Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
It sounds sensational

But the headline piqued my interest and I gotta say..... when I contemplated what this man wrote, I came away seeing his reasoning. I'd say - 30% chance of this happening.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2020/01/07/predicti...

"Prediction For 2030: A Government Take Over Of Rental Housing"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Get rid of loans for houses and watch affordable options pop up where one can pay for it.

I can see it happening as well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see your point - I've always felt the same about college loans.

Thing is, *everyone* has their fingers in this pie.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The author lays out reasons for why it could happen. I think we will know better come November 2022 if the Republicans* take back the House and Senate.

JLC

* Republicans and Democrats are the right and left wings of the same buzzard trying to pick your bones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bonroy1924: "But the headline piqued my interest and I gotta say..... when I contemplated what this man wrote, I came away seeing his reasoning. I'd say - 30% chance of this happening.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2020/01/07/predicti......

"Prediction For 2030: A Government Take Over Of Rental Housing"


I see little chance of a nationalization of rental housing. It reads to me like some far-left wet dream.

If loan for houses go away, home ownership rates will likely drop and more people will become renters. France, Sweden, U.K. Japan, Austria, Germany, Switzerland all have lower home ownership rates that the USA. Doing away with purchase loans will not affect the cost of materials (unless far fewer homes are built) and likely will not much affect the price of land in the long-run.

I do not think that college loans are a good analogy.

I also think that the courts tilt so far right, especially USSC, that 2022 election will have little effect in the short to mid run - say 5 - 10 years.

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If loan for houses go away, home ownership rates will likely drop and more people will become renters. France, Sweden, U.K. Japan, Austria, Germany, Switzerland all have lower home ownership rates that the USA. Doing away with purchase loans will not affect the cost of materials (unless far fewer homes are built) and likely will not much affect the price of land in the long-run.

You cannot compare those countries to the USA, we are completely different.
We would find ways to make it happen, it would spur new ideas and inventions. Things could stagnate and renting might happen, unless we do away with that as well. The cost of a house is higher with a loan on top of the already ridiculous prices.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Not to mention - ok if it's not a nationalized efforts - cities, states, etc can do similar things.

Look - it says in some places, lit things like eviction records and credit reports might not be allowed for selecting tenants.

I guess criminal and sex offender records should be banned for picking nannies or babysitters next right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I tend to agree with canonian.

Across the pond they ask "why".

Americans ask "why not" - sometimes to our triumph, other times to our peril :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
canonian:

<If loan for houses go away, home ownership rates will likely drop and more people will become renters. France, Sweden, U.K. Japan, Austria, Germany, Switzerland all have lower home ownership rates that the USA. Doing away with purchase loans will not affect the cost of materials (unless far fewer homes are built) and likely will not much affect the price of land in the long-run.>

"You cannot compare those countries to the USA, we are completely different."

Are we really special snowflakes in the USA? "All the women are beautiful, all the men are strong, all the children are above average, and the streets are paved with gold."

"We would find ways to make it happen, it would spur new ideas and inventions." Would we. What is stopping anyone now?

Things could stagnate and renting might happen, unless we do away with that as well."

What happens with no loans for home buying and no renting? I suspect either a lot of homeless, anrchy, or much real property theft.

"The cost of a house is higher with a loan on top of the already ridiculous prices."

I cannot follow whatever point you are trying to make with this statement. Even if you shrink house sizes, and use less expensive finishes, materials still have a cost.

https://www.wayfair.com/storage-organization/pdp/cedarshed-2...

14' x 20' for $11,500, without land to place it, any utilities, or any interior construction.

"The reality is most tiny home builders spend anywhere between $20,000 – $60,000 on materials alone, or more depending on your preferences or the supply of materials. Building permits average around $1,350 nationally, although larger floor plans and more custom materials will raise that price."

https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/how-much-does-a-tiny-ho...

And still no land or utility connections.

People could buy a small camper for $20,000 - 30,000 - https://rv.campingworld.com/rvclass/small-camper-rvs but still need land to park and utilities, but I do no see many people doing that for their primary home either.

