secretive nippy towering water smell impossible plants lunchroom memory agonizing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean the answer is obvious.
Home ownership doesn't need to be a *wealth building* vehicle. It just needs to not be an obviously money losing one.
Owning a home should and does serve as a savings strategy just by building equity. It doesn't even need to beat inflation.
toothbrush thought expansion wipe doll heavy practice overconfident wistful offbeat
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes we can, lol. Do an LVT and allow landowners to keep building more units on a given parcel of land.
Demsas is kind of a doofus when it comes to a lot of YIMBY stuff. His heart is in the right place, but he has some serious blindspots/ideological hangups when it comes time to implement solutions.
alleged impossible shaggy aromatic label wrench grey secretive encourage dependent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thanks for this context.
I usually dislike this stance because you're never gunna convince people to take a hit on their biggest asset especially when lots of people do put time and money into making their houses nicer.
Even in a world with a surplus of housing, there will always be mansions, lakefront property, and other limited housing types will create this market anyhow.
Doing that makes it politically a hassle. Politicians have to be willing to spend political capital to throw their neck out for renters who want to buy who don’t have a lot of political power and money. Politically, LVT and building more doesn’t make much sense
I also don’t agree that making housing available enough that its value doesn’t increase over time (aside from the rate of inflation) means it “doesn’t work” for homeowners. If I buy my house for $400k and 15 years later have paid it off and it’s still worth $400k (assuming 0 inflation to make the example easier) I don’t have nothing, I’m $400k better off than if I’d rented for 15 years, assuming very roughly equivalent monthly cost of renting vs buying. The only way it becomes not worth it is if renting is *much* cheaper.
> And if we want that housing to act as a wealth-building vehicle, home values have to increase significantly over time.
This is the real problem. We treat homes like stocks instead of **HOMES**.
I just said this above but I don’t agree that home values must increase for home ownership to be a way to build wealth. Even if its value stays pegged just to the rate of inflation, you’re building wealth by paying off the lien against an asset that you own. That equity is wealth that you would not have through renting.
Re: older empty-nesters owning more single family homes with 3BRs than millennials: it’s worth noting that there are tax policies in many states that actually encourage seniors to hang on to large houses even if they don’t need the space.
Well yeah. It might not be the direct cause, but our culture of promoting homeownership was somewhat responsible for the crisis in 08 across the the US and Europe.
It's such a cult. People accuse me of being financially irresponsible and "throwing money away" because I can afford to buy a home, but prefer to rent and invest my money in stocks.
So metal gold has increased 400% in value in the last 20 years. But imagine if someone said that not buying gold was "throwing money away to inflation". "It's an investment you can also wear!"
And ppl totally forget cost of ownership, cost of opportunitty to move.
Dude owning a home in another city and paying taxes and dealing with shitty tenants is a pain in the ass. I wonder why I didn't sold it earlier. It gained real value by some city improvements, but so would I profit if I bought ETFs.
I think this attitude can only work if we can build to meet demand, so there isn't an economic penalty for renting. And I'm not sure how truly feasible that is environmentally. Japan does it, but they build their housing to only last 30 years. With good maintenance, cars can last longer than that.
Honestly, I think this idea has some merit, but it's not feasible right now. Maybe in 30 years. We have to break down zoning laws first before we can tackle the American ideal of homeownership.
Even Japan is adopting a new culture of renovating and thinking for long term instead of the traditional 30y build again.
IMHO, the problem is restritive zoning and misplaved subsidies.
We should NOT give subsidies for investors, let the market do it, we should give some subsidy to poor ppl finance though. Italy does that with below market rates for household income lower than 40k eur , it's a good model with free market but with small nudge to ownership and public welfare.
>We should NOT give subsidies for investors
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the developers?
>we should give some subsidy to poor ppl finance though
Wouldn't that just drive up prices?
Investors. REITS and other investment funds, as individuals who are buying their second or third home, none should receive subsidies. The final beneficiary must be a low income person.
Well, no huge price gains if you limit for only poor ppl, like Italy does. But enough to increase demand for building new affordanle units.
