have years of super high inflation, though. We did have years of super low inflation. I would say it is fine, and you can't pretend it's a big problem.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Because you believe in central planning.

Is your argument that I’m not a Rand Libertarian?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Because you believe in central planning. Actual libertarians believe that there is a kind of spontaneous order that arises from individuals seeking their best outcomes, sort of like biological evolution (which you also don't believe in, right?).

Because I question whether making cheap homes illegal will solve problems? Your idea is brilliant. We should also remember to make homeless illegal. Problem solved! Checkmate, atheists.

Are you okay? Seriously? How are you doing?

 

[Islam Imamate]

The funny thing is, I support nearly every other way to make housing affordable outside of allowing for unrestricted development in existing suburban neighborhoods. I love that I’m being painted as the cause of housing unaffordability.

~75% of existing land in metro areas is zone for SFH only. its not just not viable to preserve this status quo while also being able to meet rising demand. In San Jose its 94% of residential land zoned exclusively for SFH, you really think all multifamily developments should be squeezed into 6% of the residential area?

It’s also funny that this conversation has devolved from my original point that a indication of a strong economy is housing affordability.

In me saying that, I meant SFH affordability not just some kind of roof over your head.

This is my issue with hacks, you would have us all believe that housing would be more affordable by including anything that keeps rain off your head. You’d lessen what it meant to be a home owner by including a 300sqft property in the definition of homeownership.

This is absurd.

To complain about housing affordability while advocating for the very policies that made homes unaffordable is contradictory and I think its fair to point that out. You can cope by saying that you support cheap credit for construction but you still want to limit property rights in a way that fundamentally makes housing less affordable.

In terms of the wider subject, my point is that housing affordability is as bad as it is now not because of the wider economic conditions but because of the onerous regulations which limit housing supply. States and cities are doing their best to undo this to make housing more affordable but you're against that it seems.

I want to centrally plan everything? Because I believe in existing zoning ordinances?

Well not everything, just housing.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It is happening though of course high interests rates are going to affect the pace that it does happen at. In SoFlo we've always had ADUs but the relaxing of restrictions on them has led to more being built and rented out.

So does building roads and they are in fact more expensive. At the end of the day the best answer to traffic is better public transit.

Well for one I never called for unrestricted ADUS in backyards, there have to be some regulations in place for safety reasons.

Second, it is true that NIMBY zoning codes is a key driver of increasing housing costs as it artificially restricts supply. Its very simple, making it hard to add supply in the face of rising demand means prices go up.

Of course large developers will build housing when these restrictions are removed but you also see small developers finding their niche too.

Certain projects can only be done by larger developers like big apartment complexes and sprawling SFH neighborhoods but if we're talking about ADUs and duplex conversions those can be done by small developers at the behest of households.

To the extent that they can't its often because of NIMBYs who impose lots of legal costs on developers through all sorts of delays imposed by community meetings and environmental review. This means that only larger developers who can bear those costs will prevail as smaller developers get edged out.

Some of it is going to be subjective and depend on the locality.

In general for currently SFH only neighborhoods about 2-4 units allowed per lot seems to be what cities are deciding works. In SoFlo it seems that ~400-800sqft is the range allowed for ADUs with no more than one allowed per SFH lot.

Some of these restrictions are more about making the reforms politically viable. Some parts of SoFlo only allow relatives of the homeowner to live in ADUs. I don't agree with that restriction but it does make these reforms more viable in some localities.

If certain neighborhoods and communities wish to allow AUDs, that’s their prerogative. I’ve said that multiple times.

It should be up to the community.

If you’re against RVs being included in this, I suppose we’d be on the same side of the voting block in Austin.