SFH is expensive and many.

"Each home looked the same in Levittown (N.Y. - Americas early suburb) — they were all built in the Cape Cod-style and featured the same floorplan. They each cost around $7,000."

https://www.insider.com/vintage-photos-levittown-suburbs-50s...

6,000 SF lot slightly less than 1/7 of an acre.

And 1950 $7,000 cost would be over $80,000 today, a sum many people could not pay at once without a loan

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

for a small house on a relatively small lot (that I am not certain many people would be happy with). 3 BR, 1.5 bath, one car garage maybe 1,200 SF

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/71-Mill-Ln...

3 BR, 1.5 bath, 1,045 sqft; 7,150 sqft lot built 1948 for sale today at $529,999 (way more than the $80,000 + inflation equivalent

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bonroy1924: "Not to mention - ok if it's not a nationalized efforts - cities, states, etc can do similar things.

Look - it says in some places, lit things like eviction records and credit reports might not be allowed for selecting tenants."

Good references from last three Landlords? Or are you planning to ban those, too? Or a guarantee from a financially solvent, known to the Landlord party?

"I guess criminal and sex offender records should be banned for picking nannies or babysitters next right?"

Why only nannies and babysitters? Why not all employment/employees?

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The cost of a house is higher with a loan on top of the already ridiculous prices.

And there are companies and people willing to pay that cost. Nationalized housing is going no where. It's much more important to get nationalized medicine, and that is going nowhere too given the lobby.

IP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi JAFO, I don't want to ban any of it. I"m just saying that some locales are dabbling in such.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I cannot follow whatever point you are trying to make with this statement. Even if you shrink house sizes, and use less expensive finishes, materials still have a cost.

Jafo no disrespect to you at all what-so-ever, however it's thinking like above in your first sentence is what keeps us stuck where we are. Using your statement simply as an example. I do agree with what you said in the second sentence. Completely logical, factual, makes perfect sense.

I know there will be a cost and the fact that prices have spiraled beyond what people can afford we "created a solution" called a loan. I'm looking to do the reverse of that. What can we do to rid ourselves of debt and allow a person or family to save for a few years and BUY outright a place to live. It might be smaller, it might be made of some new material not yet invented or widely available. We might have to say to hell with a lot of regulations, spread houses out more so one cannot affect the other should something go wrong - for example a fire. I'm not entirely sure, throwing out what comes to mind.

If materials and land are so expensive and hard to get a hold of I'd have to say we have too many people and not enough land or people to gather those resources.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If materials and land are so expensive and hard to get a hold...

There is a non-profit around here that is talking about building homes and selling the house on leased land. This is supposed to lower the cost of "owning" a home, which can be inherited by the heirs. Lease on the land is something like 200 years, so it offers generational building of wealth.

There is also an effort in our city to eliminate R1 zoning, which IMO will just allow for investors to charge more per bedroom unit when they convert the single family home to a multi-unit. Yes, each unit will be less expensive to rent than the single family home, but the sum of the units will be much greater than the single family rental.

FWIW,

IP,
who expects to convert her SFH rental to an over under duplex and build a tiny home in the back yard, per new zoning...not great for families who need 4 bedrooms but great for investors and people with homes to sell
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
canonian:

<<<I cannot follow whatever point you are trying to make with this statement.

Even if you shrink house sizes, and use less expensive finishes, materials still have a cost.>>>

"Jafo no disrespect to you at all what-so-ever, however it's thinking like above in your first sentence is what keeps us stuck where we are."

How is my not understanding what you are trying to communicate keeping anyone stuck anywhere? It is a simple, factual statement - it is not stopping you or anyone else from doing anything.

"Using your statement simply as an example. I do agree with what you said in the second sentence. Completely logical, factual, makes perfect sense."

Thank you; so some common ground.