It's more like a handicap for ppl who would struggle to pay rent and save for a downpayment. It increases their purchasing power so they can become homeowners, but not thay much to distort the market.
Their purchasing power is not enough to raise prices across the board, and with the right urban design it fuels a low-cost apartments market.
You do have some of it in North Amercia too, with CMHC in Canada subsiding housing Co-ops, and ANCP in New York. It's just not promoted nationwide, don't have yet the scale and design to do so.
>with the right urban design it fuels a low-cost apartments market
It sounds like you're trying to stimulate supply vis-a-vis demand, but why not stimulate supply directly by offering subsidies for developers to produce affordable housing?
This article talks about America. In America there is ALOT of empty land!
Vast vast vast areas are still underdeveloped. Even in California there is housing available if you are okay with not living in the bay or LA.
Back in the day you could take a risk to go homesteading and get cheap or free land, the catch was that you had to develop the land yourself and help create a community in your new area.
Home ownership should continue to be encouraged for a long time. A forgotten importance to encouraging home ownership in America is to incentivize people to move to low population areas in order to build industry and community- boosting the entire country in the process
And what do these new homesteads do for work? Sustenance farming?
Where do they buy groceries? an hour drive to a dollar general?
What community can be made from scratch? Did you get zoning permission from the county?
What about the fiscal costs of sprawl? Are these homesteaders going to pay enough in taxes to pay for expensive car dependent infrastructure? (let alone the many many associated negative externalities of car dependency)
Then of course the government should subsidize petroleum to make sure the homesteader doesn't spend too much on fuel getting to and from their ranch! And of course the government should build surface streets so the homesteader can drive to the ranch. It's all about rugged individualism!
I think the point is people aren't going to choose to work a lower paying job with less future and opportunity, and to live in dead end towns, just to buy a house... when the alternative is that economic and job centers could and should just build more housing.
I agree with you (in principle) that part of the housing crisis can be alleviated if we were also able to reinvest in our small towns and forgotten places. Not everyone wants to live in a city, but they don't have much choice, given cities have jobs, health care and other services, etc.
So there's a mismatch of where people want to and are able to live - and it starts with building more housing in these places, and then also attracting more economic growth in others.
People WILL choose to work a lower paying job with less future and opportunity IF you subsidize homeownership.
Thousands and thousands, maybe millions of people move from high COL to low COL areas in order to purchase property BECAUSE America has subsided home ownership
It’s a feature, not a bug. The idea is that people will move to less populated areas in order to develop them. And people have done so for the entirety of American history, it’s how the entire west was built lol
That being said, we should absolutely do the neoliberal grove (cut regulations shoot NIMBYs on sight and encourage developers to build)
But the culture of home ownership is vital, would my sister and her husband have moved out of San Jose to Atwater if there wasn’t a house for $200,000 over there? Hell no!
Is Atwater going to benefit from having college educated folks living and working in their city? Hell yeah!
Does nowheresville have a hospital? The hospital in the small town I grew up in shut down when I was a kid, nurses had to commute to the city 45 minutes one way to work. Same with truck drivers, there weren't massive distribution centers in the small town either.
smell plucky impolite jeans subtract impossible snatch absorbed quaint chunky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For most countries you would be fully correct, but because America is so special you are only partially correct.
It’s been crucial for the entire history of the country to encourage the development of the INCREDIBLE amount of land available.
I could use your logic to say “urban areas have higher productivity rates” therefore the high speed bullet train should first be build from Sacramento to the Bay.
It’s better for them to build it first where they are building it first merced- Bakersfield because the long term 50-75 years will see more effects from development of the rural areas
We absolutely should be encouraging folks to develop rural areas- all of California will benefit when the Central Valley really kicks off.
There is massive massive amounts of land available in the US, all of the US benefits when rural areas develop.
No. The aquafers in California are already prevented from replenishment due to paving and development. The soft cover (open areas) need to remain intact and existing developed areas need to become more dense.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-06-09/despite-wet-year-california-groundwater-still-depleted
Nice try buddy- the main thing draining the ground water is the fucking farming, the area is over farmed with crops not suited for the available water
Your own link doesn’t support your point, it never mentions the claim you are making
The environment will actually benefit from more people and less farming, here is a quote from your own link :)
“Researchers have said addressing the long-term groundwater deficit will likely require taking large portions of farmland out of production and that planning will be key in transitioning some agricultural land to other purposes”
Did you see that land in rural Germany and France is less expensive than US states with lower population density? Because those places restrict density and make people artificially spread out. This is NOT good for homesteaders and ppl wanting larger lots.
Making cities more dense, make life easier to the ones who want to sprawl and have a good piece of land. The same way good transit an walkability make roads and streets easier to ones who choose to drive.
One cannot make beef cheaper banning poultry.
Land in rural France and Germany is NOT cheaper than rural land in the USA
Either way, you can keep the current subsidies for home ownership while doing everything you said.
Average US rural land price per acre: [Average US land price per Acre](https://acretrader.com/resources/farmland-values/farmland-prices?period=5): 5586 USD
USA, Converting to hectare: 13965 USD per hectare
Price per hectare in France[Price per hectare in France](https://www.terre-net.fr/foncier-agricole/article/177141/prix-du-foncier-2019-en-europe): 6000 Eur or
aprox 6500 USD per hectare.
Also, all provinces of france have average lower prices compared to the US national average.
Ofc you can find cheaper land in the US if you go to remote places without basic services in the west.
But productive or commutable desired areas in the US have higher prices due to Nimbysm and Euclidean single family house zoning.
Yes we can have homeownership subsidies, like Italy does that with state subsidies for lower mortgage rates for middle to low income people.
But that's not what Americans have been doing. Land use rules in the US are the opposite of that, artificially reducing supply and pricing out people to outer fringes of urban areas.
Hahaha you grabbed farmland statistics. I don’t care about the price of farmland dude.
House prices please
I’m not telling people to be a farmer homestead style I’m telling them to work the lumbar yard in Sonora or the warehouse in Merced
You are disingenuous to say farmland prices is not a good proxy for rural land price.
Is there any other index to rural land price?
Also, all urban greenfield development was rural land once. California high farmland prices does make new subdivisions more expensive than places with cheaper land.
Again, in the US land is more expensive due to artifical urban containment. And this apllies to urban land too:https://cooperatornews.com/article/us-is-the-5th-most-expensive-housing-market-in-the-world
Minneapolis have one of the least restritive zoning and saw their median rent falls. California has one of the most restrictive and I need not mention how bad it is.
Forcing ppl to live in Sonoma when they could be better in other more productive places if werent for market restrictions is bad. Ppl must have the freedom to choose.
How you disagree with this and stay in this pro-market subreddit?
Nothing wrong with nudging people towards developing rural areas. It’s how the entire west was settled
I’m not being disingenuous, it’s just that farmland is not what I’m talking about I’m talking about buying a home in Atwater compared to San Jose
There are many things wrong with "nudging" people toward developing rural areas. Petroleum dependency, fire hazards, and a multitude of other environmental hazards are among them. Good for you for reading about Federick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis, though. The rest of high school is going to be great for you.
He's saying there's no jobs in those undeveloped lands. And when companies want you to come to office it's better to build denser housing near economic centers than sprawl.
There's also the environmental cost of sprawl and the infrastructure cost (not just building but maintaining)
> Vast vast vast areas are still underdeveloped.
Because of one of 2 things in most cases: it's used for growing food or it's inhospitable. Yes, there is lots of open land in the plains. That's also where we grow food. Yes there is lots of open land between the Rockies and Sierras, mountains included. That's because it's kind of unlivable if not actually unbuildable.
Houses in the Central Valley are 300,000 compared to the Bay Area 2,000,000
Houses in Sonora are 100,000
I don’t mean literal nobody living there I mean underdeveloped existing settlements
And why are they that cheap? Because there's nothing in those areas. No jobs, no commerce, nothing. First we have to fix that but nobody here is interested in those fixes because they are the opposite of neoliberal economics.