"I know there will be a cost and the fact that prices have spiraled beyond what people can afford we "created a solution" called a loan. I'm looking to do the reverse of that. What can we do to rid ourselves of debt and allow a person or family to save for a few years and BUY outright a place to live. It might be smaller, it might be made of some new material not yet invented or widely available. We might have to say to hell with a lot of regulations, spread houses out more so one cannot affect the other should something go wrong - for example a fire. I'm not entirely sure, throwing out what comes to mind."

Spreading houses out requires more land and generally increases cost. To reduce land costs one must use less and become more dense. As inparadise notes in this thread, some localities are trying to abolish SFH zoning so that at a minimum every lot can have two residences.

Of course, there seems to have been little consideration of what that density change would mean n terms of water and sewage capacity, street and parking capacity. more children zoned to a school that is larger, or other changes that will result from increasing density from a SFH on a quarter acre lot.

"If materials and land are so expensive and hard to get a hold of I'd have to say we have too many people and not enough land or people to gather those resources."

So what is the solution - China's one child policy? Let Covid and other diseases run rampant to shrink the population? A World War to decimate a generation? A Malthusian war over food sources? A Hunger Games dystopia?

I hope that someone can solve the issues but I am not sure that most of the USA will like the alternatives.

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Spreading houses out requires more land and generally increases cost. To reduce land costs one must use less and become more dense. As inparadise notes in this thread, some localities are trying to abolish SFH zoning so that at a minimum every lot can have two residences.


Seems given what we have just went through it would make perfect sense to spread out more. Hey perhaps I'm making too much sense here and the next virus can really do some damage to prove the point.

If there is a enough livable land for everyone now we should be able to spread out and have an affordable place to live that can be paid for in full with reasonable savings. We do not need Housing as a Service HAAS, making fun of Software as a Service where you rent it forever.

So what is the solution - China's one child policy? Let Covid and other diseases run rampant to shrink the population? A World War to decimate a generation? A Malthusian war over food sources? A Hunger Games dystopia?

If population is a problem now, and it might be I'm not sure then one of the above sure. I do see a point where we cannot keep growing exponentially population wise. Are we there now, passed that point, have more time yet? Not sure.

It took 123 years to hit 1 billion people, after that the next billion took 33 years, then 14 yeas and has been pretty stable around mid teen years to grow to the next billion. I don't think that is sustainable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

It took 123 years to hit 1 billion people, after that the next billion took 33 years, then 14 yeas and has been pretty stable around mid teen years to grow to the next billion. I don't think that is sustainable.


It just so happens I was looking over population pyramids the other day, along with fertility rates. Best I can tell, the USA would have had negative population growth from 2000
to present had it not been for
immigration. In fact the USA would have had falling population.

Additionally, the largest pool of immigration has been from Mexico and that pool has dried up. The current housing shortage is temporary and will be gone by 2030.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
IP....

Thanks very much for your post. As someone who basically does 'vanilla' turnkey rental homes, I have never ever considered what you just wrote in your post nor was I aware of it.

Indeed- sometimes well meaning policies can end up hurting those it was supposed to help. Wouldn't the the first time, won't be the last.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well reasoned post canonian I enjoyed reading.

I think some of this conversation is philosophical, some is fact and both are fine. I sort of lean to what you say

I can't cite stats like you did ...but in a 'big picture' way, I've always felt that a combination of rising prosperity in poorer nations, coupled with Microfinance for women. Just as personal preference - I don't want the world turn into one big mandatory high-rise. I like people being able to make a choice be it urban, rural, McMansion, Trailer, whatever.

As far as population increase I wonder from a qualitative standpoint: Rising prosperity in poorer nations, plus huge focus on Microfinance for women in said nations. Trends and studies show that as upward mobility and affluence grows, priorities change and perhaps less reproduction takes place - by choice, not fiat. Microfinance - only because it gives women in cultures/countries a leg up, where marriage and reproduction isn't the *only* game in town - and again, upward mobility, education, sometimes seems to go hand in hand.

In the meantime, in my chose metro areas for investments - I'd like nice robust growth :)

But this is just me pontificating. We're all very fortunate that people smarter than me will be on this :)
Print the post Back To Top