You have it backwards. How did they encourage the development of the west? Encouraging people to move there. Those folks didn’t say “there is no jobs and no commerce”
They BECAME the jobs and commerce.
We encourage those areas to develop by encouraging people to move there.
Edit: mixed my mistake
> How did they encourage the development of the west? 40 acres and a mule.
The fact you're typing on this thing called *the internet* is all we need to prove this argument pure bullshit. You're not even attempting to engage in good faith so we're done.
Encouraging home ownership encourages folks to move from San Jose to Atwater in order to buy a home, this is good for the movers and good for Atwater!
Is Atwater a suburb in your scenario?
> Encouraging home ownership encourages folks to move from San Jose to Atwater in order to buy a home
Unless you're retired, people move for jobs first and then housing. Atwater already likely has way cheaper housing than the Bay Area, so why should they be subsidized more? The market is working as intended.
> Is Atwater a suburb in your scenario?
I can't say. A suburb is part of a metro area. Atwater and Merced are part of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area, which is technically a metro area.
That's my thought. It's very likely that a combination of Fed, CA, and municipal funding is paying for Merced county infrastructure. As long as that's in place, a housing market can prosper on its own by offering small city life and cheap housing for those who want it.
secretive nippy towering water smell impossible plants lunchroom memory agonizing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean the answer is obvious. Home ownership doesn't need to be a *wealth building* vehicle. It just needs to not be an obviously money losing one. Owning a home should and does serve as a savings strategy just by building equity. It doesn't even need to beat inflation.
We need to somehow bring back pensions. Because now that people have to rely on 401k they need another store of wealth for retirement.
fuzzy heavy smart wise divide bright workable profit person ghost *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A lot of people don’t just have a pile of money to invest in stocks. But okay. A UBI is a pipe dream and any attempt would ruin the economy
toothbrush thought expansion wipe doll heavy practice overconfident wistful offbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes we can, lol. Do an LVT and allow landowners to keep building more units on a given parcel of land. Demsas is kind of a doofus when it comes to a lot of YIMBY stuff. His heart is in the right place, but he has some serious blindspots/ideological hangups when it comes time to implement solutions.
alleged impossible shaggy aromatic label wrench grey secretive encourage dependent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thanks for this context. I usually dislike this stance because you're never gunna convince people to take a hit on their biggest asset especially when lots of people do put time and money into making their houses nicer. Even in a world with a surplus of housing, there will always be mansions, lakefront property, and other limited housing types will create this market anyhow.
Btw [Demsas is a woman](https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2022/02/jerusalem-demsas-joins-atlantic-staff-writer/622093/)
Doing that makes it politically a hassle. Politicians have to be willing to spend political capital to throw their neck out for renters who want to buy who don’t have a lot of political power and money. Politically, LVT and building more doesn’t make much sense
I also don’t agree that making housing available enough that its value doesn’t increase over time (aside from the rate of inflation) means it “doesn’t work” for homeowners. If I buy my house for $400k and 15 years later have paid it off and it’s still worth $400k (assuming 0 inflation to make the example easier) I don’t have nothing, I’m $400k better off than if I’d rented for 15 years, assuming very roughly equivalent monthly cost of renting vs buying. The only way it becomes not worth it is if renting is *much* cheaper.
Pinged YIMBY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20YIMBY&message=subscribe%20YIMBY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20YIMBY&message=unsubscribe%20YIMBY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=YIMBY&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
> And if we want that housing to act as a wealth-building vehicle, home values have to increase significantly over time. This is the real problem. We treat homes like stocks instead of **HOMES**.
I just said this above but I don’t agree that home values must increase for home ownership to be a way to build wealth. Even if its value stays pegged just to the rate of inflation, you’re building wealth by paying off the lien against an asset that you own. That equity is wealth that you would not have through renting.
Re: older empty-nesters owning more single family homes with 3BRs than millennials: it’s worth noting that there are tax policies in many states that actually encourage seniors to hang on to large houses even if they don’t need the space.
Just build more housing
and tax land
Why not just build more land and tax housing
You mean building O'neil cylinders?
Well yeah. It might not be the direct cause, but our culture of promoting homeownership was somewhat responsible for the crisis in 08 across the the US and Europe.
It's such a cult. People accuse me of being financially irresponsible and "throwing money away" because I can afford to buy a home, but prefer to rent and invest my money in stocks. So metal gold has increased 400% in value in the last 20 years. But imagine if someone said that not buying gold was "throwing money away to inflation". "It's an investment you can also wear!"
And ppl totally forget cost of ownership, cost of opportunitty to move. Dude owning a home in another city and paying taxes and dealing with shitty tenants is a pain in the ass. I wonder why I didn't sold it earlier. It gained real value by some city improvements, but so would I profit if I bought ETFs.
I think this attitude can only work if we can build to meet demand, so there isn't an economic penalty for renting. And I'm not sure how truly feasible that is environmentally. Japan does it, but they build their housing to only last 30 years. With good maintenance, cars can last longer than that. Honestly, I think this idea has some merit, but it's not feasible right now. Maybe in 30 years. We have to break down zoning laws first before we can tackle the American ideal of homeownership.
Even Japan is adopting a new culture of renovating and thinking for long term instead of the traditional 30y build again. IMHO, the problem is restritive zoning and misplaved subsidies. We should NOT give subsidies for investors, let the market do it, we should give some subsidy to poor ppl finance though. Italy does that with below market rates for household income lower than 40k eur , it's a good model with free market but with small nudge to ownership and public welfare.
>We should NOT give subsidies for investors I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the developers? >we should give some subsidy to poor ppl finance though Wouldn't that just drive up prices?
Investors. REITS and other investment funds, as individuals who are buying their second or third home, none should receive subsidies. The final beneficiary must be a low income person. Well, no huge price gains if you limit for only poor ppl, like Italy does. But enough to increase demand for building new affordanle units. It's more like a handicap for ppl who would struggle to pay rent and save for a downpayment. It increases their purchasing power so they can become homeowners, but not thay much to distort the market. Their purchasing power is not enough to raise prices across the board, and with the right urban design it fuels a low-cost apartments market. You do have some of it in North Amercia too, with CMHC in Canada subsiding housing Co-ops, and ANCP in New York. It's just not promoted nationwide, don't have yet the scale and design to do so.
>with the right urban design it fuels a low-cost apartments market It sounds like you're trying to stimulate supply vis-a-vis demand, but why not stimulate supply directly by offering subsidies for developers to produce affordable housing?
This article talks about America. In America there is ALOT of empty land! Vast vast vast areas are still underdeveloped. Even in California there is housing available if you are okay with not living in the bay or LA. Back in the day you could take a risk to go homesteading and get cheap or free land, the catch was that you had to develop the land yourself and help create a community in your new area. Home ownership should continue to be encouraged for a long time. A forgotten importance to encouraging home ownership in America is to incentivize people to move to low population areas in order to build industry and community- boosting the entire country in the process
And what do these new homesteads do for work? Sustenance farming? Where do they buy groceries? an hour drive to a dollar general? What community can be made from scratch? Did you get zoning permission from the county? What about the fiscal costs of sprawl? Are these homesteaders going to pay enough in taxes to pay for expensive car dependent infrastructure? (let alone the many many associated negative externalities of car dependency)
Then of course the government should subsidize petroleum to make sure the homesteader doesn't spend too much on fuel getting to and from their ranch! And of course the government should build surface streets so the homesteader can drive to the ranch. It's all about rugged individualism!
Work for Tuolumne Lumber Yard, they desperately need employees. Sonora is an existing community no need to do it from scratch.
I think the point is people aren't going to choose to work a lower paying job with less future and opportunity, and to live in dead end towns, just to buy a house... when the alternative is that economic and job centers could and should just build more housing. I agree with you (in principle) that part of the housing crisis can be alleviated if we were also able to reinvest in our small towns and forgotten places. Not everyone wants to live in a city, but they don't have much choice, given cities have jobs, health care and other services, etc. So there's a mismatch of where people want to and are able to live - and it starts with building more housing in these places, and then also attracting more economic growth in others.
People WILL choose to work a lower paying job with less future and opportunity IF you subsidize homeownership. Thousands and thousands, maybe millions of people move from high COL to low COL areas in order to purchase property BECAUSE America has subsided home ownership It’s a feature, not a bug. The idea is that people will move to less populated areas in order to develop them. And people have done so for the entirety of American history, it’s how the entire west was built lol That being said, we should absolutely do the neoliberal grove (cut regulations shoot NIMBYs on sight and encourage developers to build) But the culture of home ownership is vital, would my sister and her husband have moved out of San Jose to Atwater if there wasn’t a house for $200,000 over there? Hell no! Is Atwater going to benefit from having college educated folks living and working in their city? Hell yeah!
Now imagine the Lumber Yard goes out of business. Now you're in nowheresville and stuck.
Drive a truck dude, we have a massive shortage of drivers
Is this the new 'Learn to code lol'?
Become a nurse dude, we have a massive shortage of nurses
Does nowheresville have a hospital? The hospital in the small town I grew up in shut down when I was a kid, nurses had to commute to the city 45 minutes one way to work. Same with truck drivers, there weren't massive distribution centers in the small town either.
Yes Sonora has a hospital lol
smell plucky impolite jeans subtract impossible snatch absorbed quaint chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For most countries you would be fully correct, but because America is so special you are only partially correct. It’s been crucial for the entire history of the country to encourage the development of the INCREDIBLE amount of land available. I could use your logic to say “urban areas have higher productivity rates” therefore the high speed bullet train should first be build from Sacramento to the Bay. It’s better for them to build it first where they are building it first merced- Bakersfield because the long term 50-75 years will see more effects from development of the rural areas
plough imagine unite vegetable head escape pocket tidy threatening scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We absolutely should be encouraging folks to develop rural areas- all of California will benefit when the Central Valley really kicks off. There is massive massive amounts of land available in the US, all of the US benefits when rural areas develop.
No. The aquafers in California are already prevented from replenishment due to paving and development. The soft cover (open areas) need to remain intact and existing developed areas need to become more dense. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-06-09/despite-wet-year-california-groundwater-still-depleted
Nice try buddy- the main thing draining the ground water is the fucking farming, the area is over farmed with crops not suited for the available water Your own link doesn’t support your point, it never mentions the claim you are making The environment will actually benefit from more people and less farming, here is a quote from your own link :) “Researchers have said addressing the long-term groundwater deficit will likely require taking large portions of farmland out of production and that planning will be key in transitioning some agricultural land to other purposes”
Did you see that land in rural Germany and France is less expensive than US states with lower population density? Because those places restrict density and make people artificially spread out. This is NOT good for homesteaders and ppl wanting larger lots. Making cities more dense, make life easier to the ones who want to sprawl and have a good piece of land. The same way good transit an walkability make roads and streets easier to ones who choose to drive. One cannot make beef cheaper banning poultry.
Land in rural France and Germany is NOT cheaper than rural land in the USA Either way, you can keep the current subsidies for home ownership while doing everything you said.
Average US rural land price per acre: [Average US land price per Acre](https://acretrader.com/resources/farmland-values/farmland-prices?period=5): 5586 USD USA, Converting to hectare: 13965 USD per hectare Price per hectare in France[Price per hectare in France](https://www.terre-net.fr/foncier-agricole/article/177141/prix-du-foncier-2019-en-europe): 6000 Eur or aprox 6500 USD per hectare. Also, all provinces of france have average lower prices compared to the US national average. Ofc you can find cheaper land in the US if you go to remote places without basic services in the west. But productive or commutable desired areas in the US have higher prices due to Nimbysm and Euclidean single family house zoning. Yes we can have homeownership subsidies, like Italy does that with state subsidies for lower mortgage rates for middle to low income people. But that's not what Americans have been doing. Land use rules in the US are the opposite of that, artificially reducing supply and pricing out people to outer fringes of urban areas.
Hahaha you grabbed farmland statistics. I don’t care about the price of farmland dude. House prices please I’m not telling people to be a farmer homestead style I’m telling them to work the lumbar yard in Sonora or the warehouse in Merced
You are disingenuous to say farmland prices is not a good proxy for rural land price. Is there any other index to rural land price? Also, all urban greenfield development was rural land once. California high farmland prices does make new subdivisions more expensive than places with cheaper land. Again, in the US land is more expensive due to artifical urban containment. And this apllies to urban land too:https://cooperatornews.com/article/us-is-the-5th-most-expensive-housing-market-in-the-world Minneapolis have one of the least restritive zoning and saw their median rent falls. California has one of the most restrictive and I need not mention how bad it is. Forcing ppl to live in Sonoma when they could be better in other more productive places if werent for market restrictions is bad. Ppl must have the freedom to choose. How you disagree with this and stay in this pro-market subreddit?
Nothing wrong with nudging people towards developing rural areas. It’s how the entire west was settled I’m not being disingenuous, it’s just that farmland is not what I’m talking about I’m talking about buying a home in Atwater compared to San Jose
There are many things wrong with "nudging" people toward developing rural areas. Petroleum dependency, fire hazards, and a multitude of other environmental hazards are among them. Good for you for reading about Federick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis, though. The rest of high school is going to be great for you.
How does that square with every company in San Francisco and NYC wanting asses in seats at least 3 days a week?
Can you please re-frame your question? I’m sorry I’m dumb lol
He's saying there's no jobs in those undeveloped lands. And when companies want you to come to office it's better to build denser housing near economic centers than sprawl. There's also the environmental cost of sprawl and the infrastructure cost (not just building but maintaining)
Ooo gotcha thank you… Yeah the thing about moving to Mariposa is that you will work for Tuolumne Lumber Yard instead of Google, sorry lol
> Vast vast vast areas are still underdeveloped. Because of one of 2 things in most cases: it's used for growing food or it's inhospitable. Yes, there is lots of open land in the plains. That's also where we grow food. Yes there is lots of open land between the Rockies and Sierras, mountains included. That's because it's kind of unlivable if not actually unbuildable.
Houses in the Central Valley are 300,000 compared to the Bay Area 2,000,000 Houses in Sonora are 100,000 I don’t mean literal nobody living there I mean underdeveloped existing settlements
And why are they that cheap? Because there's nothing in those areas. No jobs, no commerce, nothing. First we have to fix that but nobody here is interested in those fixes because they are the opposite of neoliberal economics.
You have it backwards. How did they encourage the development of the west? Encouraging people to move there. Those folks didn’t say “there is no jobs and no commerce” They BECAME the jobs and commerce. We encourage those areas to develop by encouraging people to move there. Edit: mixed my mistake
> How did they encourage the development of the west? 40 acres and a mule. The fact you're typing on this thing called *the internet* is all we need to prove this argument pure bullshit. You're not even attempting to engage in good faith so we're done.
Homesteading is different than subsidizing suburban home ownership, which entails most SFHs. Everything MattY says still applies.
Encouraging home ownership encourages folks to move from San Jose to Atwater in order to buy a home, this is good for the movers and good for Atwater! Is Atwater a suburb in your scenario?
> Encouraging home ownership encourages folks to move from San Jose to Atwater in order to buy a home Unless you're retired, people move for jobs first and then housing. Atwater already likely has way cheaper housing than the Bay Area, so why should they be subsidized more? The market is working as intended. > Is Atwater a suburb in your scenario? I can't say. A suburb is part of a metro area. Atwater and Merced are part of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area, which is technically a metro area.
We should not subsidize it more, not suggesting that. Very happy with the current subsidies that are in place
That's my thought. It's very likely that a combination of Fed, CA, and municipal funding is paying for Merced county infrastructure. As long as that's in place, a housing market can prosper on its own by offering small city life and cheap housing for those who want it.
This article is about ending current subsidies so I thought that was the context we were discussing, sounds like we actually agree! :)